Greg Lemond on Doping

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

Some questions, since you appear to be in the know....

Which lab was it??
Why would WADA be involved when the UCI was not involved with them until 2004?

And you asked a good question - where are these 'reports'? Pat McQuaid said these letters from the labs would be available on the UCI website, 2 weeks later and still nothing.

 

[gree0232]

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.

I love the double standards employed by a few.

1. Why do so many just pretend that results, anonymous, get reported to the IOC, the UCI, and WADA? The numbers may come from the UCI, but there is still teh matter of the other two organization who are sitting there with a positive test. And there is no record from any of those agencies about a positive test from the TdS. None.

So what happened to those records?

How were the other organziations bribed?

2. The payment was in 2005, and it is in the news and already presented in this very thread. Lance was still riding when it came out.

Perhaps we should look up the meaning of revisionism before we toss it out there.

 

[gree0232]

Some questions, since you appear to be in the know....

Which lab was it??
Why would WADA be involved when the UCI was not involved with them until 2004?

And you asked a good question - where are these 'reports'? Pat McQuaid said these letters from the labs would be available on the UCI website, 2 weeks later and still nothing.

If there is no positive test, then there is no lab involvement is there? The labs do not work for the UCI. (And being independant labs, having someone from the UCI call up and try to make a positive just go away ....)

WADA was accrediting labs and results are reported to WADA - their involvement with the UCI?????

 

[Oldman]

I love the double standards employed by a few.

1. Why do so many just pretend that results, anonymous, get reported to the IOC, the UCI, and WADA? The numbers may come from the UCI, but there is still teh matter of the other two organization who are sitting there with a positive test. And there is no record from any of those agencies about a positive test from the TdS. None.

So what happened to those records?

How were the other organziations bribed?

2. The payment was in 2005, and it is in the news and already presented in this very thread. Lance was still riding when it came out.

Perhaps we should look up the meaning of revisionism before we toss it out there.

1. The UCI contracts with the accredited labs to perform tests. The UCI decides what to do with the tests, no other organization unless they have a contractural condition to share them. No Bribe Necessary. Do you really think the UCI would willingly complicate their life by adding other governing bodies to their policing process? Why do you think there is a p*ssing match going on with the AFLD? And the IOC? They don't want to know anything.

2. Payment, payment and payment. McQuaid just confirme the amount today. The lack of transparency on the amount suggests the use of funds is questionable.

Perhaps "we should look up..." Unless you have a turd in your pocket or are of Royal personage; there is no "we".

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

If there is no positive test, then there is no lab involvement is there? The labs do not work for the UCI. (And being independant labs, having someone from the UCI call up and try to make a positive just go away ....)

WADA was accrediting labs and results are reported to WADA - their involvement with the UCI?????

SSDD

Why persist in saying results were reported to WADA when you know full well they weren't until 2004?

Why do you hate WADA?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If there is no positive test, then there is no lab involvement is there? The labs do not work for the UCI. (And being independent labs, having someone from the UCI call up and try to make a positive just go away ....)

WADA was accrediting labs and results are reported to WADA - their involvement with the UCI?????

I realize you don't like direct questions - but, if you cannot name the laboratory that is supposed to have been testing for the UCI at that time then how do you know that it is independent?

If you do not know the laboratory how do you it was accredited by WADA?

You do realize even Pat McQuaid acknowledged that WADA would not have been in receipt of 'positives' before 2004??

So - again, which laboratory did the Tour de Suisse samples go to?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I love the double standards employed by a few.

1. Why do so many just pretend that results, anonymous, get reported to the IOC, the UCI, and WADA? The numbers may come from the UCI, but there is still teh matter of the other two organization who are sitting there with a positive test. And there is no record from any of those agencies about a positive test from the TdS. None.

So what happened to those records?

How were the other organizations bribed?

2. The payment was in 2005, and it is in the news and already presented in this very thread. Lance was still riding when it came out.

Perhaps we should look up the meaning of revisionism before we toss it out there.

You do realize that all parties involved have said the 'donation' was agreed long before 2005?? They just cannot agree when it was paid, how much was paid and what it was for.

I realize you are trying to portray this as some vast conspiracy - it wasn't, it was a 'business arrangement' -WADA were not involved,so if there was a positive it was (at best) sent to the UCI & the IOC, please see my earlier fotos if you require visual clues to the connection there.

BTW - can you confirm, with 'preponderance evidence' etc that the 'donation' was indeed in 2005 - because even Pat & Hein don't appear to know that.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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.

Gree, I realize you present view that does not consider material facts and you lack the mass of knowledge that would assist you in forming reasoned, informed decisions and positions.

That said, your trolling is so transparent, I cannot understand how you are not banned? At any rate, for the sake of burning 10 minutes to further prove you simply cannot know what you don't know, have a read:

1. Which lab are you talking about? Was it also ISO accredited? Have they had any material violations of the ISL that would warrant a corrective action in the years of 2000-2002? When did this lab become approved in us of the EPO urine test?

When you can answer these, then you can comment on your own point 1.

2. Please detail the UCI anti-doping procedure for handling an EPO AAF for an A sample in 2001. Do so and you can answer your own point 2.

You mention "the more I see FL"...where are you seeing him? In the press? The guy has not made any comment since the ESPN Q&A. Strong public denials? I am not sure what you are saying, what is he "denying"?

Telling the truth and having an agenda certainly can co-exist. What difference does it make if he has an agenda? Perhaps his agenda is he wants to put Lance in jail. There is an article out there where it is noted he'd sent someone a text saying "Big Tex is going to jail".... kind of indicates an agenda, and an explicit one at that, agree?

I was the one who mentioned details coming out Tuesday...and some did. Never mentioned its "bigness" or "shoes"... there will be more on the way. If it comes out, and who puts it out, will be impressive. Rest assured.

 

[gree0232]

Gree, I realize you present view that does not consider material facts and you lack the mass of knowledge that would assist you in forming reasoned, informed decisions and positions.

That said, your trolling is so transparent, I cannot understand how you are not banned? At any rate, for the sake of burning 10 minutes to further prove you simply cannot know what you don't know, have a read:

1. Which lab are you talking about? Was it also ISO accredited? Have they had any material violations of the ISL that would warrant a corrective action in the years of 2000-2002? When did this lab become approved in us of the EPO urine test?

When you can answer these, then you can comment on your own point 1.

2. Please detail the UCI anti-doping procedure for handling an EPO AAF for an A sample in 2001. Do so and you can answer your own point 2.

You mention "the more I see FL"...where are you seeing him? In the press? The guy has not made any comment since the ESPN Q&A. Strong public denials? I am not sure what you are saying, what is he "denying"?

Telling the truth and having an agenda certainly can co-exist. What difference does it make if he has an agenda? Perhaps his agenda is he wants to put Lance in jail. There is an article out there where it is noted he'd sent someone a text saying "Big Tex is going to jail".... kind of indicates an agenda, and an explicit one at that, agree?

I was the one who mentioned details coming out Tuesday...and some did. Never mentioned its "bigness" or "shoes"... there will be more on the way. If it comes out, and who puts it out, will be impressive. Rest assured.

Agh. So the ones making the accusations need someone else to figure out which lab covered up the positive test, how it was done, and whether or not the lab sends the results to more than just the UCI.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

There is the 2003 WADA code, and the protions that deal with adverse findings are no so different. You will again notice that ALL tests must take place in a WADA accredited lab. (UCI is not involved).

Now, lets try something besides creative writing and speculation for a change.

Step 1: At the conclusion of the Sample collection session the Rider and the Doping Control Officer shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Rider’s Sample collection session, including any concerns recorded by the Rider. The Rider’s representative (if any) and the Rider shall both sign the documentation if the Rider is a Minor. Other persons present who had a formal role during the Rider’s Sample collection session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings. The Doping Control Officer shall provide the Rider with a copy of the records of the Sample collection
session that have been signed by the Rider.

So where is the documentation to back up the claim from step one? The test that did exist, but now doesn't?

Step 2: The UCI will report, through ADAMS or otherwise, all Testing conducted under these Anti-Doping Rules to WADA, including the name of the Rider, the date and place of the test and whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition.

Again, where is the test that is no longer a test?

Step 3: For purposes of article 21.1 Samples shall be sent for analysis only to WADA-accredited laboratories or as otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADA-accredited laboratory (or other laboratory or method approved by WADA) used for the Sample analysis shall be determined exclusively by the UCI.

So the accusers please tell me, which WADA accredited Lab is so bad that they can have a paper trail for a sample just disappear?

Step 4: The UCI shall refer results management concerning a License-Holder who usually does not participate in International Events, to the License-Holder’s National Federation, who shall conduct results management in substantial conformity with this chapter. The National Federation shall keep the UCI informed on the status and findings of the results management
process.

I guess USADA is also hiding the positive test?

Step 5: The License-Holder, WADA and the other Anti-Doping Organizations having a right of appeal under article 329 shall be informed of a decision not to go forward with an anti-doping rule violation. If WADA or such other Anti-Doping Organization so requests, the UCI may reopen the case and request he National Federation to instigate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with article 249, without prejudice to WADA’s and such other Anti-Doping Organization’s right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

So, all these other agencies are kept in the dark? None can do anything?

Statute of limitations: Fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost or disappears, and people want to get on with their lives without legal interference from the past.

The diminishing value of evidence. After an event takes place, over time, memories fade and important evidence may be lost or disappear. The best time to bring a lawsuit is as close to the event as possible so as to have the best evidence available to prove a lawsuit or claim (and to defend a lawsuit or claim);

But, heh FL overhead something while riding eight years ago?????? Well, then the system must be corrupt

How about the accusers try and fill in all the blanks for a change?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Agh. So the ones making the accusations need someone else to figure out which lab covered up the positive test, how it was done, and whether or not the lab sends the results to more than just the UCI.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

There is the 2003 WADA code, and the protions that deal with adverse findings are no so different. You will again notice that ALL tests must take place in a WADA accredited lab. (UCI is not involved).

Now, lets try something besides creative writing and speculation for a change.

Step 1: At the conclusion of the Sample collection session the Rider and the Doping Control Officer shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Rider’s Sample collection session, including any concerns recorded by the Rider. The Rider’s representative (if any) and the Rider shall both sign the documentation if the Rider is a Minor. Other persons present who had a formal role during the Rider’s Sample collection session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings. The Doping Control Officer shall provide the Rider with a copy of the records of the Sample collection
session that have been signed by the Rider.

So where is the documentation to back up the claim from step one? The test that did exist, but now doesn't?

Step 2: The UCI will report, through ADAMS or otherwise, all Testing conducted under these Anti-Doping Rules to WADA, including the name of the Rider, the date and place of the test and whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition.

Again, where is the test that is no longer a test?

Step 3: For purposes of article 21.1 Samples shall be sent for analysis only to WADA-accredited laboratories or as otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADA-accredited laboratory (or other laboratory or method approved by WADA) used for the Sample analysis shall be determined exclusively by the UCI.

So the accusers please tell me, which WADA accredited Lab is so bad that they can have a paper trail for a sample just disappear?

Step 4: The UCI shall refer results management concerning a License-Holder who usually does not participate in International Events, to the License-Holder’s National Federation, who shall conduct results management in substantial conformity with this chapter. The National Federation shall keep the UCI informed on the status and findings of the results management
process.

I guess USADA is also hiding the positive test?

Step 5: The License-Holder, WADA and the other Anti-Doping Organizations having a right of appeal under article 329 shall be informed of a decision not to go forward with an anti-doping rule violation. If WADA or such other Anti-Doping Organization so requests, the UCI may reopen the case and request he National Federation to instigate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with article 249, without prejudice to WADA’s and such other Anti-Doping Organization’s right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

So, all these other agencies are kept in the dark? None can do anything?

Statute of limitations: Fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost or disappears, and people want to get on with their lives without legal interference from the past.

The diminishing value of evidence. After an event takes place, over time, memories fade and important evidence may be lost or disappear. The best time to bring a lawsuit is as close to the event as possible so as to have the best evidence available to prove a lawsuit or claim (and to defend a lawsuit or claim);

But, heh FL overhead something while riding eight years ago?????? Well, then the system must be corrupt

How about the accusers try and fill in all the blanks for a change?

FAIL

I already know the answers. I know you do not. It is quite simple.

Filling in the blanks is all that folks have done for you. You simply cannot answer any of it as you don't know. The blank exist between your ears.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. At all. In any possible way, from any angle. Utter FAIL.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

.........

Let me help you out here.... this is a quote from Pat McQuaid just 2 weeks ago.

I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA.

January 2004??

WADA had nothing to do with the Tour de Suisse 2001 anti-doping.

 

[Race Radio]

random babble

There is the 2003 WADA code,------trolling

Which has what to do with a test in 2001?

The UCI was the last Fed to sign the WADA code in August 2004.

 

[Race Radio]

This guy must be getting paid by the word.

 

[BroDeal]

Agh. So the ones making the accusations need someone else to figure out which lab covered up the positive test, how it was done, and whether or not the lab sends the results to more than just the UCI.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf

There is the 2003 WADA code, and the protions that deal with adverse findings are no so different. You will again notice that ALL tests must take place in a WADA accredited lab. (UCI is not involved).

Now, lets try something besides creative writing and speculation for a change.

Step 1: At the conclusion of the Sample collection session the Rider and the Doping Control Officer shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Rider’s Sample collection session, including any concerns recorded by the Rider. The Rider’s representative (if any) and the Rider shall both sign the documentation if the Rider is a Minor. Other persons present who had a formal role during the Rider’s Sample collection session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings. The Doping Control Officer shall provide the Rider with a copy of the records of the Sample collection
session that have been signed by the Rider.

So where is the documentation to back up the claim from step one? The test that did exist, but now doesn't?

Step 2: The UCI will report, through ADAMS or otherwise, all Testing conducted under these Anti-Doping Rules to WADA, including the name of the Rider, the date and place of the test and whether the test was In-Competition or Out-of-Competition.

Again, where is the test that is no longer a test?

Step 3: For purposes of article 21.1 Samples shall be sent for analysis only to WADA-accredited laboratories or as otherwise approved by WADA. The choice of the WADA-accredited laboratory (or other laboratory or method approved by WADA) used for the Sample analysis shall be determined exclusively by the UCI.

So the accusers please tell me, which WADA accredited Lab is so bad that they can have a paper trail for a sample just disappear?

Step 4: The UCI shall refer results management concerning a License-Holder who usually does not participate in International Events, to the License-Holder’s National Federation, who shall conduct results management in substantial conformity with this chapter. The National Federation shall keep the UCI informed on the status and findings of the results management
process.

I guess USADA is also hiding the positive test?

Step 5: The License-Holder, WADA and the other Anti-Doping Organizations having a right of appeal under article 329 shall be informed of a decision not to go forward with an anti-doping rule violation. If WADA or such other Anti-Doping Organization so requests, the UCI may reopen the case and request he National Federation to instigate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with article 249, without prejudice to WADA’s and such other Anti-Doping Organization’s right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

So, all these other agencies are kept in the dark? None can do anything?

Statute of limitations: Fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost or disappears, and people want to get on with their lives without legal interference from the past.

The diminishing value of evidence. After an event takes place, over time, memories fade and important evidence may be lost or disappear. The best time to bring a lawsuit is as close to the event as possible so as to have the best evidence available to prove a lawsuit or claim (and to defend a lawsuit or claim);

But, heh FL overhead something while riding eight years ago?????? Well, then the system must be corrupt

How about the accusers try and fill in all the blanks for a change?

Jeebus! Does anyone even read this endless crap. You would think that with the economy Public Strategies would be albe to hire much more competent people.