Doping inspector backs Armstrong

[Sprocket01]

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.

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.

 

[Sprocket01]

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

I think a tester would have come out and said they were ordered not to do something by now. It may well be the case that Armstrong's commitment to anti doping won him good will amongst the UCI, but you can't just fake an anti doping programme. Too many people would have to go along with it. Maybe he even got wind about the odd internal issue from time to time, being so high up in the sport and knowing so many people, but the conspiracy is not realistic. There is nothing there to say they just allowed him to dope - nothing at all. On the contrary, he was one of the main targets.

 

[Mellow Velo]

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.

 

[red_flanders]

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'm sorry to be rude, but are you really not concerned that you're a complete rube in regard to Armstrong?

A proven doper gives money to the organization in control of the testing and you actually buy that it's not a payoff, but an effort to combat doping?

I simply cannot believe there are people this gullible and willing to prostrate themselves before these celebrities. I have to believe you're getting paid to spout this nonsense. I would have some respect for that, no matter how cynical. The only other answer is utter troll. You simply can't believe he's funding "anti-doping"efforts for an organization with a history of attempting to quash every effort to rid the sport of doping. You can't.

 

[Sprocket01]

I think we can all agree that Armstrong did indeed make a financial contribution to the UCI's account, for no specific reason.

Er, no, we've just been over that. Even the person who worried about potential conflicts of interest on the UCI board doesn't deny that the money went into anti doping programmes. There was a very good reason for it.

 

[red_flanders]

Er, no, we've just been over that. Even the person who worried about potential conflicts of interest on the UCI board doesn't deny that the money went into anti doping programmes. There was a very good reason for it.

Please show this non-denial.

 

[Sprocket01]

A proven doper gives money to the organization in control of the testing and you actually buy that it's not a payoff, but an effort to combat doping?

He's not a proven doper, of course, but you have to demonstrate how this benefited Armstrong in any meaningful way? Which scientists were told to delay or change their tests? Why has nobody ever spoken out about how they were told not to speak about a positive or some such thing? There's just nothing to back up the conspiracy.

It's in part up to people in the sport who have earnt something out of it to fund the UCI and help keep the anti doping programmes going. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Sprocket01]

I've got a PM advising me that people are using the word 'troll' in order to bait me and get me banned, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Er, no, we've just been over that. Even the person who worried about potential conflicts of interest on the UCI board doesn't deny that the money went into anti doping programmes. There was a very good reason for it.

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a source, so that we can confirm that the UCI actually said the money went into doping programmes?
Maybe they could confirm the amount, too?
No? Of course not

I've got a PM advising me that people are using the word 'troll' in order to bait me and get me banned, so I'll leave it there.

Good idea. Run along.

 

[BikeCentric]

I'm sorry to be rude, but are you really not concerned that you're a complete rube in regard to Armstrong?

A proven doper gives money to the organization in control of the testing and you actually buy that it's not a payoff, but an effort to combat doping?

I simply cannot believe there are people this gullible and willing to prostrate themselves before these celebrities. I have to believe you're getting paid to spout this nonsense. I would have some respect for that, no matter how cynical. The only other answer is utter troll. You simply can't believe he's funding "anti-doping"efforts for an organization with a history of attempting to quash every effort to rid the sport of doping. You can't.

Red: this poster actually likely does "believe" what he's posting and there is evidence of extreme mental problems from his posting history. He has been banned from the board using the following usernames at least:

Arbiter
BanProCycling
UnBanProCycling
BritishProCycling

He has also created numerous usernames ("sockpuppets") and has conversations with himself using the different usernames. "Wonder Lance" is one of his sock puppets. This person is very likely mentally deranged in my unprofessional opinion.

 

[Sprocket01]

I suppose it would be too much to ask for a source, so that we can confirm that the UCI actually said the money went into doping programmes?
Maybe they could confirm the amount, too?
No? Of course not

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

 

[red_flanders]

He's not a proven doper, of course, but you have to demonstrate how this benefited Armstrong in any meaningful way? Which scientists were told to delay or change their tests? Why has nobody ever spoken out about how they were told not to speak about a positive or some such thing? There's just nothing to back up the conspiracy.

It's in part up to people in the sport who have earnt something out of it to fund the UCI and help keep the anti doping programmes going. There is nothing wrong with that.

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?

You have Armstrong and the UCI saying it was for doping programs. Both have everything to gain by lying, never mind the fact that they only came out with it to pre-empt the story that was going to be written. You have Sylvia Schenck who has nothing to gain and everything to lose coming out and telling that Armstrong gave $500,000 dollars to the UCI and it is extremely unethical.

Where does she not deny this payment was for anti-doping?

Why are others not alerted to this grand fund so that they might also fight doping? Why is this much needed fund a secret until revealed under duress?

You make no sense.

One more time. Please show this non-denial. Otherwise we have yet another lie.

 

[Sprocket01]

Red: this poster actually likely does "believe" what he's posting and there is evidence of extreme mental problems from his posting history. He has been banned from the board using the following usernames at least:

Arbiter
BanProCycling
UnBanProCycling
BritishProCycling

He has also created numerous usernames ("sockpuppets") and has conversations with himself using the different usernames. "Wonder Lance" is one of his sock puppets. This person is very likely mentally deranged in my unprofessional opinion.

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.

 

[red_flanders]

Red: this poster actually likely does "believe" what he's posting and there is evidence of extreme mental problems from his posting history. He has been banned from the board using the following usernames at least:

Arbiter
BanProCycling
UnBanProCycling
BritishProCycling

He has also created numerous usernames ("sockpuppets") and has conversations with himself using the different usernames. "Wonder Lance" is one of his sock puppets. This person is very likely mentally deranged in my unprofessional opinion.

Thanks. I'm aware. I guess the good thing about engaging the ridiculous posts is that they happen (surprisingly!) to exactly parrot the Armstrong party lines, and hitting those ridiculous falsehoods with logic serves to futher explode the fraud.

I thank him for the opportunity to shell the insane arguments of the Armstrong PR machine.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

What about the old tactic of offering blatant falsehoods and refusing to respond when they're challenged? How's that tactic going?

All you're doing is giving everyone with a lick of sense the ammo to destroy the myth. Google indexes it. The more you post, the more searches for Armstrong come up with threads from informed fans burying the lie.

How's that working out for you?

 

[BikeCentric]

Thanks. I'm aware. I guess the good thing about engaging the ridiculous posts is that they happen (surprisingly!) to exactly parrot the Armstrong party lines, and hitting those ridiculous falsehoods with logic serves to futher explode the fraud.

I thank him for the opportunity to shell the insane arguments of the Armstrong PR machine.

If you have the time and motivation to engage the troll it can be fun but I grew weary of reading his drivel weeks ago.

 

[Sprocket01]

Ridiculous, he is a proven doper. There are six undisputed positives for EPO.

No they were not accepted as positive tests because there was no B sample and the conditions of the testing were not verified by the UCI. There is a discussion about it on this thread. There was no test for EPO at the time as well so it's not part of the conspiracy.

You have Armstrong and the UCI saying it was for doping programs. Both have everything to gain by lying, never mind the fact that they only came out with it to pre-empt the story that was going to be written. You have Sylvia Schenck who has nothing to gain and everything to lose coming out and telling that Armstrong gave $500,000 dollars to the UCI and it is extremely unethical. Where does she not deny this payment was for anti-doping?

Well I don't have access to the receipts, but it seems to me that in order for the conspiracy to work someone from the UCI - an organisation with many people working for it - would have come out and said they were told not to find LA guilty. A scientist would have said that they were told to delay or destroy the results of a test. It's a very complex thing to fake an anti doping programme - many people down the chain would have to be involved. Until evidence for this conspiracy comes out then I think it's unlikely. Indeed, to use your terminology, it would be a lie.

 

[Sprocket01]

What about the old tactic of offering blatant falsehoods and refusing to respond when they're challenged? How's that tactic going?

All you're doing is giving everyone with a lick of sense the ammo to destroy the myth. Google indexes it. The more you post, the more searches for Armstrong come up with threads from informed fans burying the lie.

How's that working out for you?

Yep, I see what you are doing. People can read the thread and see that I haven't refused to respond to anything. In fact I respond to points more than anyone else does - most people just put out a conspiracy theory and refuse to back it up with any hard data. This sort of trolling isn't fooling anyone - you're just trying to bait me to try to get me banned. You guys are always going it.

And I'm pleased that this thread, which leads with a story of a doping inspector speaking up for Astana, is going up the google ratings. Indeed I noticed this earlier today.

 

[Sprocket01]

If you have the time and motivation to engage the troll it can be fun but I grew weary of reading his drivel weeks ago.

It's difficult because if you don't respond then they accuse you are being a troll, but if you do respond then they claim you're a troll for daring to respond all the time.

 

[pmcg76]

No they were not accepted as positive tests because there was no B sample and the conditions of the testing were not verified by the UCI. There is a discussion about it on this thread. There was no test for EPO at the time as well so it's not part of the conspiracy.



Well I don't have access to the receipts, but it seems to me that in order for the conspiracy to work someone from the UCI - an organisation with many people working for it - would have come out and said they were told not to find LA guilty. A scientist would have said that they were told to delay or destroy the results of a test. It's a very complex thing to fake an anti doping programme - many people down the chain would have to be involved. Until evidence for this conspiracy comes out then I think it's unlikely. Indeed, to use your terminology, it would be a lie.

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'

 

[red_flanders]

No they were not accepted as positive tests because there was no B sample and the conditions of the testing were not verified by the UCI. There is a discussion about it on this thread. There was no test for EPO at the time as well so it's not part of the conspiracy.

Yes, they were not accepted as sanctionable because of the lack of B sample. That is fair. However, other riders have been sanctioned after the fact for far less offense than this. You can be sure if the UCI weren't involved, Armstrong would not have returned last year to the Tour.

Only when it was assured that AFLD stepped out of the chain last year did we hear Armstrong was going to come back, and the whole year he sandbagged about how they were going to keep him out. The UCI wins the battle and surprise! Armstrong rides and not another word about him being kept out.

Well I don't have access to the receipts, but it seems to me that in order for the conspiracy to work someone from the UCI - an organisation with many people working for it - would have come out and said they were told not to find LA guilty. A scientist would have said that they were told to delay or destroy the results of a test. It's a very complex thing to fake an anti doping programme - many people down the chain would have to be involved. Until evidence for this conspiracy comes out then I think it's unlikely. Indeed, to use your terminology, it would be a lie.

You mean like the tester who complained loudly about the impropriety of the shower incident? The guy whose credentials were attacked and whose voice was drowned out by the head of the UCI? You really think that organizations don't have the power to shut people up and simply not release adverse findings? We've seen plenty of examples of both. Denial of this makes no sense.

What on earth are you talking about as far as "fake an anti-doping program"? Who says they're faking an anti-doping program? As if they couldn't be running the passport w/o kind donations from the tested? Are you kidding? This is evidence of nothing.

Still waiting for evidence of Sylvia Schenck "non-denial" of what the money was for. Curiously, you've made another statement which goes contrary to fact for which you have provided no evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Er, no, we've just been over that. Even the person who worried about potential conflicts of interest on the UCI board doesn't deny that the money went into anti doping programmes. There was a very good reason for it.

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

 

[Sprocket01]

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.

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.

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'

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.

 

[Sprocket01]

Only when it was assured that AFLD stepped out of the chain last year did we hear Armstrong was going to come back, and the whole year he sandbagged about how they were going to keep him out. The UCI wins the battle and surprise! Armstrong rides and not another word about him being kept out.

I don't understand why, even if Armstrong had been found guilty of doping at some point, why he would not have been allowed to the tour in 2009, ten years after the offense?

You mean like the tester who complained loudly about the impropriety of the shower incident? The guy whose credentials were attacked and whose voice was drowned out by the head of the UCI? You really think that organizations don't have the power to shut people up and simply not release adverse findings? We've seen plenty of examples of both. Denial of this makes no sense

.

One small incident in ten years, which seemed silly to be, and ten years after his donation.

What on earth are you talking about as far as "fake an anti-doping program"? Who says they're faking an anti-doping program? As if they couldn't be running the passport w/o kind donations from the tested? Are you kidding? This is evidence of nothing.

The level of people to run ten years of ordering professional people not to find LA guilty would have a trail a mile long.

Still waiting for evidence of Sylvia Schenck "non-denial" of what the money was for. Curiously, you've made another statement which goes contrary to fact for which you have provided no evidence.

By definition she doesn't deny it. If she did, she would.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

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.

.

There is no suggestion he donated to the UCI in later years so I guess he learnt about that.

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