Evidence: Links Only!

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
hiero2

hiero2

Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Now that the USADA report has been posted publicly, the news is full of rider and director reactions. The report itself details the evidence, so there isn't much use to continue adding to this thread at the moment.

However, the WADA director's statement, post USADA report, is so interesting, in that he both acknowledges that doping existed, and discusses the possibility of doping today in honest and open terminology, that I felt it should be included.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/howman-on-whether-us-postal-could-happen-again
 
R

restr8

Mar 13, 2009
3
0
0
Appendices to the report

I didn't see it elsewhere here, but that first link gives you ALL of the appendices to the report, in addition to the report itself. They are under teh top tab entitled "Appendices and Supporting Materials" from this link

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

I guess it's not important news that Haven Parchinski signed Levi's affadavit. But folks on this forum certainly ought to find the humor in that.
 
B

Bushranger

Aug 25, 2012
51
0
0
sars1981

sars1981

Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
Bushranger said:
Poor Phil. Noticed how uneasy he became when asked about Swarts allegation of the 50,000 to assist Armstrong win the triple crown. It seems he could not bring himself to say that it didn't happen. Lies don't sit well with Phil.
Click to expand...

I know. I cringed watching that. "I don't recall". Sounded so pathetic.
 
sars1981

sars1981

Jul 24, 2009
351
0
0
D-Queued said:
Do you have a link to Mike Anderson's deposition? The doc also includes Bill Stapleton's deposition - which has more than a few interesting statements.

If not, I can provide extracts as desired.

Dave.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's been released. If I find anything I'll let you know.
 
D-Queued

D-Queued

May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
This may become interesting as time progresses.

This is the from the "Prize Indemnification Policy" in the SCA Contract:

bjx4y.jpg


Dave.
 
F

fat_boy_fat

Oct 16, 2012
75
0
0
About the work of the Lausanne lab since 1997:

http://www.chemometry.com/Index/Anti-doping/The blood trail of cycling.pdf - translation of the original story of 2007 by Remo Geisser, published in Neue Zuercher Zeitung:
http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/sport/uebersicht/die-blutspur-des-radsports-1.536876

But the doping analysts know far more than they can say out loud. They noticed that
even supposedly clean pro-riders often have other blood values than normal people.
Through a series of reference points, a team of the laboratory in Lausanne
developed a model to determine the frequency of blood doping. Pierre-Edouard
Sottas uses here the medical concept of prevalence. Prevalence is the proportion of
people with a given disease (in this case, doping) in a population. "The method is
very accurate," says Sottas. And it works with all forms of blood manipulation: EPO
doping, own blood and foreign blood transfusion." Today, we can determine with
certainty how many doped racers start a tour," says Sottas.

(…)

When in the 1996 Tour de Suisse blood samples were taken in order to develop the
future UCI test, EPO was an undetectable miracle drug. Martial Saugy, the head of the Lausanne laboratory, says: «At that time, more than 80 percent of the riders was doping.»

(…)

1996: There are no controls; more than 80 percent of the riders use EPO.
1997 to 1999: The definition of a hematocrit limit causes unease among athletes, the
number of dopers declines slightly.
2000: Everyone knows by now how to manipulate the hematocrit. EPO is again
applied more broadly.
2001: An EPO test is introduced, which has dramatic consequences. «Before the
Tour de France 2001 the peloton was practically clean,» says Pierre-Edouard Sottas.
In the third week, however, again an increase could be identified - the win was at
stake, and obviously they had already recognized the limitations of the test.
2002: At the beginning, the prevalence is still low, towards the end of year, it
increases markedly.
2003: In the Vuelta the riders benefit of the lax attitude of the Spaniards. «You can
almost speak of completely covering doping,» says Sottas. The reason: EPO in
micro-doses and foreign blood transfusions are not detectable.

(…)

2004/2005: A test for foreign blood transfusions is introduced; Tyler Hamilton and
Santi Perez are caught. This initially leads to a shock, but then they manipulated with
their own blood. Nevertheless, the prevalence declines: around 50 percent of the
riders manipulate, but among the best the percentage is higher. The percentages in
the Vuelta are again higher than those of other races.
2006/2007: With Operación Puerto, the Spanish blood swamp is drained. The
number of dopers is as small as ever since 2001. Less than a quarter of the 180
riders that started in the 2007 Tour de France pedal with manipulated blood.
However Sottas says: «Among the top 30 in the overall classification, the prevalence
is higher than in the lower ranks.»
On the basis of their data, the Lausanne doping investigators assume that there are
no longer teams that systematically manipulate blood. In 2003, that was still the case.

(…)

The 2007 Tour de France, decried as Tour de Farce and at the end reduced
by the media to doping reporting, was one of the cleanest since long. Even with the
utmost care it can be said: 75 percent of the riders were clean. But recent history
shows how quickly that can change.
Click to expand...
 
hiero2

hiero2

Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
fat_boy_fat: that is a good addition to the evidence. Thank you. Very informative.
 
S

simo1733

Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
hiero2 said:
fat_boy_fat: that is a good addition to the evidence. Thank you. Very informative.
Click to expand...

I would really like to see the results of that technique applied to the last few years.
 
python

python

Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
‘Is Armstrong still lying. Travis Tygart on 60 minutes’
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139841n

Tygart’s words, facial expressions, eyes…all convey what oprah interview did not.

Something's fishy in cycling: Our first report
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_...somethings-fishy-in-cycling-our-first-report/

the 2001 CBC interview with 1st victims, witnesses and practitioners of the organized doping in the us (greg strock, charmichael, eric heider, wade exom etc). personally, it was the 1st time i saw their faces and heard their words. great material to look back at after the latest armstrong fiasco...
---

the link above most likely were posted inside the numerous threads but i feel they belong here as long as ‘the evidence’ thread is a pinup.
 
horsinabout

horsinabout

Jan 20, 2013
897
0
0
big johnson said:
http://www.musculardevelopment.com/...-videos-accentuate-his-early-ped-denials.html

In 2008 interview Armstrong claims in regard to doping that "nothing will change" between 2001 and 2009.

Also check out the second video where Greg LeMond questions him at a 2008 press conference at Interbike in Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

Now the above video is interesting. Shows the total demonstrative narcissisum of Lance Armstrong and Lemond's brave but hopeless attempt at confronting him.

So here's some advise on dealing with a narcissist should you ever be in the unenviable position of being in the same sport as one, whilst being on the opposite end of the moral spectrum.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/emotional-freedom/201008/how-deal-narcissist
 
D-Queued

D-Queued

May 27, 2010
6,333
3
17,485
This thread is probably deserving of an update in the wake of the CIRC Report:

From the report:

Several sources, notably UCI staff and former UCI staff, reported that the UCI leadership had on several occasions “defended” or “protected” Lance Armstrong or taken favourable positions towards Lance Armstrong indicating that he had received preferential treatment. Among the explanations given to the CIRC was the UCI's promotion of a “celebrity rider” after the Festina scandal. The idea was to shine a spotlight on the sport through its best athletes, like the “people’s heroes” such as Lance Armstrong. The Vrijman report was one example of this policy.

...

the preliminary report was subsequently revised by Armstrong’s lawyer

...

(the UCI) had no intention of pursuing an independent report (and allowed) the primary subject of the (Vrijman) investigation to participate in the drafting of the report. ... (The UCI) purposely limited the scope of the independent investigator's mandate (and the UCI and Armstrong's representatives were) directly and heavily involved in the drafting of the Vrijman report (with the objective being) to ensure that the report reflected UCI's and Lance Armstrong’s personal conclusions.

...

When Pat McQuaid made the decision to allow Lance Armstrong to compete in the Tour Down Under, UCI failed to apply its own rules by not applying Article 77 of the 2008 UCI ADR. In doing so, UCI damaged its reputation by sending the message that rules applied differently to some athletes compared to the rest of the peloton,

...
Click to expand...
Dave.
 
J

JRanton

Apr 2, 2010
5,255
426
18,580
Dr Ferrari's latest post on his website strongly implies that the 2001 Tour de Suisse ''suspicious test'' was in fact a positive after all:

On page 122, when it came to the accusations made by Rasmussen with regards to UCI's anti-doping official Dr. Mario Zorzoli, the Commission considered "unacceptable" the leak of such serious allegations before they had been fully investigated (by them, obviously): a proper affirmation of protection of civil liberties that apparently seems to apply only to Dr. Zorzoli, a "honest expert scientist".
Even the allegations, widely reported in the press at the time, of Landis regarding Martial Saugy (Laboratory of Lausanne) were to be censored (page 144) when not sufficiently investigated in accordance with WADA's Code in favor of the "Fight Against Doping", only to avoid once again, without giving convincing explanations, to interview Landis on the matter.
On page 161, the Commission addressed the above mentioned episode: Armstrong "positive" in the Tour de Suisse edition of 2001, dismissing the case with a simple "strong suspicion of the presence of rEPO" bringing the % of basic band below 80%, limit then needed to consider a test as positive. The same Saugy declared that in 2001 the limit was precisely 80%, but this limit was moved to 85% by 2002 in order to avoid the risk of false positives (the laboratory of Paris had already raised the limit to 85% back in 2001... confirming doubts about a limit too hastily accepted by the laboratory in Lausanne).
Well, I remember the subject of a phone call I received from Bruyneel back then: he mentioned the reading to be 82%, which, with the rules of that time, had to be considered (rightly or wrongly) as a positive test. Evidently, whether to save Armstrong, or whether to protect the newborn EPO test, the UCI decided to dismiss and shelve away, just as the CIRC did on page 165: "Armstrong did not test positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour de Suisse", as Hamilton and Landis had instead stated in their USADA affidavits (witnesses apparently considered "reliable" for some other accusations, but not for this one).
Click to expand...

http://53x12.com/do/show?page=indepth.view&id=156
 
Alpe d'Huez

Alpe d'Huez

Mar 11, 2009
10,526
3,559
28,180
I'm lurking through various forums, and was wondering if we still need this as a sticky? Three posts in the last three two years. Thoughts anyone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom