Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

This might come as a shocker to some around here. But I am amazed to read case files or watch a show regarding a homicide, etc. and how often people are willing to put someone in jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

One such case in the Binghamton, NY area. Big media circus for that area with two trials that just finished up this summer. Guy's estranged wife (dating multiple new guys) disappears on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. No body. No weapon. No witnesses to the murder. No physical evidence on the defendant. No confession. Some very minor blood (hers) in the family's garage of questionable age. And a distant neighbor who claims to have seen the woman with another man the following morning after the prosecutors claimed the murder to have taken place. And a rock solid testimony by the defendant under cross examination during the trial. They convicted the husband not once, but twice after a mistrial on the first conviction.

The plight of the poor. Its a pity he didnt have the money to have a solid backdated alibi or better still no trial in the first place.

 

[Sprocket01]

Bingo! - if the conspiracy about spiked samples is to be believed then 'they' made one serious error in not revealing it during the 2005 Tour.

Imagine if news broke about the 6 EPO samples during the Tour - LA would have suffered the same fate as Pantani or Ulrich or Rasmussen and been thrown off the Tour.

That's why Armstrong would not have bothered with EPO after the test came out. He was too much a target.

 

[scribe]

The plight of the poor. Its a pity he didnt have the money to have a solid backdated alibi or better still no trial in the first place.

Oh. He was a successful business man in the area. He has plenty of money to defend himself.

 

[Race Radio]

for me, I want to see the dirty test, admission,

Um....there are 7 dirty tests along with an admission with multiple witnesses.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes I know, but it's a conspiracy theory that this avoided him being found guilty of doping. It was a PR move to show he is against drugs. It seems unlikely, looking at it logically, that it wouldn't leak out when the scientists and others were ordered not to find him positive of anything. It's just too whacky for me.

PR - then why wait 5 years to reveal your 'donation'?

But he was found positive of the Cortisone, remember? And the "donation" was accepted at the same time the UCI accepted a TUE for the Cortisone.

The scientists did their job - the UCI didnt, that is as you say logical.

 

[buckwheat]

This might come as a shocker to some around here. But I am amazed to read case files or watch a show regarding a homicide, etc. and how often people are willing to put someone in jail on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

One such case in the Binghamton, NY area. Big media circus for that area with two trials that just finished up this summer. Guy's estranged wife (dating multiple new guys) disappears on the evening of Sept 11, 2001. No body. No weapon. No witnesses to the murder. No physical evidence on the defendant. No confession. Some very minor blood (hers) in the family's garage of questionable age. And a distant neighbor who claims to have seen the woman with another man the following morning after the prosecutors claimed the murder to have taken place. And a rock solid testimony by the defendant under cross examination during the trial. They convicted the husband not once, but twice after a mistrial on the first conviction.

So you're for releasing Manson?

He was convicted on the dubious evidence of "Helter Skelter." NO fingerprints, no physical evidence of him being at the scenes. Nothing except the testimony of a bunch of murdering screwballs, and some of their nutty acquaintances.

There are books worth of circumstantial evidence against pharmstrong. Much more convincing stuff than the evidence against Manson. Yeah, let's let him out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh. He was a successful business man in the area. He has plenty of money to defend himself.

Did he make $28,000,000in one year?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's why Armstrong would not have bothered with EPO after the test came out. He was too much a target.

Agreed - he probably went on to Blood Transfusions as they still have no test for that.

 

[scribe]

Did he make $28,000,000in one year?

damn! Now that's the return on the $500k investment that I was talking about!

 

[Sprocket01]

PR - then why wait 5 years to reveal your 'donation'?

I don't know why you say this because it was well known at the time. Though it may well have been PR for UCI as well who may have had doubts about all the top riders. But obviously if he is willing to help fund the testing - testing that he is the main target of - then he is the real deal. It was very generous of LA if you think about it - he helped make sure testing improved against himself and that is was expanded outside of competition.

But he was found positive of the Cortisone, remember? And the "donation" was accepted at the same time the UCI accepted a TUE for the Cortisone.

Correction, the cortisone test only found trace elements. It was not enough for a positive test. This might be the reason why he wanted to show how serious he was about anti doping in this decade.

The scientists did their job - the UCI didnt, that is as you say logical.

The scientists said it was not enough for a positive test and accepted the cortisoid cream explanation. These guys aren't witch hunters - they understand the context and can react to a situation if it is obvious.

 

[Sprocket01]

Agreed - he probably went on to Blood Transfusions as they still have no test for that.

It all sounds a bit desperate to me to be honest.

You don't win seven in a row just for some doping operation. If that was the case then many other people would have done it. You have to have the talent.

I don't think we should get caught up in envy just because we could never reach that level. Nobody likes a player hater. Lets just appreciate this great champion and wish him well. No more threads on doping from now on.

 

[pmcg76]

That's why Armstrong would not have bothered with EPO after the test came out. He was too much a target.

What are you on about, the EPO test was only developed in time for the 02 Olympics. By that time Lance had 4 Tours under his belt. By the time an EPO test was developed, blood transfusions were starting to come into fashion again which they were not testing for and then artificial EPO which only became testable in 07. The best dopers are always one step ahead of the tests.

 

[Hugh Januss]

damn! Now that's the return on the $500k investment that I was talking about!

So you're endorsing bribery as a sound business practice now?

 

[scribe]

So you're for releasing Manson?

He was convicted on the dubious evidence of "Helter Skelter." NO fingerprints, no physical evidence of him being at the scenes. Nothing except the testimony of a bunch of murdering screwballs, and some of their nutty acquaintances.

There are books worth of circumstantial evidence against pharmstrong. Much more convincing stuff than the evidence against Manson. Yeah, let's let him out.

I'd have to look into that one further as I never much bothered with any of that. I always that it was generally accepted and convicted on the basis that he was an accessory to those murders. If so, of course he shouldn't be loose to do that to someone else.

Armstrong? He just might have doped his way through his entire career. Maybe everyone since Lemond and before Lemond has cheated their way to victory.

 

[scribe]

So you're endorsing bribery as a sound business practice now?

You're saying it was a bribe? It does seem suspicious.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know why you say this because it was well known at the time. Though it may well have been PR for UCI as well who may have had doubts about all the top riders.

Another lie.

The $500,000 payment was in October of 1999. It became public in April 2005 when they let the media know oit to head off it being leaked. Perhaps the most comical thing is they said that it was was for a specific machine....that did not exist in 1999.

I think we can all agree that Armstrong and the UCI kept it quite because it was a payoff.

 

[pmcg76]

It all sounds a bit desperate to me to be honest.

You don't win seven in a row just for some doping operation. If that was the case then many other people would have done it. You have to have the talent.

I don't think we should get caught up in envy just because we could never reach that level. Nobody likes a player hater. Lets just appreciate this great champion and wish him well. No more threads on doping from now on.

But this is the argument in relation to doping, we dont know how different pepole respond to it. Bjarne Riis, was a nobody cyclist for the first 5-6 years of his career yet he won a Tour using EPO. Where was Riis natural talent the first 5-6 years of his career.

Why did he only develop when EPO arrived in the peloton. Why did others who were better than him before but also took EPO not go on to win a Tour. It becomes so distorted, it becomes neglible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know why you say this because it was well known at the time. Though it may well have been PR for UCI as well who may have had doubts about all the top riders. But obviously if he is willing to help fund the testing - testing that he is the main target of - then he is the real deal. It was very generous of LA if you think about it - he helped make sure testing improved against himself and that is was expanded outside of competition.

Correction, the cortisone test only found trace elements. It was not enough for a positive test. This might be the reason why he wanted to show how serious he was about anti doping in this decade.

The scientists said it was not enough for a positive test and accepted the cortisoid cream explanation. These guys aren't witch hunters - they understand the context and can react to a situation if it is obvious.

Check out what happened Ludo Dierckxsensin the same 1999 Tour - there wasnt even any 'trace' evidence and he was sent home!

Could you show where LA first mentions the fact he gave the UCI a 'donation' ? And if you could show what piece of equipment the UCI bought with this donation, thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

It all sounds a bit desperate to me to be honest.

You don't win seven in a row just for some doping operation. If that was the case then many other people would have done it. You have to have the talent.

I don't think we should get caught up in envy just because we could never reach that level. Nobody likes a player hater. Lets just appreciate this great champion and wish him well. No more threads on doping from now on.

I think we can all agree that Lance is the greatest doping champion of all time. It seems any reasonable person would agree with that. I also think reasonable people can agree that hero worship is a sad spectacle to watch. You just pity a person so deluded that they need to live through the achievements of someone who would do little more than sign their copy of his workout video. It is especially disturbing when that hero only has one testicle. I think we can all see how sad and desperate such a worshiper is, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Anonymous]

Check out what happened Ludo Dierckxsensin the same 1999 Tour - there wasnt even any 'trace' evidence and he was sent home!

Could you show where LA first mentions the fact he gave the UCI a 'donation' ? And if you could show what piece of equipment the UCI bought with this donation, thanks.

I think we can all agree that we would like to see the equipment. I know Lance has some centrifuges, so why didn't he just sent them some of them? I think that everyone would agree that would have been the most efficient thing to do, no?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It all sounds a bit desperate to me to be honest.

You don't win seven in a row just for some doping operation. If that was the case then many other people would have done it. You have to have the talent.

I don't think we should get caught up in envy just because we could never reach that level. Nobody likes a player hater. Lets just appreciate this great champion and wish him well. No more threads on doping from now on.

Not quite - you dont win the Tour 7 times in a row WITHOUT some doping operation.

Certainly he was a very good athlete and may have been one of the finest 1 day racers of his generation, but logic shows he did not have the consistencey to remain competitve for GC of a 3 week race.

On, your last point. Ok - then, thanks for dropping by.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think we can all agree that we would like to see the equipment. I know Lance has some centrifuges, so why didn't he just sent them some of them? I think that everyone would agree that would have been the most efficient thing to do, no?

Sounds "logical", I agree.

 

[python]

Not that you care, but you've lost any credibility with me at this point.

i reached the same point way before you, 177 posts earlier in fact.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=97177&postcount=421
too much legal posturing and a heavy overdose of escapism into legal phraseology ('due process', 'beyond reasonable doubt' etc) the moment hard questions are asked. all in a place that has no need for this close minded approach. I’d think opposite if he had an open legal mind he’d grab an opportunity to think aloud, weigh in on the presented evidence etc. very little of that but a lot of posturing.

I really don’t understand why he’s even continuing to engage in the thread. am i wrong getting a feeling he enjoys playing with those he's considering not his intellectual equals?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

While it nice to see you are diligent in your work - how would you feel if there was NO trial?

And then you found out the Judge or Jury had received a 'donation' from the accused?

Obviously I would not be happy about a no trial situation - but I will state there have been cases I reviewed where I felt the evidence indicated guilt, but I knew the evidence that the court would hear would not result in a guilty verdict since some of the evidence necessary for conviction would not be admissible. Those cases are not filed.

In looking at the commentary over this subject when it was originally posted - I found a statement that I cannot entirely disagree with, "I can think of lots of reasons why you would want to pay the organization policing you money. The bigger question, to me, is what does it say about an organization that would accept it."

 

[RTMcFadden]

Another lie.

The $500,000 payment was in October of 1999. It became public in April 2005 when they let the media know oit to head off it being leaked. Perhaps the most comical thing is they said that it was was for a specific machine....that did not exist in 1999.

I think we can all agree that Armstrong and the UCI kept it quite because it was a payoff.

500K for a piece of analytical equipment, that's some special machine. Do you remember what they said it was, or can you point me in the direction of the info. I'd like to take a look at that.