Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[RTMcFadden]

Either AFLD or UCI is not being truthful;

http://www.velonews.com/article/98982/afld-and-uci-war-of-words-continues

Don't agree, To me, the comments by Barry Broadbent bring clarity to the issue. The UCI viewed the AFDL’s attempts to be “rigorous and transparent” as “overzealous” and the AFDL viewed the UCI’s “sense of fair play” as “obstructionist.” The question I have is this issue between the AFDL and UCI or is it between an Englishman (or Irishman) and a Frenchman. Having lived in England, Ireland, and France I tend to believe it’s the latter.

 

[Digger]

Don't agree, To me, the comments by Barry Broadbent bring clarity to the issue. The UCI viewed the AFDL’s attempts to be “rigorous and transparent” as “overzealous” and the AFDL viewed the UCI’s “sense of fair play” as “obstructionist.” The question I have is this issue between the AFDL and UCI or is it between an Englishman (or Irishman) and a Frenchman. Having lived in England, Ireland, and France I tend to believe it’s the latter.

As someone who is from one of these counties, I think you're wrong.

 

[RTMcFadden]

As someone who is from one of these counties, I think you're wrong.

That’s you’re prerogative. Although I would be interested in understanding why you feel that way. As an American, working in compliance, I was, at times, accused of being either overzealous or obstructionist by both.

 

[guilder]

Why is it that no other team was entitled to such treatment? Thats because it is known as preferential treatment.

Any treatment toward Armstrong that isn't character assassination is considered special by haters who are beside themselves over the incredible upswing of all things cycling attributed to the return of LA.

Perceived special treatment toward Armstrong is also known as AFLD's bread & butter, or tabloid news story, or just plain sour grapes.

We don't know what is preferential treatment because any treatment toward any other teams, particularly the French, is unsensational and not newsworthy.

 

[BikeCentric]

That’s you’re prerogative. Although I would be interested in understanding why you feel that way. As an American, working in compliance, I was, at times, accused of being either overzealous or obstructionist by both.

That comes with the territory of working in compliance regardless of Nationality.

I don't see how it's a good idea to somehow ascribe this whole situation to Nationalism or Ethnocentrism with zero evidence or even any reason for insinuation that it's the case.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't agree, To me, the comments by Barry Broadbent bring clarity to the issue. The UCI viewed the AFDL’s attempts to be “rigorous and transparent” as “overzealous” and the AFDL viewed the UCI’s “sense of fair play” as “obstructionist.” The question I have is this issue between the AFDL and UCI or is it between an Englishman (or Irishman) and a Frenchman. Having lived in England, Ireland, and France I tend to believe it’s the latter.

Two very different versions of events, one from a Brit and one from a Frenchman. Not sure how the Brit's story brings more 'clarity' than that of the Frenchman.

It appears to me as one organization takes their job seriously and the other one... maybe not so much.

 

[RTMcFadden]

That comes with the territory of working in compliance regardless of Nationality.

I don't see how it's a good idea to somehow ascribe this whole situation to Nationalism or Ethnocentrism with zero evidence or even any reason for insinuation that it's the case.

Oh, I’m not ascribing the issue to Nationalism. It’s simply a difference between two cultures. I honestly did not and do not intend my comments to be negative to any party involved in this incident. It's just an observation, based upon my work in compliance and with people of different cultures. I believe that they both sincerely believed they were doing the right thing. And ultimately, reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Two very different versions of events, one from a Brit and one from a Frenchman. Not sure how the Brit's story brings more 'clarity' than that of the Frenchman.

It appears to me as one organization takes their job seriously and the other one... maybe not so much.

Again, it depends on what they define as “their job”. To me, it appears that the AFDL saw their job as catching cheats. Whereas, to me, it seems that the UCI (Broadbent) saw their job as ensuring a level playing field.

 

[Anonymous]

Again, it depends on what they define as “their job”. To me, it appears that the AFDL saw their job as catching cheats. Whereas, to me, it seems that the UCI (Broadbent) saw their job as ensuring a level playing field.

You are probably correct. I think the AFLD knows who the cheaters are and wants to catch them. I don't think the UCI really cares if they are cheating as long as everyone is within the passport parameters. The difference is a desire for clean sport or a desire for nothing controversial to occur.

 

[BikeCentric]

Oh, I’m not ascribing the issue to Nationalism. It’s simply a difference between two cultures. I honestly did not and do not intend my comments to be negative to any party involved in this incident. It's just an observation, based upon my work in compliance and with people of different cultures. I believe that they both sincerely believed they were doing the right thing. And ultimately, reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

I see what you mean. But really I think the cultural differences (that I agree with you exist here) are institutional in nature. The culture of the AFLD is very different from the culture of the UCI and that is the cause of the conflict here.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

The problem with your argument is that Lance himself has manipulated public opinion about him through his propaganda and sly lawyers.

That anyone with a modicum of critical sense, lack of ingenuousness, willingness to not buy the bull and see the reality and who knows the sport, simply is looking at the matter in the correct way. Whereas those with preconceptions about a clean Armstrong are simply wrong, and often stupid.

Name calling tends to show a general lack of intelligence. It appears that you may fall into the category of people who refuse to consider anything that does not agree with their personal opinion and are completely uninterested in facts that might not support that opinion. Or in other words, facts that do fit with your world view apparently have no value.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Name calling tends to show a general lack of intelligence. It appears that you may fall into the category of people who refuse to consider anything that does not agree with their personal opinion and are completely uninterested in facts that might not support that opinion. Or in other words, facts that do fit with your world view apparently have no value.

Said the pot to the kettle! I get a kick out of people who go through life with blinders on accusing others of the same.

 

[scribe]

Double post.....

 

[scribe]

This is another lie.

They showed up for Astana at the same time they show up for everyone else, 7:00. Armstrong lied about it an claimed it was 6:00 and unsurprising you are continuing this lie.

As for other teams being tested. Saxo and Cavendish were tested the same, or more, as Astana. Only Armstrong is complaining about it.

You have any sources to back up all these claims?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Double post.....

Are you trying to say something?

 

[scribe]

Are you trying to say something?

Yes. iPhone posting can be hazardous

 

[Digger]

Name calling tends to show a general lack of intelligence. It appears that you may fall into the category of people who refuse to consider anything that does not agree with their personal opinion and are completely uninterested in facts that might not support that opinion. Or in other words, facts that do fit with your world view apparently have no value.

Bit loose with the term facts there so you are.
The irony is that the Lance PR machine has used spin and neglected the use of facts many times over the years, yet his fans are so clueless about cycling in general, that his press releases are deemed 'fact'. Twitter and his two books are seen as the only credible pieces of information out there.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes. iPhone posting can be hazardous

Hah, well it would make more sense if you edited the second one. Then I wouldn't think you were trying to start something.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Bit loose with the term facts there so you are.
The irony is that the Lance PR machine has used spin and neglected the use of facts many times over the years, yet his fans are so clueless about cycling in general, that his press releases are deemed 'fact'. Twitter and his two books are seen as the only credible pieces of information out there.

The article that is the basis of this thread states that instead of preferential treatment, Astana had more testing (as would be expected) at less convenient times (as indicated by "Lance's PR machine").

Clearly you will believe that Lance has been dirty since he got into the sport and deserves less respect than any other professional rider - others here seem to believe that Lance is clean and any evidence to the contrary is coincidental, false, or manufactured.

My position is that he may have or he may not have but, until he tests positive and is suspended for it, I do not believe that people who think he is clean are "stupid" any more than I believe those who believe the facts suggest he used performance enhancing products are malicious (solely for reaching that conclusion).

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Said the pot to the kettle! I get a kick out of people who go through life with blinders on accusing others of the same.

I was referring to your assertion that "those with preconceptions about a clean Armstrong are simply wrong, and often stupid." Your point being that people who believe LA is clean are often stupid seems like name calling to me and really weakens the credibility of your argument.

 

[Anonymous]

The article that is the basis of this thread states that instead of preferential treatment, Astana had more testing (as would be expected) at less convenient times (as indicated by "Lance's PR machine").

Clearly you will believe that Lance has been dirty since he got into the sport and deserves less respect than any other professional rider - others here seem to believe that Lance is clean and any evidence to the contrary is coincidental, false, or manufactured.

My position is that he may have or he may not have but, until he tests positive and is suspended for it, I do not believe that people who think he is clean are "stupid" any more than I believe those who believe the facts suggest he used performance enhancing products are malicious (solely for reaching that conclusion).

Yep, that was me... until I actually looked at and read the information that is available like this (for starters);

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

EDIT: With all due respect, it is pretty hard to read this interview and not seriously question the entire sporting record of LA, IMO.

 

[bianchigirl]

Interesting that the French version of this article includes Broadbent saying that the UCI and AFLD tried to test riders who were suspect or whose performances were outside the parameters - in other words. From which might we not extrapolate that a team, say Astana, who was being tested more than any other was being so because there was something amiss?

Interesting that this statement is carefully eliminated from the English translation.

 

[BigBoat]

I'm sure Mr Boradbent enjoyed his cofee - wonder what Astana put in it?Or does that only come in a brown bag?

I agree Doc - nobody is addressing the chain of custody/sample conservation issues which are the main meat of Bordry's argument. I'm amazed that Flandis and Pharmstrong aren't all over this - after all, weren't these very issues their main gripe of the 99 positives and the testosterone test?

YA, why dont they stop and take a blood sample of Pharmstrong's 50k into a stage!

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The organizational culture discussion about zealous vs impartial and overzealous vs biased was interesting reading - thanks.

The article that is the basis of this thread states that instead of preferential treatment, Astana had more testing (as would be expected) at less convenient times ...

So, someone from the UCI said that Astana weren't given preferential treatment because the AFDL subjected Astana riders to more tests at more inconvenient times. That doesn't even refute AFDL's claim that UCI staff treated the Astanas preferentially.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I was referring to your assertion that "those with preconceptions about a clean Armstrong are simply wrong, and often stupid." Your point being that people who believe LA is clean are often stupid seems like name calling to me and really weakens the credibility of your argument.

That was rhubroma not me. I wouldn't say all who believe that Lance is clean are stupid, but if you go read all of the info in dozens of links around this forum and after reading it all you still believe Lance is clean, then I would have my doubts about your reading comprehension at least.