- Jun 19, 2009
Merckx index said:3) help from UCI - It has also been alleged that LA was able to avoid being tested at critical times, or that incriminating test results were covered up.
Thats pretty much it - it was not something the UCI (or Armstrong) decided - they were forced to react to a situation.Muriel said:That is something that puzzles me. It doesn't make a great deal of sense when you look at it. There are several maybes I can concoct, but they are all just guess work.
But perhaps I am looking at it from the wrong direction. Perhaps UCI didn't decide, as such (and never did). Perhaps it was a deal 'put to them' so to speak. I mean, if Armstrong did have a superior training programme and preparation method - is it beyond possibility that he made inquiries, spoke to the right people, made it worth their while etc etc etc??? Slowly and gradually formed mutually beneficial relations with key individuals?? It's all just conjecture on my part, not even conjecture really, it's way looser than that.
What I am saying is that there are always many possible ways to get where we are. The seemingly most obvious way is not necessarily the one that was taken.
The 99 Tour was billed as the 'Tour of Redemption' after the Fetina 98 Tour.
Add to that Pantani being kicked off the Giro the sport was in a mess.
The last thing needed was another large scandal.
As an example - when Ludo Dierckxsens won a stage he reported at drug controlle and when asked had he taken any medications he said he had taken Cortisone . This set off a some panic at the Tour and Ludo was quickly withdrawn from the race (funny part is that his test would eventually come back negative).
I don't believe that LA the cancer survivor saved him - I think it was because he was a GT contender and a TUE would get the Tour organisers and the UCI out of the jam.