Lance v. Contador - revisited?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Maxiton said:
I hear what you're saying, but would remind you, first of all, that "deep into conspiracy theories" is the first objection people make when you suggest that LA, his team, a bunch of doctors, a Swiss lab, and the UCI all worked together over seven years to ensure that LA won the Tour without failing a drug test (or without being caught). From non-Clinicians the usual response is, "Come on, you don't really expect me to believe that, do you?"

Behind every human misdeed involving more than one person lies a conspiracy. By definition. So "deep into conspiracy theories" means absolutely zilch.

As for Armstrong complicity in the Contador positive: As someone else explained above, they couldn't have AC going positive while he was on their team, for their own reasons. The following year, when he was on a different team, was a different story. But why then was UCI so slow? For one thing, the UCI is no monolith; one corrupt guy there may not know what another corrupt guy there is doing. Second, AC is a huge figure in pro cycling, arguably second only to Armstrong. So even though you've stuck the knife in him with one hand, it would be important to comfort him and appear to be trying to help him with the other . . . .
Fair enough. But with Armstrong, we had far more to work with than the thoughts that emerged from beneath our tin foil hats. Association with Carmichael, association with Ferrari, O'Reilly/Andreus/Anderson, Simeoni, disposing of medical waste... the list goes on. All of that before the retroactive testing of the 1999 urine samples and all that unfolded thereafter. It was weak as evidence, but more than enough to form a reasonable suspicion. We have none of that with Armstrong conspiring to set up Contador. Nothing but the fact that Armstrong was powerful and jealous, and that isn't enough to make me think that he could persuade the UCI to destroy their present star for the sake of their past star. And, I would think that scientists everywhere would tend to be a bit upset by the attacks on the competence and professionalism of the French labs and their technicians made by Armstrong over the years. Are we assuming that Armstrong also reached into the Cologne lab and persuaded someone to risk his professional reputation for the benefit of some vindictive American who smeared his profession?
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
pedaling squares said:
Fair enough. But with Armstrong, we had far more to work with than the thoughts that emerged from beneath our tin foil hats. Association with Carmichael, association with Ferrari, O'Reilly/Andreus/Anderson, Simeoni, disposing of medical waste... the list goes on. All of that before the retroactive testing of the 1999 urine samples and all that unfolded thereafter. It was weak as evidence, but more than enough to form a reasonable suspicion. We have none of that with Armstrong conspiring to set up Contador. Nothing but the fact that Armstrong was powerful and jealous, and that isn't enough to make me think that he could persuade the UCI to destroy their present star for the sake of their past star. And, I would think that scientists everywhere would tend to be a bit upset by the attacks on the competence and professionalism of the French labs and their technicians made by Armstrong over the years. Are we assuming that Armstrong also reached into the Cologne lab and persuaded someone to risk his professional reputation for the benefit of some vindictive American who smeared his profession?
What we're talking about here, to be clear, is a further accusation against Armstrong and some of his co-conspirators. So everything you've listed lends a bit more credibility to our suspicion, not less. Add to this the list of ex-Armstrong teammates turned rivals, who turned up positive. Basically no one ever escaped his team into a leading role elsewhere. Add to this more still. Add Armstrong's strong desire to protect his legacy as the most winning Tour rider ever. Add the possibility AC would win more Tours, thus eclipsing LA. Add LA's need to slap down AC in front of everyone, on account of AC having the nerve to win the maillot jaune when LA wanted it.

But what of the UCI? How could Armstrong "persuade the UCI to destroy their present star for the sake of their past star"? Well, let me ask you this: how could Armstrong persuade the UCI to do a 180 and come out suddenly against USADA, despite the obvious fact that this would make UCI appear less than even-handed, and even corrupt? I mean, in doing this they really cast themselves in a bad light, but they did it anyway. How'd they get talked into that? And besides, who's to say Contador is their star? He is the star of Manolo Saiz and of Spain, but I get the strong impression UCI would prefer a Northern European or Anglo-American. They think there's more money in it for them with that type of rider, and they may be right.

Are we assuming that Armstrong also reached into the Cologne lab and persuaded someone to risk his professional reputation for the benefit of some vindictive American who smeared his profession?
I don't think this is required. All that's required is to send Contador's sample for extraordinary scrutiny (as opposed to the regular lab testing samples are normally subject to). We know he's a doper - moreover, LA knows it - so if you can search the sample for a few atoms of something, you're bound to find them, no matter how careful the rider was.
 
Maxiton said:
I don't think this is required. All that's required is to send Contador's sample for extraordinary scrutiny. We know he's a doper - moreover, LA knows that - so if you can search the sample for a few atoms of something, you're bound to find them, no matter how careful the rider was.
Now that is a possibility. JB might have known that AC used Clen as a masking agent, and could have arranged with UCI to send his samples to Cologne, may be with special instructions,"look out for Clen":D
 
May 19, 2011
4,857
1
0
Maxiton said:
That's what I've always said. In fact, I said it the same year Contador was riding with Lance: "Next year, look for Contador to go positive. Why? Because every cyclist who's ridden with Lance, crossed him, and left the team, has gone positive. Why should Alberto be any different?" So I wasn't surprised when it happened.

EDIT: I also think LA may have been complicit in Landis's positive. LA and Hein were trying at the time to buy the Tour from the Amuary family, but were finding it cost too much. The Tour winner going positive might lower the race's value considerably. And I'm pretty sure LA had nothing but contempt for Landis . . . .
never even thought of that, Lance is evil if that is true lol
 
Mar 11, 2010
111
0
0
Maxiton said:
That's what I've always said. In fact, I said it the same year Contador was riding with Lance: "Next year, look for Contador to go positive. Why? Because every cyclist who's ridden with Lance, crossed him, and left the team, has gone positive. Why should Alberto be any different?" So I wasn't surprised when it happened.

EDIT: I also think LA may have been complicit in Landis's positive. LA and Hein were trying at the time to buy the Tour from the Amuary family, but were finding it cost too much. The Tour winner going positive might lower the race's value considerably. And I'm pretty sure LA had nothing but contempt for Landis . . . .
Yes, or at least very close.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Maxiton said:
What we're talking about here, to be clear, is a further accusation against Armstrong and some of his co-conspirators. So everything you've listed lends a bit more credibility to our suspicion, not less. Add to this the list of ex-Armstrong teammates turned rivals, who turned up positive. Basically no one ever escaped his team into a leading role elsewhere. Add to this more still. Add Armstrong's strong desire to protect his legacy as the most winning Tour rider ever. Add the possibility AC would win more Tours, thus eclipsing LA. Add LA's need to slap down AC in front of everyone, on account of AC having the nerve to win the maillot jaune when LA wanted it.

But what of the UCI? How could Armstrong "persuade the UCI to destroy their present star for the sake of their past star"? Well, let me ask you this: how could Armstrong persuade the UCI to do a 180 and come out suddenly against USADA, despite the obvious fact that this would make UCI appear less than even-handed, and even corrupt? I mean, in doing this they really cast themselves in a bad light, but they did it anyway. How'd they get talked into that? And besides, who's to say Contador is their star? He is the star of Manolo Saiz and of Spain, but I get the strong impression UCI would prefer a Northern European or Anglo-American. They think there's more money in it for them with that type of rider, and they may be right.

I don't think this is required. All that's required is to send Contador's sample for extraordinary scrutiny (as opposed to the regular lab testing samples are normally subject to). We know he's a doper - moreover, LA knows it - so if you can search the sample for a few atoms of something, you're bound to find them, no matter how careful the rider was.
Well, I think that the things I listed suggested that Armstrong doped, but there is really little to nothing to suggest that he can influence the results of others' tests. I agree that it is suspicious that so many former teammates tested positive after leaving USPS/Disco, but always figured that it was more an indication of the protection afforded to LA/JB than a conspiracy against those who would follow their own paths.

As for the UCI, I figure that the motivation for their ridiculous stance against USADA was self-preservation - the desire to do whatever they could to prevent any evidence of corruption within their ranks from coming to light via arbitration.

I agree that the UCI would rather see blonde Andy than Spanish Berty as their tour champion. Here's a conspiracy - maybe they influenced Frank's positive so that Andy could ride on his own next year instead of holding back for Frank! :D
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
pedaling squares said:
Well, I think that the things I listed suggested that Armstrong doped, but there is really little to nothing to suggest that he can influence the results of others' tests.
1) The things you listed suggest that LA is crooked, and that those around him are crooked, and that UCI is in cahoots with them. Which points to

2) Contador's sample put under the ultra microscope. Once again, we are not talking about influencing test results. It isn't necessary to do that. Simply send the Contador sample off for extraordinary scrutiny. (And this is exactly what happened.)

I agree that it is suspicious that so many former teammates tested positive after leaving USPS/Disco, but always figured that it was more an indication of the protection afforded to LA/JB than a conspiracy against those who would follow their own paths.
I always assumed the same. But Contador is organized and professional enough, and careful enough, that he isn't going to get caught unless he is specifically targeted, and even then only if subjected to the most rigorous laboratory scrutiny, far beyond the usual. It so happens he was so targeted - the very year following his public humiliation of Armstrong. (Though truth be told Armstrong humiliated himself, but you can be sure he didn't see it that way.)

As for the UCI, I figure that the motivation for their ridiculous stance against USADA was self-preservation - the desire to do whatever they could to prevent any evidence of corruption within their ranks from coming to light via arbitration.
Maybe. But your hypothesis would be stronger if their objections had been been strenuous from the outset. Instead, they did a last minute 180 that had "complicity" written all over it.

I agree that the UCI would rather see blonde Andy than Spanish Berty as their tour champion. Here's a conspiracy - maybe they influenced Frank's positive so that Andy could ride on his own next year instead of holding back for Frank! :D
At this point nothing would surprise me. Except maybe someone at UCI being intelligent enough to figure that one out. :D
 
Aug 6, 2009
61
0
0
When Giro director Zommegan went to Texas in late 2008 to visit Lance they brokered a mutually beneficial deal.
Shortly after his visit, Zomegan announced that samples from that year's Giro would not be retested for CERA, thus saving Contador but more importantly assuring that Astana would not face being excluded from the Tdf for a second year.
A short while later Armstrong fulfilled his part of the deal and announced that he would be riding the 2009 Giro.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Moller said:
When Giro director Zommegan went to Texas in late 2008 to visit Lance they brokered a mutually beneficial deal.
Shortly after his visit, Zomegan announced that samples from that year's Giro would not be retested for CERA, thus saving Contador but more importantly assuring that Astana would not face being excluded from the Tdf for a second year.
A short while later Armstrong fulfilled his part of the deal and announced that he would be riding the 2009 Giro.
Got a link to the visit?
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
Thank you. I did search but only found forum posts.

ETA; time line disagrees with original post? He announced no retest on Sept 1 and visited LA Sept 29?
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
the big ring said:
Thank you. I did search but only found forum posts.

ETA; time line disagrees with original post? He announced no retest on Sept 1 and visited LA Sept 29?
But they could have easily come to that agreement by phone, provisionally, and then firmed up details during Zomegnan's visit.

Here's Italian National Champion Simeoni turning in his Tricolor jersey in protest at being excluded from the "L.A. Giro".

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cycling&id=4137419
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Moller said:
When Giro director Zommegan went to Texas in late 2008 to visit Lance they brokered a mutually beneficial deal.
Shortly after his visit, Zomegan announced that samples from that year's Giro would not be retested for CERA, thus saving Contador but more importantly assuring that Astana would not face being excluded from the Tdf for a second year.
A short while later Armstrong fulfilled his part of the deal and announced that he would be riding the 2009 Giro.
good stuff. To the bold: were there rumors or particular indications that Contador had been on CERA?

the big ring said:
Good grief.
:D, indeed.
 
Jun 2, 2010
377
0
0
Maxiton said:
What we're talking about here, to be clear, is a further accusation against Armstrong and some of his co-conspirators. So everything you've listed lends a bit more credibility to our suspicion, not less. Add to this the list of ex-Armstrong teammates turned rivals, who turned up positive. Basically no one ever escaped his team into a leading role elsewhere. Add to this more still. Add Armstrong's strong desire to protect his legacy as the most winning Tour rider ever. Add the possibility AC would win more Tours, thus eclipsing LA. Add LA's need to slap down AC in front of everyone, on account of AC having the nerve to win the maillot jaune when LA wanted it.

But what of the UCI? How could Armstrong "persuade the UCI to destroy their present star for the sake of their past star"? Well, let me ask you this: how could Armstrong persuade the UCI to do a 180 and come out suddenly against USADA, despite the obvious fact that this would make UCI appear less than even-handed, and even corrupt? I mean, in doing this they really cast themselves in a bad light, but they did it anyway. How'd they get talked into that? And besides, who's to say Contador is their star? He is the star of Manolo Saiz and of Spain, but I get the strong impression UCI would prefer a Northern European or Anglo-American. They think there's more money in it for them with that type of rider, and they may be right.

I don't think this is required. All that's required is to send Contador's sample for extraordinary scrutiny (as opposed to the regular lab testing samples are normally subject to). We know he's a doper - moreover, LA knows it - so if you can search the sample for a few atoms of something, you're bound to find them, no matter how careful the rider was.
That is what I was thinking for a long time.
Let's not forget that LA is far richer than any other cyclist by far. Like really rich. We do know about his two "donations" to UCI. About how many we don't know?
And I do think that Bruyneel is in. Just ask Frank Schleck.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS