-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
The source is the French equivalent of Private Eye i.e. Satirical magazine.
Escarabajo said:
The source is the French equivalent of Private Eye i.e. Satirical magazine.
Re: Re:
Not really, while le canard is indeed a satirical magazine, they are also doing investigative journalism quite well and have revealed a lot of dirty business over the year, the last in date was the Fillon scandal which all but ended the Fillon candidacy to the presidency this year, check their history and how they operate, they are far more than "just" a satirical magazine.buckle said:
Re: Re:
OK but just making the point that Le CE ridicules the establishment.The absurdity which is the TdF is part of the establishment circus and the chance to use words like extra terrestrial when writing of it will not be missed ...
ColonelKidneyBeans said:
OK but just making the point that Le CE ridicules the establishment.The absurdity which is the TdF is part of the establishment circus and the chance to use words like extra terrestrial when writing of it will not be missed ...
Canard
Si ça ressemble à un canard,
si ça nage comme un canard et
si ça cancane comme un canard,
c'est qu'il s'agit sans doute d'un motor.
If it looks like a duck,
swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck,
then it probably is a motor
gratuitous Disney reference
Si ça ressemble à un canard,
si ça nage comme un canard et
si ça cancane comme un canard,
c'est qu'il s'agit sans doute d'un motor.
If it looks like a duck,
swims like a duck, and
quacks like a duck,
then it probably is a motor
gratuitous Disney reference
Re: Re:
Uh, Private Eye - and Le Canard enchaîné - it's also hard news. Private Eye was one of those reporting the Panama papers. Thinking it is 'just' satire is like the Facebook algorithm that decided it was fake news.buckle said:
Re: Re:
Frankly, this sort is good news for the Tour, good news for ASO, because now fans and sponsors can thing something is being done, les flics are on the case and it was les flics that gave us Festina. Even if nothing comes of it - and judicial enquiries like this are launched like Chinese lanterns - it will still have served its purpose of renewing confidence.
Wasn't it Le Monde that used extraterrestrial to describe Lance Armstrong? Can you get more 'establishment' than Le Monde?buckle said:
Frankly, this sort is good news for the Tour, good news for ASO, because now fans and sponsors can thing something is being done, les flics are on the case and it was les flics that gave us Festina. Even if nothing comes of it - and judicial enquiries like this are launched like Chinese lanterns - it will still have served its purpose of renewing confidence.
thehog
BANNED
Tonton said:
Must be coming soon..... the French are jealous. They are trying to make Bardet win the Tour by suspending the greatest GT rider of all time, in Froome.
Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy 
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Re:
Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?
samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?
thehog
BANNED
Re:
Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.
samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.
Re: Re:
Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president
https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481
TheSpud said:samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?
Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president
https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481
Re: Re:
Pretty tame by clinic standards I thought. UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing. I would have thought it was obvious why you might not want Cookson head of UCI while all that is happening. Knowing of a positive by the biggest British rider in cycling with a British Team at the moment, might guarantee you enough votes to sway the difference if you said, I'll make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet if you vote for me instead of Cookson who might try and brush it under the carpet. Pretty sure you yourself have claimed Cookson protects Sky & Team GB from testing positive ; )
thehog said:samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Maybe Lappartient spiked the sample himself? That’s some conspiracy theory you’ve got going on here, point being, why would a delegate care about an A sample AAF for Froome? They wouldn’t. You just have to face facts that Cookson lost the Presidency because he was a terrible President.
Pretty tame by clinic standards I thought. UCI Voting delegates are those at the top of each NGB who are all trying to beat GB & Sky and failing. I would have thought it was obvious why you might not want Cookson head of UCI while all that is happening. Knowing of a positive by the biggest British rider in cycling with a British Team at the moment, might guarantee you enough votes to sway the difference if you said, I'll make sure this doesn't get brushed under the carpet if you vote for me instead of Cookson who might try and brush it under the carpet. Pretty sure you yourself have claimed Cookson protects Sky & Team GB from testing positive ; )
Re:
I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:
Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:
But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...
"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"
I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?
samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:
Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:
But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...
"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"
I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?
For sure, the lesser of two evils.
If those voting Lappartient or Cookson delegates were not also those heading up the NGBs and the various World tour teams connected to them all trying to beat Team GB & Sky at Tour & Olympics and had Cookson not made his statement about how many delegates had confirmed they would vote for him directly after he lost to Lappartient with almost no votes in the end I would not have posted. As soon as I read McQuaids statement about Cookson knowing the AAF for the A Sample, then Mcquaid claiming when a big name rider AAFs you would know about it, but then Lappartient a day later I think it was claiming UCI don't know anything about an AAF something political is happening here, it must be. Doesn't change the AAF of course.
If those voting Lappartient or Cookson delegates were not also those heading up the NGBs and the various World tour teams connected to them all trying to beat Team GB & Sky at Tour & Olympics and had Cookson not made his statement about how many delegates had confirmed they would vote for him directly after he lost to Lappartient with almost no votes in the end I would not have posted. As soon as I read McQuaids statement about Cookson knowing the AAF for the A Sample, then Mcquaid claiming when a big name rider AAFs you would know about it, but then Lappartient a day later I think it was claiming UCI don't know anything about an AAF something political is happening here, it must be. Doesn't change the AAF of course.
Re: Re:
So Lappartient was told after the election (from what we know) so it couldnt really have been used during the election to help him / hinder Cookson.
I dont have a problem with the CADF reporting AAFs (especially of big name riders) to the UCI President. Its something that directly affects the sport they head up so its relevant information for them to know. I would have a problem if the UCI president told them to forget about / bury it.
CTQ said:TheSpud said:samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
Would Lappartient have been informed of the initial AAF?
Le Monde says UCI President David Lappartient was informed upon his election in Bergen, which makes us wonder about the independence of the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation if it reports news to the UCI president
https://twitter.com/inrng/status/940934502486036481
So Lappartient was told after the election (from what we know) so it couldnt really have been used during the election to help him / hinder Cookson.
I dont have a problem with the CADF reporting AAFs (especially of big name riders) to the UCI President. Its something that directly affects the sport they head up so its relevant information for them to know. I would have a problem if the UCI president told them to forget about / bury it.
Re:
My reading of Lappartient's comments at the time the Froome story broke (IIRC along the lines of "The UCI will follow due process this is nothing to do with me") is that he was distancing himself from any fallout if/when the sport's biggest rider and team get taken down. And I still think that's the most likely explanation for Lappartient's comments although I acknowledge it's possible he was also distancing himself from the leak of the Froome story
And FWIW I have no doubt that historically and in the present day all UCI Presidents were and are informed when a top rider trips the wire. Of course McQuaid wading in is amusing because, when bio-passport cases were run in-house by the UCI, IIRC step 5 of the process (after the 3 scientists agreeing the rider must be doping, etc) was that the UCI President had to sign off on the rider being busted. And who knows how many times McQuaid's dead hand stopped bio-passport cases in their tracks? McQuaid was a fan of sending a private final warning letter instead...
samhocking said:
My reading of Lappartient's comments at the time the Froome story broke (IIRC along the lines of "The UCI will follow due process this is nothing to do with me") is that he was distancing himself from any fallout if/when the sport's biggest rider and team get taken down. And I still think that's the most likely explanation for Lappartient's comments although I acknowledge it's possible he was also distancing himself from the leak of the Froome story
And FWIW I have no doubt that historically and in the present day all UCI Presidents were and are informed when a top rider trips the wire. Of course McQuaid wading in is amusing because, when bio-passport cases were run in-house by the UCI, IIRC step 5 of the process (after the 3 scientists agreeing the rider must be doping, etc) was that the UCI President had to sign off on the rider being busted. And who knows how many times McQuaid's dead hand stopped bio-passport cases in their tracks? McQuaid was a fan of sending a private final warning letter instead...
Re: Re:
Whatever you do, never let facts get in the way of a bit of tinfoil millinery. But, well, facts, please...the delegates are only 40-odd in number, and selected by the confederations.samhocking said:
Re: Re:
"Ça va mes amis, I know you were all deeply upset when USADA busted Lance et you passed a resolution saying just drop this stuff, mais guess what? Votez pour moi et I'll give you a doping scandal to rival the American! Votez pour moi! Votez pour moi!"Wiggo's Package said:
Re: Re:
So DL's winning strategy was to promise voters another Armstrong scandal? "It's exactly what our sport needs."
Lance's conspiracy, revealed in his podcast, that Disney are behind all of this has more credibility.
Wiggo's Package said:samhocking said:Posted this in Froome thread, but probably better here. Just my conspiracy after some xmas brandy
7th Sept - Froome provides A & B Urine sample after stage 18 Vuelta
21st Sept - A Sample AAF comes back and known by Froome & Cookson/UCI/Lappartient.
22nd Sept - Lappartient voted to replace Cookson.
Froome then asks for B sample to be analysed.
On some day between 21st Sept and 12th Dec Froome's B sample result is known by Lappartient/UCI, despite Lapartient claiming to the media that he doesn't receive any notifications of AAFs. McQuaid seems to think Cookson would have known about the A sample AAF of Froome though? Obviously Lappartient needs to separate himself from the leak maybe by saying he doesn't get WADA's AAF notifications?
Looking at dates, coincidence, i'd say Lappartient used knowledge of Froome's AAF under Cookson as a political tool to switch delegates vote therefore guaranteeing himself victory. It never made sense Cookson 24 hours before the election saying delegates were telling him they had his vote, yet the next day he had almost none? There could be other reasons, but an AAF falling into Lappartient's lap on the eve of his UCI election race, I simply can't believe he would have not used to his advantage to some extent with delegates of nations keen to topple British Cycling's success. I hope i'm wrong.
I've been thinking along the same lines - not often we agree, Sam :razz:
Held back from posting though - tinfoil hat quotient too high :lol:
But not impossible to imagine Lappartient's team having quiet words with the voting delegates...
"Froome's been busted. Brian's going to cover it up. To save the sport from itself you simply have to vote for our man"
I trust you agree that Froome doping and Brian covering it up are greater sins than Lappartient using the information for political advantage?
So DL's winning strategy was to promise voters another Armstrong scandal? "It's exactly what our sport needs."
Lance's conspiracy, revealed in his podcast, that Disney are behind all of this has more credibility.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 278
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram