Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 131 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Excellent reporting by NY Velocity there, thanks.

Sounds like 60min did an outstanding job packing as much as possible into 60mins. And getting a bit of detail we didn't know yet. And now it's out there in the MSM!
I wonder if Oprah will be able to still use this for her infomercial with Lance. May have been recorded already. Wish it's not. Else my Austin spy is going to have it.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
Yes this is the bit that was originally missing in the reasoned decision, ie the real meat on UCI complicity in the LA case. Of course the reasoned decision was never about UCI per se.

With the Oprah interview now scheduled, the UCI investigation under way, Tygart has obviously decided now is as good a time as any to go public with this part of the story.

I am not sure if a "Showtime" disclosure will achieve sufficient media pick up on what is essentially explosive testimony that should see the end of Pat & Hein.

Nevertheless let's see how this is picked up by the media, the "independent" investigation, Oprah, and whether additional juice will come out in the next few weeks or so...

Riveting stuff.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
reginagold said:
Additional witnesses and evidence have surfaced over last few months, so maybe he has some additional back up that he didn't have earlier. Or maybe this info wasn't needed since Lance gave up his right to contest USADA. Or maybe it's more important this info be used in the Hog proceedings?

Simple answer. UCI would never have ratified the USADA report if that meant throwing themselves under the bus as well. TT knew that, and picked another time for that battle.
 
Merckx index said:
Holy Sh!t! This is a bombshell:
...
I thought the same thing. That and armstrong having met with TT to discuss the "path to redemption." His gall almost leaves me speechless, then I am reminded who it is.

armstrong didn't need to give as much cold hard cash to UCI as he attempted to donate to USADA, UCI's fringe benefits were taken into consideration.

Thanks for the links RR, the NYvelocity smiling Oprah avatar is priceless.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
Simple answer. UCI would never have ratified the USADA report if that meant throwing themselves under the bus as well. TT knew that, and picked another time for that battle.
Makes sense but Saugy has denied it was a positive since 2011, has that changed recently?
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
Simple answer. UCI would never have ratified the USADA report if that meant throwing themselves under the bus as well. TT knew that, and picked another time for that battle.
Very astute observation.

In addition the report was not a report on the UCI.

The UCI battle is for Bruyneel when he goes full genius.
 
Jun 22, 2009
794
0
0
Tinman said:
Yes this is the bit that was originally missing in the reasoned decision, ie the real meat on UCI complicity in the LA case. Of course the reasoned decision was never about UCI per se.

With the Oprah interview now scheduled, the UCI investigation under way, Tygart has obviously decided now is as good a time as any to go public with this part of the story.
TT is painting his masterpiece. the USPS case is his mona lisa. i'm thorougly impressed with his manipulation of the media. he's comfortable as both aggressor and counterpuncher with well timed disclosures. it's been beautiful to watch.

it looks like a completely uneven playing field, like school children competing against grown men. TT as billy madison swatting away the pitiful attempts lobbed up by 3rd graders. LA (and the few friends he has left) are so obviously overmatched intellectually i wonder why they bother. they are a total embarrassment to themselves.
 
Dimspace angry at Anthony Tan


Anthony Tan: "No wonder the likes of David Walsh, Paul Kimmage and the rest of those – that is, us – who care about salvaging and restoring cycling’s battered reputation and its beleaguered victims, continue to feel aggrieved and peeved."

Anthony Tan, how dare you, seriously, how ****ing dare you, even try and put your name in with Kimmage and Walsh as "us" You were right up there with the knowledgeless apologists.. Now you want to jump on the bandwagon.. **** right off!

The only thing worse than someone whos late to the party, is someone whos late, turns up without a bottle, proceeds to drink everyone elses beer and then tries to shag drunk blokes girlfriend.. Tan, you are late to the party sucker


Kimmage, Walsh, Tan, US.. Spot the odd one out..
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
lean said:
TT is painting his masterpiece. the USPS case is his mona lisa. i'm thorougly impressed with his manipulation of the media. he's comfortable as both aggressor and counterpuncher with well timed disclosures. it's been beautiful to watch.

it looks like a completely uneven playing field, like school children competing against grown men. TT as billy madison swatting away the pitiful attempts lobbed up by 3rd graders. LA (and the few friends he has left) are so obviously overmatched intellectually i wonder why they bother. they are a total embarrassment to themselves.
agree.
However, UCI can deny like they always do and go on with business as usual.
It'll be Saugy's word against UCI's.
UCI will simply sit this one out, like they're sitting out basically everything that is thrown their way.
Silence is their strategy. Not respond to anything or anyone.
Unless Bruyneel or Lance unexpectedly decide to come out of the closet, i think a bit more is needed to tumble Phat and Heinous.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
webvan said:
Makes sense but Saugy has denied it was a positive since 2011, has that changed recently?
From what I read in French and English over the last few years, Saugy says that his opinion as a lab director was that the test results led him to believe that EPO was used to manipulate the blood.

He never really goes so far as to say there was an 'official' positive which begs the question as to what is required, and who is required to declare a test 'positive'. It appears that the leadership of the UCI chose to use its discretion in the determination of what a 'lab' positive versus a 'UCI' positive was based on.

If Saugy was 'directed' by the UCI to share info with LA and JB to assist in staying negative, the million dollar question becomes: If Lance was 'protected' why would LA and JB care if a positive result was produced?
 
May 18, 2011
462
0
0
^ Because of the old "I never tested positive" chestnut I guess? Also if it's gonna cost 100 grand to cover up it makes financial sense as well.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
...

If Saugy was 'directed' by the UCI to share info with LA and JB to assist in staying negative, the million dollar question becomes: If Lance was 'protected' why would LA and JB care if a positive result was produced?
but not all the testing was done by the UCI, was it? So he would still benefit greatly from learning how to prevent an EPO positive.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
From what I read in French and English over the last few years, Saugy says that his opinion as a lab director was that the test results led him to believe that EPO was used to manipulate the blood.

He never really goes so far as to say there was an 'official' positive which begs the question as to what is required, and who is required to declare a test 'positive'. It appears that the leadership of the UCI chose to use its discretion in the determination of what a 'lab' positive versus a 'UCI' positive was based on.

If Saugy was 'directed' by the UCI to share info with LA and JB to assist in staying negative, the million dollar question becomes: If Lance was 'protected' why would LA and JB care if a positive result was produced?
Because the test was very new. The “delta range” between positive, suspicious and negative was a moving target. Lance wasn’t too worried about testing positive but the risk was always much lower if you didn't test positive as you don’t have to deal with a lab acting “independently” and releasing a result (ie say in Floyd's case).

Having the “inside track” on how positive tests were determined to pass onto Ferrari for Lance and the entire team was “gold” information. ie it took Ferrari 5 minutes from that point to devise microdosing.

Put him way ahead of the curve of any other rider.

It goes a long way to show why USPS never tested positive but did so once they left.
 
sniper said:
Or (arguably) Contador's case..

Correct. Labs were leaking positives because for a long time as they’d report the A sample to the UCI and they’d never hear about it again. The B sample would never be tested. The only way to force the UCI arm was to release it early.

This also worked in reverse whereby the UCI would leak information on the A sample positive giving no chance for the athlete to have an “out”. The media had already condemned them.

HV used the labs to his advantage. The ones in Spain were much more compliant in giving him information.

Lance never trust CM in France as he and the UCI didn’t have a hold over them like they did say with the one based in Lausanne.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
thehog said:
Because the test was very new. The “delta range” between positive, suspicious and negative was a moving target. Lance wasn’t too worried about testing positive but the risk was always much lower if you didn't test positive as you don’t have to deal with a lab acting “independently” and releasing a result (ie say in Floyd's case).

Having the “inside track” on how positive tests were determined to pass onto Ferrari for Lance and the entire team was “gold” information. ie it took Ferrari 5 minutes from that point to devise microdosing.

Put him way ahead of the curve of any other rider.

It goes a long way to show why USPS never tested positive but did so once they left.
Fair enough. It is still bewildering that the UCI set the meeting up which they had to have known would undermine the effectiveness of the test for the entire peleton, not just one rider.

The more that comes out, the more this is turning into a Ren and Stimpy episode.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
Fair enough. It is still bewildering that the UCI set the meeting up which they had to have known would undermine the effectiveness of the test for the entire peleton, not just one rider.

The more that comes out, the more this is turning into a Ren and Stimpy episode.
Completely agree. But the UCI had to give the appearance of being “anti-doping” but they had no interest in athletes actually testing positive. Especially the golden goose. By giving LA the keys to the EPO test ensured that Lance or USPS wasn’t going to be testing positive in any lab.

USADA refused the Lance donation, which the UCI accepted and that Saugy gave away the “Da Vinci code” to the EPO test which the UCI aided and assisted Armstrong in obtaining.

How could Armstrong lose? With all the “extra” help he had, he would have had to be completely useless to lose the Tour. His advantage over the other athletes was too great and I don’t mean athletically.
 
We to have some serious quantities of hilarious t-shirts made to exploit the boohoo show. We have a week to make this happen. Proceeds to the Lance Victim Fund.
Don't wait for the show to broadcast, get busy!
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Fortyninefourteen said:
Fair enough. It is still bewildering that the UCI set the meeting up which they had to have known would undermine the effectiveness of the test for the entire peleton, not just one rider.

The more that comes out, the more this is turning into a Ren and Stimpy episode.
Arguably more remarkable is that UCI clearly knew about Lance's near-EPO-pos, yet went on to defend him unconditionally in 2005 when actual EPO-pos-tests of Lance surfaced.

Add to that (the timing of) the donations, and me thinks Kimmage has a case.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,320
0
0
Benotti69 said:
According to his teammates that spoke to Tygart he doped!

It really is funny that he has to twist everything. Before is it was never doped, then never tested positive now it is according to all the other dopers who like him still he won. That is a pretty small minority. Merckx, Livingston, Eki, Popo, Bruyneel...........

He is almost at the bottom of the barrel.
Pardon me Dutch [:D] but he states 'according to my peers I won the Tour seven times'. Peers meaning equals. He has no equals because he is cancerJezus, wonderman, superman, wonderLance.

This guy needs a shrink. Where is doctor Phil when y need him?
 
Excellent Essay from DeCanio:

Regardless if Lance does finally admit to doping, nobody should respect him. Nobody should give him the applause, because he needs to feel the dead silence of no cheers. He needs to understand that his attempt to lead the entire next generation of cyclists into a life of doping, cheating, fraud, and corruption is over. His power over the industry to destroy brands of anti-doping supporters, careers, and to play God in our sport is over. Just as many great dictators of the world have fallen, Lance has fallen. He does not deserve a hand to get back up. He deserves to be punished.

He is not a champion and never was. A true champion will deny the cheat codes of the game and will defeat those who use the cheat codes. It simply does not count when you cheat, because your accomplishments are not real.

Sickness such as Cancer is a horrible thing. But death is a part of life and so is sickness. All of us one day will have to meet death and we will have to come to terms with sickness, disease, and suffering until we leave our planet behind. I for one have had a great sickness in my life which included being the sickest child in the University of Virginia. I too have suffered and have overcome a life threatening illness. Life is a constant struggle to live. I understand pain and suffering, and as a former member of the USA Cycling Team and winning professional cyclist I also understand how hard the sport of cycling is. Believe me it is a lot harder to win a UCI yellow pro jersey clean than to dope and boost your wattage by 25%.

But out of everything I have experienced in life, nothing was harder than not being able to live my dreams or having the ability to continue my professional career because of the strength and power Lance Armstrong had over the industry and the sport. By simply posting an anti-doping article about Lance on my website it cost me my career, my dreams, and sponsors Sierra Nevada and Ofoto.

Lance has promoted himself as the man who has lived strongest. But in reality he has never lived real, and living real is the hardest thing to do in this world. Never has Lance had to wash dishes, cleaning up maggots, while watching the Tour de France on T.V. seeing all of the faces who have slandered, oppressed, and put him in this position of hard labor as I have. Lance has never had the feeling of not being able to live his dreams, maybe only slightly now with him losing his ability to race triathlons.
http://stolenunderground.com/
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS