Greg Lemond on Doping

[gree0232]

I'm no expert as I gave up on this sport 20 years ago as a result of personal experience and frankly have only paid attention in fits and starts since then (as I understood/understand full well the underlying theme) but my understanding is that the SCA case was settled because doping was not part of the contract. As a result it's disingenious to conclude that testimony heard during that case disproves allegations of doping. The allegations made *could* be entirely relevant in the correct case/context, just not involving the specific contract concerning the SCA hearing as it (doping) wasn't part of the contract.
I suspect that Greg will be entirely vindicated in the end for as the saying goes the "truth will out". It should not be forgotten that an everlasting theme in our culture is to set up heroes only to knock them down. The myth of Lance is crumbling.

It is the same theory that is being advocated now. The contract was signed on the basis that the performance was genuine. Doping is thus a form of fraud and can be used as a basis to dissolve a contract. This is the same sort of thing that sponsors do to leave the sport after a 'positive'. (Funny how when it works for one side, it is good, but bad in reverse).

I do not think that Greg will be vinidcated in his references to Trek and their connection to doping. I do not think he will be vinidcated when he says the whole system from top to bottom is corrupt, even as the system bends over backward to find and catch dopers.

I think Greg made a fundamental error in judgement when he thought that his business partners, in the business of selling bikes, would risk the entire business to finance an anti-doping crusade (and a very public one without a whole lot of tangible proof).

Whether he is subsequently proved right? That will be because of the hard work of agents actually looking into the issue - not because of Greg's verbosity. It is the very system that Greg is attacking that will either catch LA, or not. That is my issue with Greg, not whether LA doped. (I just don't care one way or the other).

 

[lightandlongshadows]

"I do not think he will be vinidcated when he says the whole system from top to bottom is corrupt, even as the system bends over backward to find and catch dopers."

I think he would be from my experience with the general culture and "gate keepers" as a junior and then amateur in Europe I experienced 20 years ago. These attitutudes don't happen overnight nor are they extinguished quickly. Evidence suggests they are alive and well.

"It is the very system that Greg is attacking that will either catch LA, or not. That is my issue with Greg, not whether LA doped. (I just don't care one way or the other)."

Until you experience it for yourself you can't understand the mentality behind it, just how pervasive and accepted it is.
The best way for you to understand the culture about which we're discussing is to relate from your own personal experience as to how this happens:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S39O9lCRBrE

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bla bla bla, sounds of gas being passed and wind breaking.

OK, I have heard your nonsense and there is nothing to it. TFF is right. I am done here, let's leave greetard to make the sound of one hand clapping and move on to other things. Over and out.
I would recommend everyone do the same.

 

[gree0232]

"I do not think he will be vinidcated when he says the whole system from top to bottom is corrupt, even as the system bends over backward to find and catch dopers."

I think he would be from my experience with the general culture and "gate keepers" as a junior and then amateur in Europe I experienced 20 years ago. These attitutudes don't happen overnight nor are they extinguished quickly. Evidence suggests they are alive and well.

"It is the very system that Greg is attacking that will either catch LA, or not. That is my issue with Greg, not whether LA doped. (I just don't care one way or the other)."

Until you experience it for yourself you can't understand the mentality behind it, just how pervasive and accepted it is.
The best way for you to understand the culture about which we're discussing is to relate from your own personal experience as to how this happens:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S39O9lCRBrE

I have heard this all before.

Again, I fully acknowledge that there is/was a doping problem in cycling.

What is at issue is how you go about fixing it. If there is anyone who is being unfairly beaten up these days, it is Pat McQuaid. Like it or not, there is a system in place with rules that must be followed. If you take those rules out, if you take those standards out, you have something .... but you don't have a fix.

A few years ago, the criticism was that the system was broken because they never nail the big guys. Now, they have nailed a series of big guys, from Basso all the way to Valverde. Now the cirticism is that they are not nailing the little guys (even though there are plenty of little guys getting nailed as well). They even helped to expose Operation Puerto. Yet the UCI gets criticized for that as well (the UCI does not have a say in the Spanish national legal system - though it did help close the loop hole in Spanish law that allowed Operation Puerto to happen in the first place).

Like it or not, the people tasked with taking on doping in cycling MUST play by the rules. It is easy to point the finger of suspicion at the entire system, but I am sure there are a few guys riding and winning clean. I am sure there are a few teams that are riding and winning clean.

Greg's comments may be born of frustration, but they are simply not helpful in terms of fixing the situation. From teh creation of the biological passport, working with the drug industry to develop test in conjunction with new drugs, retroactive testing (both on suspicion and targeted), where abouts system, out of competition controls, etc. the sport has taken drastic steps to clean itself up and devlop system that will produce the evidence needed to find and convict those that are partaking in this practice.

What is not helpful in general accusation. Does it help to call Sparticus a 'mechanical doper'? Do you expect cooperation when you call the guys that are constrained by the rules a bunch a corrupt, incompitent boobs?

Again, it is quite simple. LA is the perfect case. He is doper when he is convicted (by whatever means) of doping. My opinion is not relevant.

Valverde is a doper because his case was adjudicated and he was suspended.

Lemond is NOT a doper, because he has never had any sort of infraction stick in any meaningful way.

The conjecture and counter conjecture at this point is as bad for cycling as the actuality if doping itself. When everyone who suceeds is immediately tarred with an accusation of doping .... the sport has a serious issue beyond actual doping itself.

Having Greg Lemond toss out further accusations is simply not helpful to cleaning that up. People must have faith that there are people within the system that are actively seeking out doping (and there is), and they must let the system adjudicate based on something more than rumor.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Again, it is quite simple. LA is the perfect case. He is doper when he is convicted (by whatever means) of doping.

That is indeed the crux of it, and people are making arguments regarding Armstrong (and others) using different goal posts.

• One can argue that until a rider is found guilty and sanctioned by a governing body, he should not be considered a doper.

• Another can argue, from a different perspective, that sanctioning or not, a preponderance of evidence is enough to consider someone a doper.

Both of these perspectives can apply to evaluating Armstrong, and have been numerous times not only on this forum, but throughout the cycling world. When people are making their arguments about him, or anyone else, they should keep this distinction clear.

 

[redtreviso]

Lance Groupies have always hated Greg LeMond..

When 17 yr old Lance was winning cat 1/2 races at Trinity Park in Fort Worth he would say.. "triathletes rule! I beat all these pussies" Well not really but really.. His groupies in speedos didn't want to hear about Greg LeMond or Bernard Hinault or Francesco Moser..Dave Scott was their ultimate Alfalfanator... Lance's whole road career has been an intentional trespass.

 

[Ferminal]

Isn't a doper someone who takes performance enhancing drugs?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have heard this all before.

Again, I fully acknowledge that there is/was a doping problem in cycling.

What is at issue is how you go about fixing it. If there is anyone who is being unfairly beaten up these days, it is Pat McQuaid. Like it or not, there is a system in place with rules that must be followed. If you take those rules out, if you take those standards out, you have something .... but you don't have a fix.

A few years ago, the criticism was that the system was broken because they never nail the big guys. Now, they have nailed a series of big guys, from Basso all the way to Valverde. Now the cirticism is that they are not nailing the little guys (even though there are plenty of little guys getting nailed as well). They even helped to expose Operation Puerto. Yet the UCI gets criticized for that as well (the UCI does not have a say in the Spanish national legal system - though it did help close the loop hole in Spanish law that allowed Operation Puerto to happen in the first place).

Like it or not, the people tasked with taking on doping in cycling MUST play by the rules. It is easy to point the finger of suspicion at the entire system, but I am sure there are a few guys riding and winning clean. I am sure there are a few teams that are riding and winning clean.

Greg's comments may be born of frustration, but they are simply not helpful in terms of fixing the situation. From teh creation of the biological passport, working with the drug industry to develop test in conjunction with new drugs, retroactive testing (both on suspicion and targeted), where abouts system, out of competition controls, etc. the sport has taken drastic steps to clean itself up and devlop system that will produce the evidence needed to find and convict those that are partaking in this practice.

What is not helpful in general accusation. Does it help to call Sparticus a 'mechanical doper'? Do you expect cooperation when you call the guys that are constrained by the rules a bunch a corrupt, incompitent boobs?

Again, it is quite simple. LA is the perfect case. He is doper when he is convicted (by whatever means) of doping. My opinion is not relevant.

Valverde is a doper because his case was adjudicated and he was suspended.

Lemond is NOT a doper, because he has never had any sort of infraction stick in any meaningful way.

The conjecture and counter conjecture at this point is as bad for cycling as the actuality if doping itself. When everyone who suceeds is immediately tarred with an accusation of doping .... the sport has a serious issue beyond actual doping itself.

Having Greg Lemond toss out further accusations is simply not helpful to cleaning that up. People must have faith that there are people within the system that are actively seeking out doping (and there is), and they must let the system adjudicate based on something more than rumor.

Greg was correct when he said "right now it is a corrupt system".
And your only response is that must ignore what he said and have 'faith' in that system??

Riis, Zabel, Aldag etc all admitted dopers that have not been sanctioned by the UCI, the system you have such trust in.

McQuaid said they would publish the letters from the laboratory on the UCI website - almost 2 weeks later and nothing. They are not able to produce the paperwork for the 'donation' or what was purchased. Why is that?

You mention Basso & Valverde - who were both sanctioned by CONI. Why do CONI have to do the UCI's job?
Do you know why WADA was set up? Because of the Festina affair.

How did the UCI help 'expose' Operation Puerto - which was a Police investigation? How did the UCI have anything to do with closing a loophole in the Spanish system - unless you mean not catch the athletes that doped?
While the Bio Passport has potential even those working on it admit its current limitations.

The reason many people say "everyone dopes" (which I do not believe) is because they have lost the trust of the UCI to do anti-doping - ignoring that problem will not make it go away.

A doper is someone who has taken PED's - a doper who gets caught by the UCI is unlucky.

 

[Neworld]

I have heard this all before.

Again, I fully acknowledge that there is/was a doping problem in cycling.

What is at issue is how you go about fixing it. If there is anyone who is being unfairly beaten up these days, it is Pat McQuaid. Like it or not, there is a system in place with rules that must be followed. If you take those rules out, if you take those standards out, you have something .... but you don't have a fix.

A few years ago, the criticism was that the system was broken because they never nail the big guys. Now, they have nailed a series of big guys, from Basso all the way to Valverde. Now the cirticism is that they are not nailing the little guys (even though there are plenty of little guys getting nailed as well). They even helped to expose Operation Puerto. Yet the UCI gets criticized for that as well (the UCI does not have a say in the Spanish national legal system - though it did help close the loop hole in Spanish law that allowed Operation Puerto to happen in the first place).

Like it or not, the people tasked with taking on doping in cycling MUST play by the rules. It is easy to point the finger of suspicion at the entire system, but I am sure there are a few guys riding and winning clean. I am sure there are a few teams that are riding and winning clean.

Greg's comments may be born of frustration, but they are simply not helpful in terms of fixing the situation. From teh creation of the biological passport, working with the drug industry to develop test in conjunction with new drugs, retroactive testing (both on suspicion and targeted), where abouts system, out of competition controls, etc. the sport has taken drastic steps to clean itself up and devlop system that will produce the evidence needed to find and convict those that are partaking in this practice.

What is not helpful in general accusation. Does it help to call Sparticus a 'mechanical doper'? Do you expect cooperation when you call the guys that are constrained by the rules a bunch a corrupt, incompitent boobs?

Again, it is quite simple. LA is the perfect case. He is doper when he is convicted (by whatever means) of doping. My opinion is not relevant.

Valverde is a doper because his case was adjudicated and he was suspended.

Lemond is NOT a doper, because he has never had any sort of infraction stick in any meaningful way.

The conjecture and counter conjecture at this point is as bad for cycling as the actuality if doping itself. When everyone who suceeds is immediately tarred with an accusation of doping .... the sport has a serious issue beyond actual doping itself.

Having Greg Lemond toss out further accusations is simply not helpful to cleaning that up. People must have faith that there are people within the system that are actively seeking out doping (and there is), and they must let the system adjudicate based on something more than rumor.

Please don't protect P. McQuaid, please. Follow the rules in place? Well its hard to do that and have faith in a just and fair system when said powerful racer, proven to have EPO in his urine, donates 500K to the UCI (now McQuaid's Mandate) for 'research' and that information is buried for years.

It is really great that you recognize that there is a doping problem in cycling, wow. So, stop focusing on those who are trying to squash dopers and the system that is currently empowering them. You certainly are tenacious and have a lot of energy, how about you start applying that to catching dopers and blogging about positive ways to change the system in general (like Greg is doing), rather than focusing on Lemond, or maybe other informative people like Kimmage, Walsh...

IMO your focus is all wrong, or maybe you just like to be argumentative and antagonistic?
NW

 

[gree0232]

Please don't protect P. McQuaid, please. Follow the rules in place? Well its hard to do that and have faith in a just and fair system when said powerful racer, proven to have EPO in his urine, donates 500K to the UCI (now McQuaid's Mandate) for 'research' and that information is buried for years.

It is really great that you recognize that there is a doping problem in cycling, wow. So, stop focusing on those who are trying to squash dopers and the system that is currently empowering them. You certainly are tenacious and have a lot of energy, how about you start applying that to catching dopers and blogging about positive ways to change the system in general (like Greg is doing), rather than focusing on Lemond, or maybe other informative people like Kimmage, Walsh...

IMO your focus is all wrong, or maybe you just like to be argumentative and antagonistic?
NW

Well, this is interesting.

A $100,000 payment, four years after the fact, after a change in leadership, into a general fund, will make a positive dope test disappear. The same agency that leaked information and control numbers in the 1999 case, is the same agency, in toto, along with the Swiss federation, testers, etc., that were bought off with a public payment that all parties acknowledge?

Curiously, this corrupt system, so prone to abuse and bribery, has not offered this same service for fee to any of the other riders accused of doping?

I see nothing, nothing at all, that is beneficial about Greg Lemond taking a specific pot shot at his latest business partner is a form of positive engagement.

Finally, why do so many posters think that has to do with either my opinion (which they continue to not understand) and that the opinion is about letting doping continue?

This is about standards.

LA will be a doper when he is proven to be a doper. Not strongly suspected, not whispered about.

Christianian VdV will be a doper when and if he is proven to be a doper.

Jan Ullrich is a doper because the money lead from him to Dr. Fuentes, and his DNA was in at least one of the bags.

Blogging is not going to solve the sports dopping issues. Blogging, and the net of suspicion and castigation actually make the problem worse - unless the accusations are backed up by proof.

What will bring down the doping, the actuality of doping is a sustained investigation into the systems and administration of dope. That requires police and detective grunt work. That requires following the money, raiding the storage faciulities, developing a testing regimine to catch doping riders. That is the unglamorous but productive world of the actuality of anti-doping. The end result of which, when this becomes public is that the accusation is followed up with -- evidence. Sortta like the bio-pass port announcements.

Taking a pot shot at Trek bikes? Not helping anything in the anti-doping fight.

Accusing Spartacus of mechanical doping? Not helping anything in the anti-doping fight.

 

[gree0232]

Greg was correct when he said "right now it is a corrupt system".
And your only response is that must ignore what he said and have 'faith' in that system??

Riis, Zabel, Aldag etc all admitted dopers that have not been sanctioned by the UCI, the system you have such trust in.

McQuaid said they would publish the letters from the laboratory on the UCI website - almost 2 weeks later and nothing. They are not able to produce the paperwork for the 'donation' or what was purchased. Why is that?

You mention Basso & Valverde - who were both sanctioned by CONI. Why do CONI have to do the UCI's job?
Do you know why WADA was set up? Because of the Festina affair.

How did the UCI help 'expose' Operation Puerto - which was a Police investigation? How did the UCI have anything to do with closing a loophole in the Spanish system - unless you mean not catch the athletes that doped?
While the Bio Passport has potential even those working on it admit its current limitations.

The reason many people say "everyone dopes" (which I do not believe) is because they have lost the trust of the UCI to do anti-doping - ignoring that problem will not make it go away.

A doper is someone who has taken PED's - a doper who gets caught by the UCI is unlucky.

Well Doc, you are dancing around what I said without really acknowledging what I said.

It is very easy to criticize, much harder to solve.

Let's take a look at what the UCI can and SHOULD do.

Should a international sporting agency have the power, indeed the right, to interfere in a National Court system?

The UCI has been involved since the story broke to try and get the Puerto evidence released. They cannot re-write an entore system of jurisprudence to facilitate one investigation.

Valverde got nailed because the TdF passed into Italy and he was tested and subsequently able to produce a DNA match through that method. That is an expensive and time consuming legal process, and it is a process that may or may not be useable with other riders. Does the TdF pass through Italy this year? Are there other methods being used to collect this needed data? (probably). Is it a good idea to publically engage in speculative press coverage on behalf of the UCI of these attempts BEFORE they produce results?

As for Zabel, Aldag, etc. There is a rule on the books that puts a statute of limitations on doping offenses. That rule applies to many other issues, including rape in many states. The UCI cannot simply ignore this rule.

Pat McQuaid MUST follow the rules.

If you do not have faith in what the UCI is doing, because it is not doing what it is not allowed to do ....

If you focus only on what limited time and resources are not doing and ignore what they are doing ....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well Doc, you are dancing around what I said without really acknowledging what I said.

It is very easy to criticize, much harder to solve.

Let's take a look at what the UCI can and SHOULD do.

Should a international sporting agency have the power, indeed the right, to interfere in a National Court system?

The UCI has been involved since the story broke to try and get the Puerto evidence released. They cannot re-write an entore system of jurisprudence to facilitate one investigation.

Valverde got nailed because the TdF passed into Italy and he was tested and subsequently able to produce a DNA match through that method. That is an expensive and time consuming legal process, and it is a process that may or may not be useable with other riders. Does the TdF pass through Italy this year? Are there other methods being used to collect this needed data? (probably). Is it a good idea to publically engage in speculative press coverage on behalf of the UCI of these attempts BEFORE they produce results?

As for Zabel, Aldag, etc. There is a rule on the books that puts a statute of limitations on doping offenses. That rule applies to many other issues, including rape in many states. The UCI cannot simply ignore this rule.

Pat McQuaid MUST follow the rules.

If you do not have faith in what the UCI is doing, because it is not doing what it is not allowed to do ....

If you focus only on what limited time and resources are not doing and ignore what they are doing ....

Greg was correct to highlight his disdain for the UCI.

When was the donation? Have you seen paperwork? Where is the promised "letters' from the laboratory?

Also you say that the UCI have been trying to get the Puerto evidence released - so you acknowledge that without Puerto that Valverde would be free to race & innocent. Why should Police investigations have to catch cheating athletes - when that is the job of the wonderful UCI?
Also - you do realize that the UCI called Manzano a lier when the story broke - just as they did with Landis.

Can you point out where Ullrich has been 'convicted' in a court of wherever takes your fancy? What happened your high standards? He has not been sanctioned -so in that regard - Ullrich is as innocent as Lance.

 

[gree0232]

Greg was correct to highlight his disdain for the UCI.

When was the donation? Have you seen paperwork? Where is the promised "letters' from the laboratory?

Also you say that the UCI have been trying to get the Puerto evidence released - so you acknowledge that without Puerto that Valverde would be free to race & innocent. Why should Police investigations have to catch cheating athletes - when that is the job of the wonderful UCI?
Also - you do realize that the UCI called Manzano a lier when the story broke - just as they did with Landis.

Can you point out where Ullrich has been 'convicted' in a court of wherever takes your fancy? What happened your high standards? He has not been sanctioned -so in that regard - Ullrich is as innocent as Lance.

Doc:
Armstrong's donation to the UCI has been known since it occured. It only became an issue when Floyd 'overheard' something on a ride.

You are also spinning what I am saying. Police actions are required to catch the SYSTEMS of doping. The UCI cannot get warrents and man power to raid facilities and collect evidence in criminal, and doping is a crime, action.

The UCI can and is working to develop tests and testing methods (like the bio-passport, like the whereabout system, like out of competition testing - and developing and raising funds to further invest in those activities) to nail guys that are doping. Is there a game afoot? Will there always be athletes looking for an edge by any means necessary? Is that a problem specific to cycling?

The mundane world of budgeting, a huge constraint on any system. Perhaps instead of making hash about that reality, you could advocate for an increase in donantions, etc. to help finance the real world activities of anti-doping.

Once again, it was not blogging that opened up Operation Puerto, it iwas the Guardia Civil.

 

[Race Radio]

Doc:
Armstrong's donation to the UCI has been known since it occured. It only became an issue when Floyd 'overheard' something on a ride.

If the "donation" has been known since it occurred then it should be easy for you to find a link from 2002 that talks about it. Let us know when you find that.

The "donation" became an issue when Sylvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of it's ethics committee said

"Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," she said. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong. The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - to my knowledge $500,000."

It was also an issue when Julien Devries told multiple people it was a payoff and the amount was $500,000. It was an issue when Lance lied about it under oath in the SCA case.

The amount of disinformation and outright lies you spew is impressive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doc:
Armstrong's donation to the UCI has been known since it occured. It only became an issue when Floyd 'overheard' something on a ride.

You are also spinning what I am saying. Police actions are required to catch the SYSTEMS of doping. The UCI cannot get warrents and man power to raid facilities and collect evidence in criminal, and doping is a crime, action.

The UCI can and is working to develop tests and testing methods (like the bio-passport, like the whereabout system, like out of competition testing - and developing and raising funds to further invest in those activities) to nail guys that are doping. Is there a game afoot? Will there always be athletes looking for an edge by any means necessary? Is that a problem specific to cycling?

The mundane world of budgeting, a huge constraint on any system. Perhaps instead of making hash about that reality, you could advocate for an increase in donantions, etc. to help finance the real world activities of anti-doping.

Once again, it was not blogging that opened up Operation Puerto, it iwas the Guardia Civil.

You say I am spinning what you say - ok then make it clear - who caught Valverde, the Police CONI or the UCI?

Lemond said "right now it is a corrupt system".

So the donation(s) were known about since when exactly?? Was it $25,000 as LA said are $100,000 as McQuaid said? Or $500,000 as Schnek believes? Was it in 2005 or 2006? Why did Lance and Bill say (under oath) that it was earlier than that? Have you seen any paperwork for any of this - surely if its above board there would be receipts and transaction sheets.

What word would you like to use to describe the above - for me "corrupt' sounds good.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Accusing Spartacus of mechanical doping? Not helping anything in the anti-doping fight.

For the last time, stop calling the guy Spartacus. It's so gay.

It's both an exaltative and a diminutive. You may as well call him Big Daddy Sugarlumps.

Or Kosmo Kramer coz he looks like him.

BTW: to keep this post on-topic, Lemond is right. He's been proven right so far. And he has some integrity; you just get a feel for people. Call it women's intuition if you like. LA=sleaze, both the town and the man.

 

[gree0232]

If the "donation" has been known since it occurred then it should be easy for you to find a link from 2002 that talks about it. Let us know when you find that.

The "donation" became an issue when Sylvia Schenk, UCI board member and head of it's ethics committee said



It was also an issue when Julien Devries told multiple people it was a payoff and the amount was $500,000. It was an issue when Lance lied about it under oath in the SCA case.

The amount of disinformation and outright lies you spew is impressive.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088

Well, your dates are wrong. The payment was made in 2005, Pat McQuaid has spoken about this in the past and in the present.

I am glad that one person, from the UCI says one much higher amount, and EVERYONE (including the rest of the UCI) else claims a smaller amount - and you go with the higher amount while charging everyone with lying? Interesting.

This was well known prior to Landis's silly accusation. And clearly, this is not about evidence, as everything that does not confirm your view is dismissed as LA love, and everything that does (no matter how improbable) is the honest to God truth.

I can't really help you is you will only see what you want.

 

[gree0232]

For the last time, stop calling the guy Spartacus. It's so gay.

It's both an exaltative and a diminutive. You may as well call him Big Daddy Sugarlumps.

Or Kosmo Kramer coz he looks like him.

BTW: to keep this post on-topic, Lemond is right. He's been proven right so far. And he has some integrity; you just get a feel for people. Call it women's intuition if you like. LA=sleaze, both the town and the man.

Yes, I am sure that Trek has been involved in systemic doping. I am sure that all the sponsors of cycling are involved in organized doping. I am sure that every team is involved in organized doping, and that the entire system is corrupt to its very core even as it takes greater strides than any other sport to combat doping.

He appears to be right on target.

 

[gree0232]

You say I am spinning what you say - ok then make it clear - who caught Valverde, the Police CONI or the UCI?

Lemond said "right now it is a corrupt system".

So the donation(s) were known about since when exactly?? Was it $25,000 as LA said are $100,000 as McQuaid said? Or $500,000 as Schnek believes? Was it in 2005 or 2006? Why did Lance and Bill say (under oath) that it was earlier than that? Have you seen any paperwork for any of this - surely if its above board there would be receipts and transaction sheets.

What word would you like to use to describe the above - for me "corrupt' sounds good.

Interesting, we've been over this doc.

You toss names out, but that whole system thing never gets mentioned. Schneck offered no proof to back up what she said. The $100,000 payment was known well before the past couple of weeks. Now attempting to spin it into corruption is just silly.

So, once again, Hein Verbruggen was in charge when the apparent doping positive was buried. Yet the payment was made in 2005, when Pat McQuaid was in charge. And the payment, which is publically acknowledged (interesting, as I have yet to see anyone ever gove a bribe while saying, "Heh look everyone I am giving a bribe!")

And of course by paying the UCI, we make the guy that collected the test go away, we get the guy that tested the anonymous sample (Heh, I found a positive in the TdS!) go away, we make the results to the IOC and WADA go away, and we make the same people within the UCI who would later leake Armstrongs control numbers go away, as well as the anti-doping portion of the UCI and Swiss federation just remain hushed.

That is a hell of a pay off from a public bribe.

And again, this massive corruption exists and is extended to .... only LA?????

Not only does the preponderance of the available evidence make this so unlikely as to be almost ludicrious, it would be nearly impossible to bribe the 'system' (which is more than the UCI) to make a positive test go away.

I suppose it makes great fodder and conspiracy, but it does not stand up to anything that would ever get by in front of any adjudicative authority (based on any standard).

As for the UCI or .... whatever. You are aware that there is more to anti-doping than just the UCI? You seem perfectly willing to downplay the UCI's legitimate roll in OP, and also fault it for not taking on the role of the Spanish Police (which it cannot do) and courts (which it cannot do).

The UCI HAS been pushing loudly and hard behind the scences for years to get Valverde. CONI, from Italy finally got the DNA sample. 'Someone' with in the Spanish system supplied the blood to get the match.

Now, what exactly was the UCI supposed to do here? As, simply put, if you ignore what the UCI is doing (Changes to WADA code, bio passport, where abouts system, iimproved testing methods and greater tests, cooperation with industry to develop tests, random out of competition testing) and try to fault them for not becoming a police agency (which they cannot do) ...

If you want to make all success the responsibility of everyone but the UCI, and everything bad the fault of the UCI .... How exactly does that help the anti-doping effort?

 

[CycloErgoSum]

uh, gree0232, your contributions to this forum are very impressive with regards to their detail and the time and effort you've taken. I'm just wondering what you do for money because you spend an awful lot of time championing the UCI and dumping on Greg Lemond.

I do admire your passion.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Interesting, we've been over this doc.

You toss names out, but that whole system thing never gets mentioned. Schneck offered no proof to back up what she said. The $100,000 payment was known well before the past couple of weeks. Now attempting to spin it into corruption is just silly.

So, once again, Hein Verbruggen was in charge when the apparent doping positive was buried. Yet the payment was made in 2005, when Pat McQuaid was in charge. And the payment, which is publically acknowledged (interesting, as I have yet to see anyone ever gove a bribe while saying, "Heh look everyone I am giving a bribe!")

And of course by paying the UCI, we make the guy that collected the test go away, we get the guy that tested the anonymous sample (Heh, I found a positive in the TdS!) go away, we make the results to the IOC and WADA go away, and we make the same people within the UCI who would later leake Armstrongs control numbers go away, as well as the anti-doping portion of the UCI and Swiss federation just remain hushed.

That is a hell of a pay off from a public bribe.

And again, this massive corruption exists and is extended to .... only LA?????

Not only does the preponderance of the available evidence make this so unlikely as to be almost ludicrious, it would be nearly impossible to bribe the 'system' (which is more than the UCI) to make a positive test go away.

I suppose it makes great fodder and conspiracy, but it does not stand up to anything that would ever get by in front of any adjudicative authority (based on any standard).

As for the UCI or .... whatever. You are aware that there is more to anti-doping than just the UCI? You seem perfectly willing to downplay the UCI's legitimate roll in OP, and also fault it for not taking on the role of the Spanish Police (which it cannot do) and courts (which it cannot do).

The UCI HAS been pushing loudly and hard behind the scences for years to get Valverde. CONI, from Italy finally got the DNA sample. 'Someone' with in the Spanish system supplied the blood to get the match.

Now, what exactly was the UCI supposed to do here? As, simply put, if you ignore what the UCI is doing (Changes to WADA code, bio passport, where abouts system, iimproved testing methods and greater tests, cooperation with industry to develop tests, random out of competition testing) and try to fault them for not becoming a police agency (which they cannot do) ...

If you want to make all success the responsibility of everyone but the UCI, and everything bad the fault of the UCI .... How exactly does that help the anti-doping effort?

What is the UCI to do? How about not taking large 'donations' from the athletes that it also responsible for catching?

Lemond called the parctise "corrupt"..... what word would you prefer to explian the following?

In the article you quoted from April 2005 - Armstrong said "It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".
Later that year during the SCA case he said it was $25,000? He confirmed that amount again in 2008.

Then Bill Stapelton said in 2005: "He -- yes, he gave a donation to the UCI three or four years ago. I think he's done that maybe once or twice.

You realise Pat said recently it was $100,000 and made in 2005?

Which contradicts what he said at the Play The Game conference in October 2007, Pat said;"in actual fact, about 15 months ago" - which makes it July 2006, right after the Vrijman report.

So which story is the correct one??
Why have the UCI not been able to produce paperwork if it was all above board??

 

[gree0232]

What is the UCI to do? How about not taking large 'donations' from the athletes that it also responsible for catching?

Lemond called the parctise "corrupt"..... what word would you prefer to explian the following?

In the article you quoted from April 2005 - Armstrong said "It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".
Later that year during the SCA case he said it was $25,000? He confirmed that amount again in 2008.

Then Bill Stapelton said in 2005: "He -- yes, he gave a donation to the UCI three or four years ago. I think he's done that maybe once or twice.

You realise Pat said recently it was $100,000 and made in 2005?

Which contradicts what he said at the Play The Game conference in October 2007, Pat said;"in actual fact, about 15 months ago" - which makes it July 2006, right after the Vrijman report.

So which story is the correct one??
Why have the UCI not been able to produce paperwork if it was all above board??

Yuo keep saying there are inconsistancies, but you provide no proof to back it up. Even Stapleton's comments 'once or twice' apparently means we should ignore the once portion? Just as we should ignore that the donation was given for anti-doping research and done in the open.

Then there is the reality of what has to happen to make a positive go away.

And then there is a qualification introduced on Lemond's comments, as if the UCI were the only part of the system?

Again, the claim is fantasical and simply not feasible in actuality. No one gives bribes in public in full view of the entire world.

We have known about this payment for years. It was not a secret and only the widst of stretches link this to a conversation overheard while riding and backed up by nothing.

In hindsight is the practice a conflict of interest. Sure. Is it proof of corruption - no. Is it proof that a positive was made to go away - no.

Are there people making hash out of this for reasons that have nothing to do with doping - you bet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yuo keep saying there are inconsistencies, but you provide no proof to back it up. Even Stapleton's comments 'once or twice' apparently means we should ignore the once portion? Just as we should ignore that the donation was given for anti-doping research and done in the open.

Then there is the reality of what has to happen to make a positive go away.

And then there is a qualification introduced on Lemond's comments, as if the UCI were the only part of the system?

Again, the claim is fantasical and simply not feasible in actuality. No one gives bribes in public in full view of the entire world.

We have known about this payment for years. It was not a secret and only the widst of stretches link this to a conversation overheard while riding and backed up by nothing.

In hindsight is the practice a conflict of interest. Sure. Is it proof of corruption - no. Is it proof that a positive was made to go away - no.

Are there people making hash out of this for reasons that have nothing to do with doping - you bet.

So - which story is true?
Isn't this similar to when you made the claim that you named the people in the Hospital Room, if you had you would be able to show it once and for all - the same as the UCI could publish the paperwork to show all was above board? Its as easy as that.

I have shown you the inconsistencies - what link would you like me to provide?
You said we have "known about this payment for years" - yet it was only revealed as Schnek made her comments that the UCI had accepted money from Armstrong. Why was it only revealed then?

Again if you don't like Lemonds use of the word 'corrupt' what word would you use instead?

 

[Anonymous]

You guys do realize that gree0232 is not interested in honest discourse? He is here to troll, and that is it. I have read many well reasoned responses to his posts, and each time he refuses to respond to anything you have said. He just moves the goal posts and writes some more dishonest comments sprinkled with enough barbs to keep you coming back. He is as good as BPC in his most trollrific moments, and yet you keep responding?

Do you not realize that his point is to keep you occupied responding to him and not to actually engage you in honest discourse? He wins every time not because the facts are on his side, they CLEARLY are not, but because he gets you to respond every time.

Just quit responding. It really is that simple.

 

[BikeCentric]

Doc, please stop quoting troll posts, you're breaking my ignore list.

Now let's all just put our faith and trust in Pat McQuaid and all will be well.