Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Sprocket01]

You said it was a logical conclusion in your last post.

 

[RTMcFadden]

Ridiculous, he is a proven doper. There are six undisputed positives for EPO. That he is an un-sanctioned doper is also true. I wonder if there's a connection. Could that be a benefit? Could the cortisone suppression be a benefit? Could testing delays and favored treatment be a benefit?

They were disputed by LA when they were made public.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

The answer to this is quite simple.

In the early 2000's OOC testing was barely used, however it was the best way to catch dopers as only the stupid ones would dope with testable products during a race.

We know that Jesus Manzano said that his team would receive advanced notice of OOC testing from the UCI. He also said the same warning would be given to Postal/Disco by the same UCI person who lived not far from Girona.

We also know that the UCI generated a farce of a report when it pretended to look into the 1999 positives, yet never even investigated how EPO could have got into the samples.

I think we can all agree Armstrong got his moneys worth from his "Donation"

 

[pmcg76]

So by the same methods, can you show us how the money was spent on anti-doping, where are the receipts etc. I have never heard how the Armstrong donation was spent.

Let me put a similar situation to. Here in Ireland, there was controversy a few years ago when it was revealed large construction magnates had made large donations to government officials involved in granting planning permission. Was it because they wanted to support the government or for alterior motives. What do you think?

You can spin it whatever way you want, anybody passing money to an organisation that makes decisions affecting the individual making the donation is 'a conflict of interest'

The Challenge

 

[Sprocket01]

He really doesn't seem to know how using the term Postal/Disco goes and spoils the credibility of his points. How can we trust him now?

It's nothing but rumour and gossip I'm afraid.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You said it was a logical conclusion in your last post.

This is what I wrote - you were the one to suggest the money ended up in the pockets of members of the UCI.

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

 

[BikeCentric]

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.

I think we can all agree that a "conflict of interest" exists in a situation where an athlete is giving money (whether it is labled as a "donation" or a "bribe" is irrelevent) to an Administration tasked with enforcing sporting rules on said athlete? Certainly we can all agree on that?

 

[Anonymous]

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?

I think we can all agree that the horse is decomposing.

 

[pmcg76]

No I specifcally said that I don't have access to the receipts. We only have their word for it, and the fact nobody - even those critical of the transparency angle of it, within the UCI - have never denied that the money was spent on anti doping. It seems to me that that sort of money couldn't just go missing without someone speaking out about it.



Yes the perception angle of it doesn't look good to someone who hasn't thought about it. I think LA was naive, being his first win, to realise how these things come across. Remember he was a popular person then and probably wasn't aware that there would be a large group of enemies out there willing to use anything they can against him to drag him down. There is no suggestion he donated to the UCI in later years so I guess he learnt about that.

The Response, Lance was naive, a pro for 7 years and he was naive. You just gotta laugh at the logic

 

[Sprocket01]

The Challenge

I swear I answered this post?

 

[Sprocket01]

This is what I wrote - you were the one to suggest the money ended up in the pockets of members of the UCI.

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

That's the one.

 

[BikeCentric]

They were disputed by LA when they were made public.

He probably means disputed using things like facts, logic, and common sense as oppossed to making up idiotic conspiracy theories about the samples being spiked.

 

[BikeCentric]

I think we can all agree that the horse is decomposing.

I think we can all agree how tragic it is that some of our fellow human beings have mental disabilities. Truly there are very stupid people among us. Surely we can all agree that this is sad but true?

 

[red_flanders]

They were disputed by LA when they were made public.

Good technicality. They are not undisputed.

No one disputing them has ever, despite all this time and effort, raised one bit of evidence that they are disputable.

Iran also disputes aiding Hezbollah.

 

[Sprocket01]

We've all enjoyed ourselves though, haven't we? It's brigtened up our Autumn/Fall Tueday, huh?

 

[pmcg76]

I swear I answered this post?

You did, Lance was naive. Why did he never mention it at the time. If he was serious about fighting doping, surely he would have said that he was making a donation to help in the fight against doping for the PR benefits. That would have made him look better. But he said nothing and it was never common knowledge until Sylvia Schenk mentioned the conflict of interests. Only then did it become public knowledge. And at the same time he was making a donation to fight doping, he was bullying a clean athlete(Bassons) for speaking out about doping at the Tour. Is this not kinda hypocritical behaviour.

Was he also naive to work with Dr.Ferrari. Lance was never and is not naive, maybe younger guys or first year pros, not a guy who was as around for 5-6 seasons and was a World Champion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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?

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

Could and should have two very different meanings- I guess subtlety isn't one of your strong-points.

 

[Anonymous]

We've all enjoyed ourselves though, haven't we? It's brigtened up our Autumn/Fall Tueday, huh?

I think we can all agree that we enjoy baiting and doing a round robin flailing of a troll, surely that is enjoyable for everyone, yes?

 

[Race Radio]

I think we can all agree that we enjoy baiting and doing a round robin flailing of a troll, surely that is enjoyable for everyone, yes?

Sorry sir, I do not agree. I would prefer discussing actual topics then educating a troll and his sockpuppets.

To make it worse it appears I now have a stalker.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry sir, I do not agree. I would prefer discussing actual topics then educating a troll and his sockpuppets.

To make it worse it appears I now have a stalker.

Yea, I saw the evidence. Fear not, it won't be long until they are banned again. It is obvious that he just cannot help himself.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I think we can all agree that we enjoy baiting and doing a round robin flailing of a troll, surely that is enjoyable for everyone, yes?

I can certainly agree that I have had an enjoyable time watching it, can't we all?

 

[workingclasshero]

I can certainly agree that I have had an enjoyable time watching it, can't we all?

yes i think we can all agree that that's only logical

 

[Ferminal]

I think we can all agree how tragic it is that some of our fellow human beings have mental disabilities. Truly there are very stupid people among us. Surely we can all agree that this is sad but true?

Surely this is a conclusion of which we can all agree on.

 

[Ripper]

P.S I take Loxapine and Stelazine for the voices

You should take a couple of bottles of each

Nice change in your posting style. It seems like a concerted attempt to be more juvenile.

 

[rata de sentina]

Surely this is a conclusion of which we can all agree on.

Surely this is a style of posting we can all emulate.