Landis speaks on German television...

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Ferminal said:
"We've gone after Contador"

Right.
Indeed, that bit also struck me.
What about "The media and public opinion forced us to go after Contador, even though we were eager to let him off the hook"
 
Fat Pat said:
Also, the journalist who interviewed him should have asked him for proof.
So Fat is now claiming that the omerta doesn't exist?

Landis was asked questions and he gave answers. Why doesn't Fat attack the German TV producers instead - it's them that he should be threatening with legal action. Only he wouldn't dare, because it's a respectable state TV channel and it has a well-known anti-doping stance.

At least Contador inevitably getting off will look worse now.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
McQuaid: the only thing transparent about him is his dishonesty. An embarrassment to corrupt bureaucrats everywhere.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Maxiton said:
McQuaid: the only thing transparent about him is his dishonesty. An embarrassment to corrupt bureaucrats everywhere.
i think you are handing McQuaid a compliment by calling him a corrupt bureaucrat, the man is a bumbling mumbling idiot who keeps talking utter sh!te again and again. i bet he had to ring the irish independent and beg for an interview as no one would grant him one without him first answering their questions. guy is capitol Pr**k!
 
Nov 17, 2010
12
0
0
Benotti69 said:
i think you are handing McQuaid a compliment by calling him a corrupt bureaucrat, the man is a bumbling mumbling idiot who keeps talking utter sh!te again and again. i bet he had to ring the irish independent and beg for an interview as no one would grant him one without him first answering their questions. guy is capitol Pr**k!



The man on the very far left of this photo is the Irish Independent journalist who interviewed McQuaid. Something tells me Pat didn't have to beg.
 
Although personally I am somewhat doubtful that the Novisky investigation will actually result in much, it has the potential to blow a lot of these scumbags away. The trick is in finding the proof - hopefully it can be done.

If indeed McQuaid, Verdruggen and othere at the UCI are corrupt (as I believe them to be) then it would be such a wonderful feeling to see them fall.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
notcredible said:



The man on the very far left of this photo is the Irish Independent journalist who interviewed McQuaid. Something tells me Pat didn't have to beg.
probably not most journos are immoral and the indo does not have any morality in its offices. but no doubt the journo is getting a weekend in a lovely swiss cottage next year;)
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Pat speaks:
"Landis won the Tour and we went after him, Rasmussen was a Tour leader and we went after him, and now Contador. Landis talks about Clenbuterol being used. We've gone after Contador with only 50 pictograms of Clenbuterol in his system. This again proves that Landis' statement is complete fabrication."

But that was then; this is now.
 
Nov 9, 2010
295
0
0
Pat is a funny old man with troubles remembering things.

UCI werent after Rasmussen when was leading the Tour. They were actually protecting him. Telling people why they allowed Rasmussen to start the Tour, even when he had a warning and the rules stated a rider wasnt allowed to participate in a grand tour if he was given a warning prior to the GT.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
Pat speaks:
"Landis won the Tour and we went after him, Rasmussen was a Tour leader and we went after him, and now Contador. Landis talks about Clenbuterol being used. We've gone after Contador with only 50 pictograms of Clenbuterol in his system. This again proves that Landis' statement is complete fabrication."

But that was then; this is now.

What Floyd said was:
“It is known in the peloton that Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen or others responsible at the UCI over the last 20 years have protected some people and not others. That is the way they manipulate results and create stars.”

He added, ""as far as the UCI is concerned, nothing about a cover up or taking a bribe or some kind of race results manipulation would surprise me."
(emphasis mine)


Considering this, I don't see how Fat Pat McQuack thinks going after Lance's archenemy proves that the UCI doesn't play favorites. While I don't believe AC is clean, he is just another one in a long line of talented riders who left the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, only to pop positive the next year. In my opinion, the very predictability of AC's positive gives suspicions to undue influence at the UCI - some riders are protected and not others.

I would laugh so hard if Floyd found some way to sue McQuack over his latest claim that FL is a liar.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Beech Mtn said:
What Floyd said was:
(emphasis mine)


Considering this, I don't see how Fat Pat McQuack thinks going after Lance's archenemy proves that the UCI doesn't play favorites. While I don't believe AC is clean, he is just another one in a long line of talented riders who left the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, only to pop positive the next year. In my opinion, the very predictability of AC's positive gives suspicions to undue influence at the UCI - some riders are protected and not others.

I would laugh so hard if Floyd found some way to sue McQuack over his latest claim that FL is a liar.
who sent AC's sample to Cologne to get it tested with the new test? was it a uci decision, could McQuaid have had a hand in it being sent there? When the clen was found why not announce it if he wanted to hurt Contador?

Not defending the SackofSh!t that McQuaid is but wonder would he act against Contador for LA/Hog? seems unlikely.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Beech Mtn said:
What Floyd said was:
(emphasis mine)


Considering this, I don't see how Fat Pat McQuack thinks going after Lance's archenemy proves that the UCI doesn't play favorites. While I don't believe AC is clean, he is just another one in a long line of talented riders who left the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, only to pop positive the next year. In my opinion, the very predictability of AC's positive gives suspicions to undue influence at the UCI - some riders are protected and not others.

I would laugh so hard if Floyd found some way to sue McQuack over his latest claim that FL is a liar.
And by choosing the exact same line of attack as LA does (i.e. calling FL a liar), McVague gives further support to FL's claims.

I agree with Benotti, though: I rather think AC was supposed to be the new star and enjoyed protection from above. His positives weren't supposed to ever see the light of day, if you ask me. Perhaps McQuaid was waiting for a pay-off by AC's team, which is why the positive came out so late.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sniper said:
And by choosing the exact same line of attack as LA does (i.e. calling FL a liar), McVague gives further support to FL's claims.

I agree with Benotti, though: I rather think AC was supposed to be the new star and enjoyed protection from above. His positives weren't supposed to ever see the light of day, if you ask me. Perhaps McQuaid was waiting for a pay-off by AC's team, which is why the positive came out so late.
It seems to be fairly easy to connect the dots and I think your observation (and Benotti's) are correct.

As further eveidence of this all one has to do is look at McQuaid becoming unhinged when the ASO (under Patrice Clerc) decided they would not stand for the UCI "business as usual" model. The 2008 TdF was another example. The UCI lost the ability to conduct their pay-to-play scheme.

It really is too bad Clerc was booted from ASO. I think they would have (eventually) forced major change at the UCI and, furthermore, I think the sport would be much further down the path of cleaning itself up.

Plus, McQuaid would be back in an Irish pub somewhere instead of (still) having a mjor influence on pro cycling and its' future direction.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Scott SoCal said:
It seems to be fairly easy to connect the dots and I think your observation (and Benotti's) are correct.

As further eveidence of this all one has to do is look at McQuaid becoming unhinged when the ASO (under Patrice Clerc) decided they would not stand for the UCI "business as usual" model. The 2008 TdF was another example. The UCI lost the ability to conduct their pay-to-play scheme.

It really is too bad Clerc was booted from ASO. I think they would have (eventually) forced major change at the UCI and, furthermore, I think the sport would be much further down the path of cleaning itself up.

Plus, McQuaid would be back in an Irish pub somewhere instead of (still) having a mjor influence on pro cycling and its' future direction.
Clerc was definitely moving in the right direction. ASO were stupid to get rid of him. They might have had an 'almost' doping free tour by now...:(
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Benotti69 said:
Clerc was definitely moving in the right direction. ASO were stupid to get rid of him. They might have had an 'almost' doping free tour by now...:(
Interesting, though, that Clerc's disappearance coincided more or less with Armstrong's return.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
2
0
sniper said:
And by choosing the exact same line of attack as LA does (i.e. calling FL a liar), McVague gives further support to FL's claims.

I agree with Benotti, though: I rather think AC was supposed to be the new star and enjoyed protection from above. His positives weren't supposed to ever see the light of day, if you ask me. Perhaps McQuaid was waiting for a pay-off by AC's team, which is why the positive came out so late.
Could be. Maybe Astana didn't want to pay up to keep the positive from coming out. Maybe AC didn't pay either, playing brinksmanship and threatening to retire instead. Maybe there was a bidding war between LA and AC. Who knows? Like Floyd said, nothing much about the UCI and bribes would surprise me. :(

We will probably never know what all actually goes on in cycling behind closed doors.
 
biopass said:
Pat is a funny old man with troubles remembering things.

UCI werent after Rasmussen when was leading the Tour. They were actually protecting him. Telling people why they allowed Rasmussen to start the Tour, even when he had a warning and the rules stated a rider wasnt allowed to participate in a grand tour if he was given a warning prior to the GT.
+1.

I know, the UCI can not take credit for Rassmussen. Cassani is the one who brought him down.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Beech Mtn said:
Could be. Maybe Astana didn't want to pay up to keep the positive from coming out. Maybe AC didn't pay either, playing brinksmanship and threatening to retire instead. Maybe there was a bidding war between LA and AC. Who knows? Like Floyd said, nothing much about the UCI and bribes would surprise me. :(

We will probably never know what all actually goes on in cycling behind closed doors.
As McQuaid just said recently, WADA gets the same report that the UCI gets after a test is done. But: the UCI does seem to have this vague "buffer zone" of latitude available to them after the B-sample comes back. It sounds like they tried to argue on AC's behalf and got WADA to at least investigate. I wonder how many other riders have returned a positive test, got personal UCI "intervention" and then for some forever unknown reason, WADA was successfully "tamed".

I have a feeling that the UCI comes to the immediate defense of stars or "protected" riders and perhaps plays a really hard-ball game of negotiation back and forth with WADA. WADA might just be deciding to choose its battles.
 
Nov 24, 2010
263
1
0
MadonePro said:
Unless of course you work for the above (which you won't, because you wouldn't be in a forum), your knowledge of what the AFLD have or have not, is utter nonsense.

It comes as no surprise to me, that the organisations investigating this matter, are being thorough. That is part of the process, you know, find the truth, eliminate inaccuracies and lies, and examine all the evidence provided, and come to a mature, considered decision, based on that.

Shame most in here cannot understand that concept.


Personally, I couldn't care whether Lance et al are found to be cheating, my concern is that people are treated properly and decently.
Is it fair that lives and careers can be ruined because of this
?

well madone, you made some very relevant points in your post. If I may reiterate

1: find the truth - most importantly reveal the truth to the world, not just cycling media. Floyd helped kickstart it
2: eliminate inaccuracies - I myself would prefer cycling records, palmares etc be adjusted
3: eliminate lies - most in the clinic know the lies. When the truth is revealed, lies will become public knowledge
4: examine all the evidence - yep, exactly what Novitzky & co are doing. I noticed in the balco case, the feds collabarated with USADA. To me that is another valid point regarding current investigations. At this moment, we can only speculate on possible criminal charges.


well madone, right here at this byte we cross swords

a: Personally, I couldn't care whether Lance et al are found to be cheating - well I do care
i: cheating does not convey a good message to budding professionals does it?
ii: cheating in any professional sports is actually fraud($$, euros, sponsorships, etc, etc)
iii: cheating can result in innacurate sporting results, records and palmares

b: people are treated properly and decently - agreed, but you have contradicted yourself. Cheating does not treat other people properly and decently.

c: Is it fair that lives and careers can be ruined because of this? - no definitely not. If I can extrapolate(huge word for moi) and this has been covered before: greg, betsy, stephanie, mr anderson, etc. I will add SCA to the list
How many riders, have lost their contract and career because they refused to be boosted? speculation figures!!

cheers dallas
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
biopass said:
Pat is a funny old man with troubles remembering things.

UCI werent after Rasmussen when was leading the Tour. They were actually protecting him. Telling people why they allowed Rasmussen to start the Tour, even when he had a warning and the rules stated a rider wasnt allowed to participate in a grand tour if he was given a warning prior to the GT.
Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour. Saying things like "it will be bad for the sport if Rasmussen wins" ect ect.
 
Altitude said:
Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour. Saying things like "it will be bad for the sport if Rasmussen wins" ect ect.
Really?

"there is no doping case of Michael Rasmussen" he said at the 2007 Tour. Defending the rider should stay ithe race.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Altitude said:
Well he was publicly criticizing Rasmussen throughout the Tour. Saying things like "it will be bad for the sport if Rasmussen wins" ect ect.
McQuaid deliberately withheld the information about the Chicken's missed tests in order to cause maximum embarrassment to the ASO. The UCI rules at the time were clear, miss a OOC in the 6 weeks prior to a GT and you cannot start the GT. Rass missed 6, the UCI knew this and told nobody until the Tour was starting.

Armstrong and Verbruggen had put together a group that attempted to buy the Tour earlier that year. They were unable to raise the funding necessary so as Prudohomme says
“Verbruggen wanted to buy the Tour, but the price was too high, so now he wants to get the price down,”
 
Oct 11, 2010
777
0
0
thehog said:
Really?

"there is no doping case of Michael Rasmussen" he said at the 2007 Tour. Defending the rider should stay ithe race.
Yes, really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntwELfJnq9Y&feature=channel

^^^At about the 1:20 mark Rasmussen is asked to respond to McQuaid's statements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/6916698.stm

"The team decided to pull him out - that's their prerogative. I can only applaud that. It's a zero-tolerance policy and it's a lesson for the future."
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS