Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Mellow Velo]

Maybe you should read the thread before wading in. Some of us have been here all day!

Why would I want to waste a whole day in your company?
Four posters have asked for a link to the UCI's doping donation admission and guess what? no link.

Yeah right, a whole day to figure out emptiness.

 

[Sprocket01]

Again I will ask:
So where is the piece where Sylvia Schenk is asked where the money went to? So I can see where she doesnt deny it.

You're asking me to highlight where she said something that I am claiming she has never said. I think we have a problem.

Seriously, if she thought it was going into someone's pockets and not anti doping then why on earth would she not have said so? Given that she was willing to say it was unethical then don't you think she would have said?

Oh but there is...

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

Didn't know that. Sounds a bit vague though. But every bit helps catch the cheats!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're asking me to highlight where she said something that I am claiming she has never said. I think we have a problem.

Seriously, if she thought it was going into someone's pockets and not anti doping then why on earth would she not have said so? Given that she was willing to say it was unethical then don't you think she would have said?

Didn't know that. Sounds a bit vague though. But every bit helps catch the cheats!

So she does NOT highlight where the money went to?
So the logical assessment would be we don't know what the money was spent on? I think we can all agree that would be logical.

Of course this makes matters worse - if LA had given money to the UCI and they were able to show the apparatus that was bought with the money this might at least show some sincerity.

Now all we have is a large contribution - and no-one knows who benefited from that transaction - very disturbing, thank you for highlighting it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Didn't know that. Sounds a bit vague though. But every bit helps catch the cheats!

It does sound vague doesnt it - very vague, Stapelton is not sure if it was once or twice.
Lance was similarly vague - he couldnt remember how much it was.

Wouldnt it be logical to keep records of the "donation" - a cheque stub (or stubs) or even a copy of a statement from the bank.

Unless you think they are being vague because it was cash? No, Sporket01- that would be your biggest conspiracy yet.
I cant agree with it...... although it is a logical arguement.

 

[Sprocket01]

So she does NOT highlight where the money went to?
So the logical assessment would be we don't know what the money was spent on? I think we can all agree that would be logical.

I never said I knew for a fact where the money had gone. I just highlighted how someone would have likely spoken out if the money went missing and was not spent on what they said it was spent on - anti doping programmes. Until we have evidence to the contrary it is logical to believe the money was spent on what it was intended for.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said I knew for a fact where the money had gone. I just highlighted how someone would have likely spoken out if the money went missing and was not spent on what they said it was spent on - anti doping programmes. Until we have evidence to the contrary it is logical to believe the money was spent on what it was intended for.

I am trying to follow your logic here-

So we dont know how much money was given, when it was given or what it was spent on - but we can logically conclude it was spent on what Verbruggen says it was spent on even though the UCI have never backed up that claim by showing where the money was spent on.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know how we can say that given Armstrong was tested just as the same, in fact more so, than the other riders. I think his generous contribution to anti doping should be commended.

I think we can all agree that has been proven to be a lie. Surely reasonable people can agree on this.

 

[luckyboy]

I think we can all agree that has been proven to be a lie. Surely reasonable people can agree on this.

Sprinters generally get tested the most don't they?

 

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree that Armstrong did indeed make a financial contribution to the UCI's account, for no specific reason.
I think we can all therefore agree that this was an actual conflict of interest.

Therefore, I think we can all agree that there is no room to manoeuvre this debate into into the fog of confusion.

As a result, we can finally agree that anyone wishing to attempt to cloud this matter, must therefore be defined as a troll.

I think we can all agree that this post is the definitive post regarding this issue. Surely reasonable people everywhere can agree on each and every point, yes?

 

[Race Radio]

Sprinters generally get tested the most don't they?

Yes, no way Armstrong was tested more then Zabel

 

[Race Radio]

I think we can all agree that this post is the definitive post regarding this issue. Surely reasonable people everywhere can agree on each and every point, yes?

I would agree that your position is reasonable.

 

[Anonymous]

The old tactic of pretending I have sock puppets and turning the thread into a discussion about me rather than the issue.

Not falling for it.

I think we can all agree that CLEARLY, you just did.

 

[Sprocket01]

Tested more so than MOST other riders then. Wow.

 

[Anonymous]

Tested more so than MOST other riders then. Wow.

I think everyone can agree that there is no evidence that he was tested any more or less than any other rider. It is equally easy for everyone to agree that he did twitter about his controls more than anyone else though, surely reasonable people can agree on that?

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we can all agree that Armstrong did indeed make a financial contribution to the UCI's account, for no specific reason.
I think we can all therefore agree that this was an actual conflict of interest.

Therefore, I think we can all agree that there is no room to manoeuvre this debate into into the fog of confusion.

As a result, we can finally agree that anyone wishing to attempt to cloud this matter, must therefore be defined as a troll.

I can certainly agree that is a logical conclusion.

 

[workingclasshero]

Tested more so than MOST other riders then. Wow.

i think we can all agree that you're struggling and need some back-up from a number of your sockpuppets. so off you go to log in under another user, this seems to be your most reasonable way of action

 

[Sprocket01]

I am trying to follow your logic here-

So we dont know how much money was given, when it was given or what it was spent on - but we can logically conclude it was spent on what Verbruggen says it was spent on even though the UCI have never backed up that claim by showing where the money was spent on.

So you're saying we should logically conclude that it went into somebody's personal pockets without anybody speaking out within the organisation about this fraud? I think that is unlikely. Why wouldn't Silvia speak out about it?

 

[Race Radio]

Tested more so than MOST other riders then. Wow.

That is not the claim.

Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent, said that Armstrong is the "Most tested athlete in sports history"

Surely we can all agree this is a lie.

 

[Race Radio]

So you're saying we should logically conclude that in went into somebody's personal pockets without anybody speaking out within the organisation about this fraud?

Nobody spoke out?

Are you forgetting Silvia? It is clear she spoke out about what a breach of ethics it was and how Armstrong received preferential treatment.

We can all applaud her courage in speaking out against this fraud.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So you're saying we should logically conclude that in went into somebody's personal pockets without anybody speaking out within the organisation about this fraud?

No I never said that - but now that you have highlighted it I guess that could be a logical conclusion.

Surely we can all agree - that if there was an apparatus bought through the generosity of Lance that the UCI would be willing to show it and to say how much the item cost so that your bold statement above could not go uncontested. Think about it.

 

[poupou]

That is not the claim.

Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent, said that Armstrong is the "Most tested athlete in sports history"

Surely we can all agree this is a lie.

More than a lie, that proves that they take part of a big conspiracy to credit Lance with magic powers he hasn't

From UCI website about Lance Armstrong

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (tous négatifs)
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO (tous négatifs)
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO . 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse .

He was very far from the sprinters or from Marion Jones (160 tests)

 

[Anonymous]

More than a lie, that proves that they take part of a big conspiracy to credit Lance with magic powers he hasn't

From UCI website about Lance Armstrong

He was very far from the sprinters or from Marion Jones (160 tests)

Surely we can all agree that anyone suggesting Armstrong was even close to being the most tested athlete is at best an ignorant simpleton and at worst an obfuscating charlatan bent on provoking reaction rather than engaging in discourse. I would think any reasonable person would concur with that, yes?

 

[Sprocket01]

No I never said that - but now that you have highlighted it I guess that could be a logical conclusion.

So are you saying it is the most likely conclusion or not? This remains unclear.

Surely we can all agree - that if there was an apparatus bought through the generosity of Lance that the UCI would be willing to show it and to say how much the item cost so that your bold statement above could not go uncontested. Think about it.

But that really would show bias. There is one thing to accept money to fund the anti doping effort, but to show off precisely what tests and the like it funded would receive criticism I think. It's also likely the case that it went into the pot that funds the anti doping research programmes so what it funded and what it did not fund would not be clear. However, if the money really did not go into this effort and instead went straight into people's pockets, as you now seem to believe, it seems unlikely that the people who account it would not have missed it. The chances of them speaking out would be great. It's also very unclear what Armstrong got out of it, given the UCI can't just override the work of the scientists on every occasion. That conspiracy just seems too wacky to me. And how many years was he covered for in this conspiracy? Perhaps you or others could explain your latest theory on this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So are you saying it is the most likely conclusion or not? This remains unclear.



But that really would show bias. There is one thing to accept money to fund the anti doping effort, but to show off precisely what tests and the like it funded would receive criticism I think. It's also likely the case that it went into the pot that funds the anti doping research programmes so what it funded and what it did not fund would not be clear. However, if the money really did not go into this effort and instead went straight into people's pockets, as you now seem to believe, it seems unlikely that the people who account it would not have missed it. The chances of them speaking out would be great. It's also very unclear what Armstrong got out of it, given the UCI can't just override the work of the scientists on every occasion. That conspiracy just seems too wacky to me. And how many years was he covered for in this conspiracy? Perhaps you or others could explain your latest theory on this.

Please go back over my posts - i have never once suggested that the "donation" went in to anyones pocket - the first person to say that was you.

The only person who has tried to suggest where this money went was you - which entirely misses the point - NO professional athlete should make a donation to a Sporting Authority.

What the donation was spent on is irrelevant - unless as in this case there is no account of where it went.

 

[BikeCentric]

Surely we can all agree that anyone suggesting Armstrong was even close to being the most tested athlete is at best an ignorant simpleton and at worst an obfuscating charlatan bent on provoking reaction rather than engaging in discourse. I would think any reasonable person would concur with that, yes?

I do think certainly we can all agree upon this point. Certainly we can also all agree that this thread has gone on far too long and consists only of beating dead horses at this point?