Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Sprocket01]

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...

It's not relevant in this era because the doping authorities have stopped it. That's the whole point! And it was the most dangerous aspect of it.

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

His donation to the UCI to expand doping programmes has been widely known about for years now. I'm surprised you didn't know. It's even mentioned in this thread, though in that case the spin is he paid them off so they wouldn't find him positive. Why don't you ask for a source for that claim?

 

[Ferminal]

His donation to the UCI for expand doping programmes has been widely known about for years now. I'm surprised you didn't know.

I can read...

In your post you directly infer, that without Lance Armstrong's financial support, the UCI would not have been able to supposedly drastically reduce doping in professional cycling. Do you have a source which clearly explains this?

If you cannot provide, it is yet another example of tactful manipulation of language for no benefit to the discussion.

 

[Sprocket01]

In your post you directly infer, that without Lance Armstrong's financial support, the UCI would not have been able to supposedly drastically reduce doping in professional cycling. Do you have a source which clearly explains this?

No I said Armsrtong's donation helped kickstart the expanded anti doping reseach programmes. That is what Armstrong and the UCI have said. Again, are you saying you didn't know about this? Or are you saying you believe the conspiracy theory version, that there is no source for, that the donation was a pay off?

Please state your position.

 

[Anonymous]

I think the Balco Labs fiasco clearly substantiate thats. 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.

In some ways, I am coming around to that view, especially with the advent of genetic doping. Like many have said, in F1 and other mechanical sports, there are parameters that can be precisely met, but not exceeded. I just don't think the culture of doping in professional sports will ever cease. Maybe all they can do is set the guidelines. The problem with that is then you have spec cycling, and in my opinion that will result in pretty boring racing.

 

[Anonymous]

No I said Armsrtong's donation helped kickstart the expanded anti doping reseach programmes. That is what Armstrong and the UCI have said. Again, are you saying you didn't know about this? Or are you saying you believe the conspiracy theory version, that there is no source for, that the donation was a pay off?

Please state your position.

I think we can all agree that Lance's doping has expanded anti-doping research. Many reasonable people have looked at his drug fueled wins and said to themselves, "this just has to end because people like that will be the models for our children, and we don't want uniballed frauds to become a fad for the teenie boppers." I think everyone can see the sound reasoning there, no?

 

[RTMcFadden]

In some ways, I am coming around to that view, especially with the advent of genetic doping. Like many have said, in F1 and other mechanical sports, there are parameters that can be precisely met, but not exceeded. I just don't think the culture of doping in professional sports will ever cease. Maybe all they can do is set the guidelines. The problem with that is then you have spec cycling, and in my opinion that will result in pretty boring racing.

The only way to stop it is to remove the profit. After all, Profit generates motivation....Motivation generates inovation... Inovation generates profit.

 

[Anonymous]

The only way to stop it is to remove the profit. After all, Profit generates motivation....Motivation generates inovation... Inovation generates profit.

I also believe the human need to succeed will always overpower the belief that it needs to be done ethically. I also believe that it is quite hard to determine what the ethical line is in terms of performance enhancement. I think if you held a summit on the subject, you would find that there are some very poignant reasons for allowing some of the things that today are illegal.

 

[Ferminal]

No I said Armsrtong's donation helped kickstart the expanded anti doping reseach programmes. That is what Armstrong and the UCI have said. Again, are you saying you didn't know about this? Or are you saying you believe the conspiracy theory version, that there is no source for, that the donation was a pay off?

Please state your position.

All I know as a fact is that Lance made a payment to the UCI, and in most societies that's a big conflict of interest no matter who you are and no matter what office you hold and regardless of one's intentions, I don't think cyclists should be excluded from this train of thought. There's no clear source which suggests anti-doping equipment was purchased using Lance Armstrong's financial support, although maybe I have overlooked it. Edit: Best source I have found which combines a lot of the speculation is this one - http://www.playthegame.org/uploads/media/Michael_Ashenden-Can_curruption_derail_the_testing_syst.pdf

Your original quote was "expanded test programmes" and was used in context of the bio-passport. I'm sincerely sorry if "expanded test programmes" is really a shopfront for "anti-doping research programmes".

 

[rata de sentina]

In some ways, I am coming around to that view, especially with the advent of genetic doping.

I don´t think that genetic doping is going to be quite the nightmare that people imagine. If the right safeguards are built into the technology it should actually be very easy to detect.

 

[Race Radio]

No I said Armsrtong's donation helped kickstart the expanded anti doping reseach programmes. That is what Armstrong and the UCI have said. Again, are you saying you didn't know about this? Or are you saying you believe the conspiracy theory version, that there is no source for, that the donation was a pay off?

Please state your position.

No source for?

Silvia Schenck has said that the $500,000 was a huge conflict of interest that resulted in Armstrong getting special treatment. We know that Postal/Disco received advanced notice of OOC test, the Virjimen report, and special treatment during testing. She is a UCI Board Member and head of the Ethics committee. I chose to believe her over some internet troll who never backs up his ridiculous claims.

I think we can all agree that you are a troll, disparate for attention.

 

[Sprocket01]

All I know as a fact is that Lance made a payment to the UCI, and in most societies that's a big conflict of interest no matter who you are and no matter what office you hold and regardless of one's intentions,

That's an opinion, not a source. You shouldn't be so quick to attack others on sources if you don't have a source yourself. As it happens I do have a source - the UCI and Armstrong. You can choose not to believe them, but they are the parties involved. I think they are more credible than the gossip and rumour that swirls around.

There's no clear source which suggests anti-doping equipment was purchased using Lance Armstrong's financial support, although maybe I have overlooked it.

There is, it's the UCI. We also have the common sense factor which tells us $500,000 can buy lots of things. An investment like that into the anti doping programmes and research must have helped catch a lot of cheats. We should be thanking Armstrong for this.

 

[Ferminal]

That's an opinion, not a source. You shouldn't be so quick to attack others on sources if you don't have a source yourself. As it happens I do have a source - the UCI and Armstrong. You can choose not to believe them, but they are the parties involved. I think they are more credible than the gossip and rumour that swirls around.

lol? You asked me to state my position and I did. I did not make any assumptions which would require a source. You do not need to use a source to state an opinion because you are only projecting your own thoughts on the matter, how the hell do you source your own thoughts?

Do you not understand English, or have you never been to Uni?

Please quote me for making a statement which requires a source where I have not sourced. I will apologise and withdraw that comment if you can prove it, otherwise you should discontinue this debate because it's obvious you're not on the same wavelength. You're asking me to provide a source, for a statement I never made, troll!

 

[Mongol_Waaijer]

An investment like that into the anti doping programmes and research must have helped catch a lot of cheats. We should be thanking Armstrong for this.

It maybe helped catch a few small fry cheats who were doing what they could to keep up with the postal train in the mountains.

It certainly allowed the biggest cheat to continue to flaunt the rules unpunished though, as it was no doubt intended to do.

 

[Sprocket01]

lol? You asked me to state my position and I did. I did not make any assumptions which would require a source. You do not need to use a source to state an opinion because you are only projecting your own thoughts on the matter, how the hell do you source your own thoughts?

The UCI and Armstrong are the sources for the story. I don't know what else to say to you. They are the source. You only gave an opinion for what you had to say, so you shouldn't be so quick to attack for sources if you have no sources for everything that you say.

Next time stick to debating the subject and you won't get caught out in an attempt to catch someone else out. It just comes across as trolling.

If it makes you feel better you're not the first to have tried and failed at this technique.

 

[poupou]

No source for?

Silvia Schenck has said that the $500,000 was a huge conflict of interest that resulted in Armstrong getting special treatment. We know that Postal/Disco received advanced notice of OOC test, the Virjimen report, and special treatment during testing. She is a UCI Board Member and head of the Ethics committee. I chose to believe her over some internet troll who never backs up his ridiculous claims.

I think we can all agree that you are a troll, disparate for attention.

 

[Sprocket01]

Poupou, thanks for backing me up on this.

 

[Race Radio]

The UCI and Armstrong are the sources for the story. I don't know what else to say to you. They are the source. You only gave an opinion for what you had to say, so you shouldn't be so quick to attack for sources if you have no sources for everything that you say.

Next time stick to debating the subject and you won't get caught out in an attempt to catch someone else out. It just comes across as trolling.

If it makes you feel better you're not the first to have tried and failed at this technique.

As with most on this board not everyone in the UCI agrees with you. The head of their ethics committee says Armstrong received special treatment after the $500,000 payoff.

Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong

 

[Ferminal]

The UCI and Armstrong are the sources for the story. I don't know what else to say to you. They are the source. You only gave an opinion for what you had to say, so you shouldn't be so quick to attack for sources if you have no sources for everything that you say.

Next time stick to debating the subject and you won't get caught out in an attempt to catch someone else out. It just comes across as trolling.

Caught out? You made a statement which inferred many things NOT mentioned in the media reports.

I have only ever posted my opinion on these forums and never make assertions based on unproven information. I form an opinion based on my own understanding of information available. I do not require a source for my opinion (and neither do you) because our opinion is our understanding of a situation.

We do need a source, if through our opinion we introduce details. The only way details can enter a conversation (translates to forums) is through a source, or anecdotal evidence.

If you introduce details such as "Alpine stages (altitude) of the Tour de France could increase a rider's HcT during the race" then you are required to provide how you procured this information... This is a basic of education, but also a key principle of discussion.

On the other hand, if you post "I agree with xxx regarding the statements made at xxx" or "here is xxx showing this might possible" or "I'm wondering if xxx can cause xxx" these are all perfectly valid contributions which do not require a source. Internet posters are not experts, we cannot create out own information, we can only make a determination based on what is out there already, we can only draw conclusions (and influence them) based upon the details presented to us.

I'm sorry, but through all your incarnations I've seen you violate this etiquette on numerous occasions. You can PM if you want a further explanation of the correct protocol for making a positive contribution to the internet I have never really encountered this kind of posting. I mean I have, but usually it's on a topic where I have good knowledge already so it doesn't matter. Pro Cycling is not my strong point therefore it's frustrating to see threads degenerating because of baseless speculation. You can search my posts and see that a number of them are indeed sidetracks from the original topic (not a great thing!) but an attempt at defending the proper etiquette to ensure discussions remain progressive, therefore, far more informative to me.

I'd much prefer it if I didn't have to post!

Poupou, thanks for backing me up on this.

It actually contradicts some of what you've been saying but also proves the overall unreliability of anyone's word on this matter (Schenk, Armstrong et all)

 

[Sprocket01]

Ferminal, it's really not that complicated. We have the UCI's word for what happened but obviously I don't have access to their receipts to see precisely what they did with the money, but even those who have hinted at favouritism still don't dispute that the money went towards their anto doping activities.

I think we've cleared this one up now.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm not disputing that and never have.

No more to say

 

[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.

Still can't find that dang reference to the oct '99 $500k payment. Pesky rascal, that google.

 

[Race Radio]

Still can't find that dang reference to the oct '99 $500k payment. Pesky rascal, that google.

http://www.amazon.ca/Sale-tour-Pierre-Ballester/dp/2020994801

 

[Race Radio]

We have the UCI's word for what happened but obviously I don't have access to their receipts to see precisely what they did with the money,
.

Yes, we do have the UCI's word.

The head of the UCI ethics committee says Armstrong received special treatment after the $500,000 payoff.

Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong

I think we can put this to rest now that we know the UCI's stance on this ethical breach.

 

[Sprocket01]

I've been informed somebody is posting a vague quote that is not relevant to the specific discussion about money being used for anti doping. But on that other issue, still no evidence that scientists were told not to find Armstrong guilty of doping, or any real evidence of favouritism apart from the usual rumours that always go around about top dogs in sports.

 

[Digger]

I've been informed somebody is posting a vague quote that is not relevant to the specific discussion about money being used for anti doping. But on that other issue, still no evidence that scientists were told not to find Armstrong guilty of doping, or any real evidence of favouritism apart from the usual rumours that always go around about top dogs in sports.

Who said they were?
The problem is about letting testers wait. Like half an hour for a shower, something directly against guidelines.