Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Ferminal]

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 was waiting for this one for so long, the jealousy card!

 

[scribe]

Here is the Schenk interview from Velonews.
http://velonews.com/article/8889

Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money". http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088

"Hein Verbruggen, confirmed that Armstrong sponsors UCI anti-doping investigations. One of the last things he did was to pay for the UCI's new Sysmex blood testing machine."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-puts-extra-money-into-anti-doping

OK. So it wasn't that it was impossible to purchase a machine that hadn't been invented yet. Also, if I am reading that stuff right, he never made a singular donation of $500k. Seems like possibly several donations in undisclosed amounts. Also, Schenk doesn't elaborate on what constitutes preferential treatment.

But I do digress. It is improper for substance-tested athletes to donate privately to a governing body 'fund' that no one really knows about. This fund should really be mandatory for all the riders in specified amounts, handled in a transparent way.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK. So it wasn't that it was impossible to purchase a machine that hadn't been invented yet. Also, if I am reading that stuff right, he never made a singular donation of $500k. Seems like possibly several donations in undisclosed amounts. Also, Schenk doesn't elaborate on what constitutes preferential treatment.

But I do digress. It is improper for substance-tested athletes to donate privately to a governing body 'fund' that no one really knows about. This fund should really be mandatory for all the riders in specified amounts, handled in a transparent way.

He -- yes, he gave a donation
to the UCI three or four years
ago. I think he's done that
maybe once or twice, with a -
- with a request to refine the --
I believe -- we'd need to look
at the letter, but I believe it
was to further do research
into the EPO test.
Bill Stapelton - Armstrongs Manager & Lawyer
Sworn deposition - September 2005

 

[scribe]

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.

Where did the October '99 info come from?

 

[red_flanders]

But I do digress. It is improper for substance-tested athletes to donate privately to a governing body 'fund' that no one really knows about. This fund should really be mandatory for all the riders in specified amounts, handled in a transparent way.

Psssst. Hey. There's not really a fund.

 

[BroDeal]

Psssst. Hey. There's not really a fund.

Sure there is. There is the Verbruggen and McQuaid retirement fund.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Good luck getting sources for some of the things presented as fact around here.

Also, I'd like to know if that is considered a tax deductible donation. Certainly helps to significantly boost one's purchasing power.

Not sure what you're asking here, but I'll give it a go. First, the IOC is a non-profit organization, so I believe the WADA and the UCI also fall under that catagory. As such, donations to these non-profit origanizations are tax deductatble. So, LA would have taken the 500K off the top.

Also, I believe the UCI would be eligable to claim research status for the test develop activities, which in the US would exempt them from sales tax on the purchase of equipment and supplies. Don't know if France & Switzerland have the same tax schema for this. So, from the UCI perspecitve, it is quite possible. That would certainly be a heavy 500K.

 

[Sprocket01]

Could you show where LA first mentions the fact he gave the UCI a 'donation' ?

I don't have that information. But the conspiracy theory still doesn't make sense. Why would he be let off for something that happened in July by donating to the UCI in October? We have a timeline problem here, since the Tour is usually long finished by October. I think we can agree it is not credible or logical that a rider, who hadn't even won a tour yet, would simply tell them he will donate in a couple of months, during the middle of the tour, and then they order the scientists to accept it was not enough for a positive test and say it was consistent with cortisoid cream. I don't think that is very likely if we think about it. Do you?

And if you could show what piece of equipment the UCI bought with this donation, thanks.

Yes it was to help fund doping tests and equipment. I don't know what machines in particular - probably ones they hoped to get in the future. I'm sure there is gossip about it, as there always is in cycling, but I don't see anything that disputes this.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

sprocket

Another tragic young man has died, after years of struggling in the same cess pit of morality that your hero has dominated and exploited for years.

The system is rotten, and the weak suffer at the expense of the strong.

Please show some sensitivity and take your idiocy elsewhere today.

 

[Sprocket01]

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

But that's not logical at all. He didn't train to win a tour before - he targeted stages - and nor did he have the right mental approach. I'm sure we can agree that a huge part of successful tour riding is the mental approach, and for someone like Armstrong who was more immature than other young riders, this will have been massively important. He admits without cancer he never would have mastered it. Like Wiggins he also managed his weight specifically for the tour.

We have to note as well that Greg Lemond couldn't keep up with the peloton in the early 1990s. If he was born later you could just have easily been saying he was not cut out for tour riding.

 

[Sprocket01]

sprocket

Another tragic young man has died, after years of struggling in the same cess pit of morality that your hero has dominated and exploited for years.

The system is rotten, and the weak suffer at the expense of the strong.

Please show some sensitivity and take your idiocy elsewhere today.

That's a low blow. What's it got to do with me?

I like to think I'm a little bit more sensitive than the career-trashers who spend their lives cheerily trying to ruining people's reputations. I'm sure you're not one of those people.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

some of us have been exposed to this stuff first hand and want the system changed so we don't have healthy young men dropping dead or killing themselves.

Those of you who seek to dispute that the system is rotten and enhance the false integrities of some of the most powerful players involved in maintaining the corruption and dishonesty that ruins lives are a great impediment to progress in making pro-cycling a safer sport for mind as well as body.

 

[Sprocket01]

some of us have been exposed to this stuff first hand and want the system changed so we don't have healthy young men dropping dead or killing themselves.

Those of you who seek to dispute that the system is rotten and enhance the false integrities of some of the most powerful players involved in maintaining the corruption and dishonesty that ruins lives are a great impediment to progress in making pro-cycling a safer sport for mind as well as body.

You're a bit out of date. The sport has cleaned up massively since the expanded test programmes that Armstrong's donation kick started. In recent years the biopassport has greatly reduced overall doping and made dangerous doping a thing of the past.

I don't know the circumstances of this young man's death but it seems to me that its overegging it to blame it on cycling. In any sport that involves young men who achieve success and adulation earlier in their lives, or become bitter about not making it, there are always going to be the odd one that goes off the rails. That happens in every sport. An interesting statistic is you're more likely to commit suicide if you have won an Olympic gold medal than if you are part of the rest of the population. Professional sport is obviously a highly competitive and sometimes cruel business - I don't think you're ever going to completely stop that. There'll always be a tight rope to walk for some people. We shouldn't pretend it's a cycling problem.

 

[Ferminal]

That's a low blow. What's it got to do with me?

I like to think I'm a little bit more sensitive than the career-trashers who spend their lives cheerily trying to ruining people's reputations. I'm sure you're not one of those people.

You're a denier, all deniers have blood on their hands today.

You're a bit out of date. The sport has cleaned up massively since the expanded test programmes that Armstrong's donation kick started. In recent years the biopassports has greatly reduced doping in this and has made dangerous doping a thing of the past.

Please source each of the assumptions in this paragraph

 

[pmcg76]

You're a bit out of date. The sport has cleaned up massively since the expanded test programmes that Armstrong's donation kick started. In recent years the biopassports has greatly reduced doping in this and has made dangerous doping a thing of the past.

I don't know the circumstances of this young man's death but it seems to me that its overegging it to blame it on cycling. In any sport that involves young men who achieve success and adulation earlier in their lives, or become bitter about not making it, there are always going to be the odd one that goes off the rails. That happens in every sport. An interesting statistic is you're more likely to commit suicide if you have won an Olympic gold medal than if you are part of the rest of the population. Professional sport is obviously a highly competitive and sometimes cruel business - I don't think you're ever going to completely stop that. There'll always be a tight rope to walk for some people. We shouldn't pretend it's a cycling problem.

I think you are on drugs, look at how many of the Tour contenders during the Lance era tested positive or were linked to doping affairs. Operation Puerto named almost 50 cyclists in 2006 and you can bet that was in reference to previous seasons. The Giro blitz was in 2001 and the 02 race was a sham with riders being busted right, left and centre. Look at all the Vuelta contenders early this decade and see how many have been involved in doping cases.

The sport has only really started to clean up since 06 AFTER Lance retired. As for the idea that it was the Lance donation that kicked it all off is just plain funny. Seriously, what planet are you from.

 

[Anonymous]

You're a bit out of date. The sport has cleaned up massively since the expanded test programmes that Armstrong's donation kick started. In recent years the biopassport has greatly reduced overall doping and made dangerous doping a thing of the past.

I think we can all agree that by "cleaned up" you mean that the methods of cheating being used are ahead of the testing protocol used by the governing bodies. Clearly anyone with the intelligence of fast food clerk can see that, yes? Reasonable people everywhere recognize that men like Armstrong have resorted to infusing packed cells during 3 week tours to enhance their performance, right?

 

[Sprocket01]

Obviously with more tests, testing for more substances and developing more sophisticated analysis of the samples, more riders were going to get caught. That's thanks to the UCI.

In the last tour there were zero positive tests thanks to the biopassport. At the very least, most people are agreed - even on this forum - that it has leveled the playing field somewhat. Riders just can't get away with jacking their crit up to 50% anymore. Someone like Pantani used to have a 60% crit, which was very dangerous.

 

[Ferminal]

You're a bit out of date. The sport has cleaned up massively since the expanded test programmes that Armstrong's donation kick started. In recent years the biopassport has greatly reduced overall doping and made dangerous doping a thing of the past.

Still waiting for the sauce.

 

[RTMcFadden]

some of us have been exposed to this stuff first hand and want the system changed so we don't have healthy young men dropping dead or killing themselves.

Those of you who seek to dispute that the system is rotten and enhance the false integrities of some of the most powerful players involved in maintaining the corruption and dishonesty that ruins lives are a great impediment to progress in making pro-cycling a safer sport for mind as well as body.

I don't think any of us are disputing that the system is rotten. Some of us just want to make sure the baby isn't thrown out with the bath water.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

The avowed aim of the UCI is to not have any mroe doping controversies, not to actually stop riders doping.

The bio passport is nothing more than a "here is what you are allowed to get away with" exercise in being able to claim to the ignorant that they have won the battle, whilst knowingly allowing the manipulation of blood to continue.

I am sure they are delighted to see that fools like you have fallen for it.

If Lance wasn't nearer 60% than 40% on the day he rode up to Sestrieres in 99 I will eat my helmet.

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

I don't think any of us are disputing that the system is rotten. Some of us just want to make sure the baby isn't thrown out witht he bath water.

Lance, Bruyneel, Vebruggen, Lefevre and McQuaid would be a good start on the throwing away front.

 

[Sprocket01]

Still waiting for the sauce.

Can you show me the positive test for this year's tour or the crit that was above 50% or even close to it?

 

[Sprocket01]

The avowed aim of the UCI is to not have any mroe doping controversies, not to actually stop riders doping.

Pssst. That's internet forum spin for fun. Nobody actually believes that.

The bio passport is nothing more than a "here is what you are allowed to get away with" exercise in being able to claim to the ignorant that they have won the battle, whilst knowingly allowing the manipulation of blood to continue.

No it is definitely improved the situation and it's getting better all the time. There is no magic wand.

 

[Ferminal]

Can you show me the positive test for this year's tour or the crit that was above 50% or even close to it?

Sorry, I don't work for the AFLD, I don't see how 50% HcT is relevant in this era. Doping is doping, and doping is dangerous regardless of your haemocrit... I never made any suggestions about this so please don't put words in my mouth. Sure you can quote me saying something outrageous and ask me for a source, but (don't) make things up just to try and win over the argument.

Please link to the source which suggest Armstrong's donation "kick-started expanded testing programs" or withdraw the comment.

 

[RTMcFadden]

I think we can all agree that by "cleaned up" you mean that the methods of cheating being used are ahead of the testing protocol used by the governing bodies. Clearly anyone with the intelligence of fast food clerk can see that, yes? Reasonable people everywhere recognize that men like Armstrong have resorted to infusing packed cells during 3 week tours to enhance their performance, right?

I think the Balco Labs fiasco clearly substantiate that. Moreover, I think that will always be the case. I dont' believe anything can be done about it. The BioPassport system is a way to try do detect that something is amiss without identifying what that somehting is. I think that's the best that can be hoped for.