Greg Lemond on Doping

[Ferminal]

Well, don't know where you are posting from, and you certainly have every right to post til your heart's content, but here freedom of speech includes freedom to lie, distort and generally expose yourself as mindless @ss. Someone beat me to it a minute ago wth the Nugent quote. It's called the right to be stupid.

But there's just so many a-holes in the world, it sometimes is hard to decide which ones to take a stand on.

Post on, I guess. He is just pathetic and everyone knows it, I think even he knows it.

Tbh I wouldn't give a sh1te if they could make a point without an unreadable wall of text featuring no use of paragraphs.

Armstrong is not a doper until he is convicted in a COURT OF LAW so I'm not sure why every post needs 500 words.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

..........

To quote you: "but since all other parties involved use the 100K amount, I think I will go with the preponderance of the evidence".

Here is what Lance (the donor!) said in 2008.

You made a gift to the UCI back in the early 2000s to buy anti-doping equipment. How much was it?
Er…Well, I can get you an exact number. Around 25,000 dollars. This was a long time ago.

How is $100,000 the 'preponderance of evidence' when the man himself repeats the figure that he said under oath in the SCA case?

 

[bobs nob]

And welcome to the ignore list. I actually have yet to see you make a relevant post ... BTW.

I feel your pain. But you're obviously too dense to recognize the irony.

Weird, this is the 1st time I responded to your drivel (at least since your Carbon Crank-like intelligence became apparent) and this gets me elevated to your ignore list. Who knew?

Congrats on no spelling errors on your first post in God knows how long.

 

[Neworld]

Honestly, having dealt with informants one should be VERY cautious when using inside information. If the source will not come out,..

So Gree you're a Lawyer or in law enforcement...or a in a well organized crime affiliate?

We all know your passion for standing on one side of this issue, but take a deep breath and try to add something useful to the discussion.

Try..." I have a lot of experience in snitches....and I would do this to find the truth"...or, "I think the best way to stop dopers is...or to change the UCI is to"...

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and data at your finger tips...how about actually helping this sport rather than being adversarial in every post.

NW

 

[red_flanders]

I am all for 'gree' being allowed to say what he wants. And as long as he does I am prepared to show up his inconsistencies and mis-information.

I accept that I have run the ire of the mod's and other forum members - but ignoring someone whose only ability is to spread mis-information then I believe they should be challenged.

I agree that Public Strategies longterm goal can have the opposite effect - I found the admission from McQuaid that the donation was in 2006 from a chance remark by someone looking at dismissing the notion that the donation was not above board.

Keep it up doc, you're quite right that "ignore" is exactly what this poster wants.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Armstrong is not a doper until he is convicted in a COURT OF LAW...

Not so, Feminal. This is a very common, oft-repeated misunderstanding. Cycling is a sport, governed by sanctioning bodies with a set of rules participants abide by. Should a rider fail a doping test under the rules, and be sanctioned by one of the sporting bodies, that's what it takes. Not a court of law.

Unless you are stating that in your mind to be considered a "doper" one needs to be convicted in a court of law. Which would mean most riders sanctioned for doping would not be dopers.

Also, you may have missed my post from 4-5 pages ago where I pointed out two aspects or views from which one determines someone has doped or is a "doper" in their eyes. They tend to follow one or the other of these two paths:

• Until a rider is found guilty and sanctioned by a governing body in the sport, he should not be considered a doper.

• Sanctioning or not, a preponderance of evidence is enough to consider someone a doper.

Both of these perspectives can apply to evaluating Armstrong, along with many other riders, and have been numerous times not only on this forum, but throughout the cycling world.

When people are making their arguments about Lance, or anyone else, they should keep this distinction clear.

 

[gree0232]

To quote you: "but since all other parties involved use the 100K amount, I think I will go with the preponderance of the evidence".

Here is what Lance (the donor!) said in 2008.


How is $100,000 the 'preponderance of evidence' when the man himself repeats the figure that he said under oath in the SCA case?

So, we know the payment have been happening since at least 2005.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/latest-cycling-news-for-july-1-2005

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2

When these were not a big deal.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/other-sports-news/landis-creates-the-perfect-storm-1.1029810

Almost all of the stories out there use the 100K amount.

Could there be more? Sure. Is there proof of it? Not really.

Now it is your turn. How does one bribe the UCI to make a positive go away. Please explain the logistics. It is the logistics that I think place this in the greatest doubt.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

So Gree you're a Lawyer or in law enforcement...or a in a well organized crime affiliate?

Please assure me this is meant as sarcasm...

 

[red_flanders]

Well, we all know that the denoation was 100K. Whether that came in one lump sum or several .... I don't know.

I have no idea what the donation was, and I follow these things very closely. It is a fact that the amount is in dispute, by no less than...the parties involved.

Please show where the number is clarified by all parties if you have such information.

Since you don't, I'll add that it's fairly obvious that they're all lying about the amount, and are in fact, corrupt. Just like Lemond says. The guy has the uncanny history of being right every time.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

So, we know the payment have been happening since at least 2005.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/latest-cycling-news-for-july-1-2005

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/tour05/news/?id=jul05/jul01news2

When these were not a big deal.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/other-sports-news/landis-creates-the-perfect-storm-1.1029810

Almost all of the stories out there use the 100K amount.

Could there be more? Sure. Is there proof of it? Not really.

Now it is your turn. How does one bribe the UCI to make a positive go away. Please explain the logistics. It is the logistics that I think place this in the greatest doubt.

Let me give you one word that would facilitate, simply, the secure and confidential transfer of monies between the parties.

Switzerland.

Now, if you need to understand why that one word, or place, is central to the issue, and the fact that the IOC and UCI are located there, I suggest you take some time to research international tax evasion as a primer.

Knock yourself out.

 

[gree0232]

Honestly, having dealt with informants one should be VERY cautious when using inside information. If the source will not come out,..

So Gree you're a Lawyer or in law enforcement...or a in a well organized crime affiliate?

We all know your passion for standing on one side of this issue, but take a deep breath and try to add something useful to the discussion.

Try..." I have a lot of experience in snitches....and I would do this to find the truth"...or, "I think the best way to stop dopers is...or to change the UCI is to"...

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and data at your finger tips...how about actually helping this sport rather than being adversarial in every post.

NW

Well, I have been saying these very things.

1. Keep it out of the friggin' press. If anyone, rider, sponsor, whatever, comes out with an accusation, be prepared to back it up. If the accuser cannot ... well, the be preapred to admit that the accuser has other motives - and moving forward to anti-doping conviction would not be it.

2. Doping is a crime. There are law enforcement techniques that work in mopping up crime and things that don't. Making infammatory comments doesn't help.

3. Follow the money. As even a few of my detractors have pointed out, this operation of a doping ring is very similar to a illegal smuggling operation.

4. If these massive systems are in place, the blood, the EPO, the doctors, the storage, etc. can all be found by good old fashion gumshoes.

Doping is a closed system, and as such it is suseptible to disruption and dismanteling.

We can break up the Medillin cartel, but cycling's dope is too much for our agencies? I just don't buy that.

So, to be clear, the press tit or tat has much more to do with personal or bureaucratic politics than it does with anti-doping.

Lemond taking a pot shot at Trek had absolutely nothing to do with anti-doping.

Some things work, some things don't. Why reinforce something that is clearly not working?

So again, to the people that are engaging in leaks, put up or shut up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

..........

Odd that 2 of your links are the same and do not mention an amount??

Just to clarify - because you were always the one seeking "presponderence of evidence' which figure is it? Lance says it was $25k, McQuaid says it was $100k? McQuaid says it was in 2005 but said before it was 2006??

Why have you such great faith in this system when we dont know when payments were made and for how much?

 

[bobs nob]

Odd that 2 of your links are the same and do not mention an amount??

Just to clarify - because you were always the one seeking "presponderence of evidence' which figure is it? Lance says it was $25k, McQuaid says it was $100k? McQuaid says it was in 2005 but said before it was 2006??

Why have you such great faith in this system when we dont know when payments were made and for how much?

I am surprised he puts links to pages that are even slightly relevant to the discussion. The point is to waste your time, not to actually engage.

 

[bobs nob]

hmmmm sir jakov's last post was at 00:00.....

so now we know what time the local library boots its patrons off the Internet computers.

these humorless losers .... their only function is to make me thank God I'm not them.

 

[Tubeless]

How does one bribe the UCI to make a positive go away. Please explain the logistics. It is the logistics that I think place this in the greatest doubt.

Logistics for this can be quite simple. It's a small circle of people who all know each other. Race in question, lab analysing the samples and UCI are all located in the same country - Switzerland, land of confidentiality. A positive A sample would have been known to perhaps just 1-2 persons at the lab, and 1-2 at the UCI.

A plausible sequence of events is as follows:

1. Lausanne lab analysing 2001 Tour de Suisse comes up with a positive for EPO on one of the samples taken during the race. The lab does not know the name (this info is at the UCI), and reports the case to UCI with the rider's code number only.

2. UCI gets the word via a phone call ahead of any official paperwork, and UCI checks its rider code database for the name. It's a big one, 2-time Tour de France winner Armstrong.

3. UCI managers decide this would a big scandal - in fact too big. This could possibly threaten the sport, cause cycling to be excluded from the 2004 Olympics and even result in calls for the ouster of the UCI leadership itself. Best to handle "within the cycling family". Verbruggen places a call to Bruyneel whom he knows personally.

4. Bruyneel and Armstrong meet with Verbuggen and they come up with a plan. Armstrong agrees to sin no more and commits to donate a "generous" amount to UCI for its anti-doping work. UCI agrees to overlook the sample as a "borderline" case, as the test for EPO is still quite new and subject to interpretations.

5. All agree that the donation is to be kept secret until Armstrong retires. Further, the payment would be delayed by a few years to separate the crime from the payoff.

6. Both sides feel this is technically not a bribe, since Armstrong is helping cycling, not any one individual. No one will ever know about the EPO positive since both sides have a vested interest to keep that quiet. And it would have likely remained secret forever, if Armstrong had not have bragged about it to Landis during a training ride in 2002.

7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

 

[buckwheat]

so now we know what time the local library boots its patrons off the Internet computers.

these humorless losers .... their only function is to make me thank God I'm not them.

You don't know the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, eh?

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

absolute poppycock

 

[thehog]

Well written. Willy Voet tells the same sequence of events for Brochard at the World Championships.

Logistics for this can be quite simple. It's a small circle of people who all know each other. Race in question, lab analysing the samples and UCI are all located in the same country - Switzerland, land of confidentiality. A positive A sample would have been known to perhaps just 1-2 persons at the lab, and 1-2 at the UCI.

A plausible sequence of events is as follows:

1. Lausanne lab analysing 2001 Tour de Suisse comes up with a positive for EPO on one of the samples taken during the race. The lab does not know the name (this info is at the UCI), and reports the case to UCI with the rider's code number only.

2. UCI gets the word via a phone call ahead of any official paperwork, and UCI checks its rider code database for the name. It's a big one, 2-time Tour de France winner Armstrong.

3. UCI managers decide this would a big scandal - in fact too big. This could possibly threaten the sport, cause cycling to be excluded from the 2004 Olympics and even result in calls for the ouster of the UCI leadership itself. Best to handle "within the cycling family". Verbruggen places a call to Bruyneel whom he knows personally.

4. Bruyneel and Armstrong meet with Verbuggen and they come up with a plan. Armstrong agrees to sin no more and commits to donate a "generous" amount to UCI for its anti-doping work. UCI agrees to overlook the sample as a "borderline" case, as the test for EPO is still quite new and subject to interpretations.

5. All agree that the donation is to be kept secret until Armstrong retires. Further, the payment would be delayed by a few years to separate the crime from the payoff.

6. Both sides feel this is technically not a bribe, since Armstrong is helping cycling, not any one individual. No one will ever know about the EPO positive since both sides have a vested interest to keep that quiet. And it would have likely remained secret forever, if Armstrong had not have bragged about it to Landis during a training ride in 2002.

7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

 

[redtreviso]

Logistics for this can be quite simple. It's a small circle of people who all know each other. Race in question, lab analysing the samples and UCI are all located in the same country - Switzerland, land of confidentiality. A positive A sample would have been known to perhaps just 1-2 persons at the lab, and 1-2 at the UCI.

A plausible sequence of events is as follows:

1. Lausanne lab analysing 2001 Tour de Suisse comes up with a positive for EPO on one of the samples taken during the race. The lab does not know the name (this info is at the UCI), and reports the case to UCI with the rider's code number only.

2. UCI gets the word via a phone call ahead of any official paperwork, and UCI checks its rider code database for the name. It's a big one, 2-time Tour de France winner Armstrong.

3. UCI managers decide this would a big scandal - in fact too big. This could possibly threaten the sport, cause cycling to be excluded from the 2004 Olympics and even result in calls for the ouster of the UCI leadership itself. Best to handle "within the cycling family". Verbruggen places a call to Bruyneel whom he knows personally.

4. Bruyneel and Armstrong meet with Verbuggen and they come up with a plan. Armstrong agrees to sin no more and commits to donate a "generous" amount to UCI for its anti-doping work. UCI agrees to overlook the sample as a "borderline" case, as the test for EPO is still quite new and subject to interpretations.

5. All agree that the donation is to be kept secret until Armstrong retires. Further, the payment would be delayed by a few years to separate the crime from the payoff.

6. Both sides feel this is technically not a bribe, since Armstrong is helping cycling, not any one individual. No one will ever know about the EPO positive since both sides have a vested interest to keep that quiet. And it would have likely remained secret forever, if Armstrong had not have bragged about it to Landis during a training ride in 2002.

7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

The sin no more part is ridiculous.

 

[Tubeless]

The sin no more part is ridiculous.

It's UCI-code language for getting caught in a test.

 

[cathulu]

My goodness. I think Gree has been thoroughly outed and discredited. His ramblings are more and more incoherent. I agree with the Dr., his lies and plausible denials need to be addressed and refuted, as was done very effectively. He is truly painted into a corner of foolishness.

Mr. Pat McQuaid, where are the answers??? Corruption!!!! VerDRUGGEN and McQuaid make me sick.

 

[Neworld]

Please assure me this is meant as sarcasm...

Yes, and sorry Colm.

Its just that for me Bree-zy (like bad gas) is too intent on discussing issues that are so secondary to the real problem. Bree doesn't even answer questions directly when asked so how can anyone take him/her seriouosly.

I don't really care if Lemond took a pot shot at Trek. It would be bad form for sure. But honestly the mounting, recurring, evidence of the dastardly trail of lies, deception and cheating by one cyclist (and his DS/Friend) is so putrid that anyone willing to stick out their neck to bring about the truth, hold the propaganda up to a candle and 'try' to fix cycling is welcome in my books. It surely is not Bree.

NW

 

[Boeing]

When he says corporate enabling he is referring to the fact that organizations are looking the other way because of all the corporate money. He is still ****ed off that the corporate backing moved on from him.

If you are going to use the term "fact" in any sentence you must be prepared to document your findings. Are you prepared?

 

[gree0232]

Logistics for this can be quite simple. It's a small circle of people who all know each other. Race in question, lab analysing the samples and UCI are all located in the same country - Switzerland, land of confidentiality. A positive A sample would have been known to perhaps just 1-2 persons at the lab, and 1-2 at the UCI.

A plausible sequence of events is as follows:

1. Lausanne lab analysing 2001 Tour de Suisse comes up with a positive for EPO on one of the samples taken during the race. The lab does not know the name (this info is at the UCI), and reports the case to UCI with the rider's code number only.

2. UCI gets the word via a phone call ahead of any official paperwork, and UCI checks its rider code database for the name. It's a big one, 2-time Tour de France winner Armstrong.

3. UCI managers decide this would a big scandal - in fact too big. This could possibly threaten the sport, cause cycling to be excluded from the 2004 Olympics and even result in calls for the ouster of the UCI leadership itself. Best to handle "within the cycling family". Verbruggen places a call to Bruyneel whom he knows personally.

4. Bruyneel and Armstrong meet with Verbuggen and they come up with a plan. Armstrong agrees to sin no more and commits to donate a "generous" amount to UCI for its anti-doping work. UCI agrees to overlook the sample as a "borderline" case, as the test for EPO is still quite new and subject to interpretations.

5. All agree that the donation is to be kept secret until Armstrong retires. Further, the payment would be delayed by a few years to separate the crime from the payoff.

6. Both sides feel this is technically not a bribe, since Armstrong is helping cycling, not any one individual. No one will ever know about the EPO positive since both sides have a vested interest to keep that quiet. And it would have likely remained secret forever, if Armstrong had not have bragged about it to Landis during a training ride in 2002.

7. Lab is told that the sample in question did not result in a sanction due to the bordeline value, an existing TUE, or some such excuse - the lab is never required to report the positive to IOC, WADA or elsewhere since the B sample was never touched. Case closed as far as the lab is concerned. No record of a "positive test" or a "positive sample".

8. Few people within UCI would know the facts, and all would share the boss's view anyhow - all in the best interest of cycling. No documentation exists, other that Armstrong's donation which would happen years later. A catastrophy for the sport averted. Well done, Mr Verbruggen.

There are a couple of holes in this.

1. The lab, which is independant, it is accredited by WADA (not the UCI), and the results are reported to WADA, IOC, and the UCI. How do you bribe the three different agencies by making a payment to one of them only?

2. Even if the lab is given an after the fact excuse, TUE whatever, there is still a record of the adverse finding that has to go away.

So, where is this record? Where is the lab tech who was told, "Sorry, no dice after the fact?"

3. News of the payments came out before LA retired.

As I have long said, great creative writing .... short on actual evidence.

I have also been quiet pending the passing of aforementioned Tuesday where the folks with 'inside' information say that the big one was about to drop.

I guess the 'inside' information was HV telling FL to shut up? Yep the doping problem is about to be solved by these kinds of accusations and counter-accusations.

For all the FL lovers out there, I would again caution you. The more I see FL the more concerned I get. We have all seen this before, FL making strong public denials in a less that PR friendly manner and then lawyering up and going for broke.

Maybe not everything FL is saying is false, but FL clearly has an agenda beyond simply clearing the air so he can sleep better.

The only thing I see happening in cycling v. doping is a lot of lawyers get rich.

 

[Oldman]

There are a couple of holes in this.

1. The lab, which is independant, it is accredited by WADA (not the UCI), and the results are reported to WADA, IOC, and the UCI. How do you bribe the three different agencies by making a payment to one of them only?

2. Even if the lab is given an after the fact excuse, TUE whatever, there is still a record of the adverse finding that has to go away.

So, where is this record? Where is the lab tech who was told, "Sorry, no dice after the fact?"

3. News of the payments came out before LA retired.

As I have long said, great creative writing .... short on actual evidence.

I have also been quiet pending the passing of aforementioned Tuesday where the folks with 'inside' information say that the big one was about to drop.

I guess the 'inside' information was HV telling FL to shut up? Yep the doping problem is about to be solved by these kinds of accusations and counter-accusations.

For all the FL lovers out there, I would again caution you. The more I see FL the more concerned I get. We have all seen this before, FL making strong public denials in a less that PR friendly manner and then lawyering up and going for broke.

Maybe not everything FL is saying is false, but FL clearly has an agenda beyond simply clearing the air so he can sleep better.

The only thing I see happening in cycling v. doping is a lot of lawyers get rich.

Point 1.: the lab doesn't know who the rider is. The UCI has that information.
Point 2: see point 1. UCI can create any history or lack thereof. There is likely a confidentiality agreement that goes along with the testing contract; which is why everyone gets so charged up when "news" is leaked to the press. Who did that happen to? LA
Point 3: "news" came out. The amount, timing and incentive are what's truly being discussed.

Please don't caution anyone. Your revisionist attempts and blind defense of a high profile hero aside; your debating technique is no match for the nit for nit that Dr. Mas can produce. He tends to be more neutral, however.