Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Polish]

I think he's taken more seriously by people with superficial at best interest in cycling than people who are more into the sport.

Ask Sean Kelly, Eddy, Hinault, if Lance was seriously awesome.
They know.
The MORE you know about Pro Cycling, the MORE you would take Lance's palmares seriously.

The crowd that thinks cyclists are weenies with their tight pants and shaven legs riding on toys that should have been put away after childhood - those guys will question Lance's accomplishments.

Haterz and the cycling ignorant share similiar views when it comes to Lance.
Go figure lol.

 

[Velodude]

Even with access to their own financial records and documents the UCI could not spin a consistent story about the varying $100,000 or $25,000 or $125,000 donation(s), the circumstances of the donation(s), whether the Sysmex machine was purchased from the donation proceeds or in advance, the cost of the Sysmex machine, whether the $100,000 donation component was paid during or after LA’s career and how the UCI communicated to LA he was overdue (3 years) on one of the scenarios that he owed $100,000.

Me smells a rat in Aigle, Switzerland.

25 May 2010 - McQuaid interview with CyclingNews

He refused comparisons with a football team perhaps making a donation to a match referee but embarrassingly admitted that despite promising the $100,000 in April of 2002, Armstrong only paid up in 2005 after the UCI sent him a reminder of payment.

The President of the UCI Pat McQuaid has revealed that Lance Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to UCI and has admitted that in hindsight, the decision to accept $100,000 while the Texan was still racing was regrettable

25 May 2010 – McQuaid speaking to journalists at Giro

My understanding, without having examined the full detail, is that during 2002 Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI headquarters in Aigle [Switzerland]. It had just opened in April 2002, it was some time after that. They got a guided tour of the centre. They were impressed by what they saw and Armstrong offered $100,000 to help the development of cycling.

"The UCI decided to use the money on a Sysmex machine, my understanding is that the machine cost around $88,000. We did nothing more about this until 2005 when it was realised that the money had not been paid by Armstrong. A phone call was made and the money came in.

10 July 2010 - McQuaid interview with CyclingNews

McQuaid showed Cyclingnews a photocopy of the invoice of the Sysmex blood testing machine that a large part of Armstrong $100,000 donation was used to buy. He refused to let us take a photograph of it, keeping it in a file marked 'Confidential'

"Armstrong said he paid $25,000 but I also knew he paid $100,000,” he added. “There was other speculation about amounts but they were way out. We've now found out exactly what was donated by looking at our records in detail. They show that Lance, in May 2002, paid a personal cheque, signed by himself and his wife, for $25,000. That went into the funds of what was then the Anti-Doping Council. They decide to use the money for anti-doping tests on juniors, to separate it from Armstrong, because he was racing at the time. We have record of the four or five races where special tests were done. It was all budgeted and paid for.

"Then in 2005, just at the time Armstrong retired, he promised $100,000. At that time we needed a Sysmex machine, so we ordered it and we paid for it based on the pledge he had made. Why it took him so long to eventually pay up I don't know, you'd have to ask him. It came from his company CSE. And the fact that the $100,000 came from CSE explains to me why he said $25,000. He may not have directly known about the later $100,000 donation."

8 June 2010 - Verbruggen

Verbruggen also addressed Armstrong's financial donation to the UCI in 2002, an issue which has raised questions of conflict of interest.

Verbruggen said Armstrong's agent approached the UCI and offered to make a donation for the fight against doping.

"This was discussed by our anti-doping people," Verbruggen said. "They said, 'We can't use this money for doping controls.' Then they said if Lance would agree that we buy a Sysmex for this, then that could be a good idea. I left it there. I have not been busy with it afterwards."

A Sysmex is a machine used for analyzing blood.

Verbruggen said the machine could be priced up to $85,000, but ended up costing between $51,000 and $60,000.

Verbruggen said he checked with the UCI in 2005 or 2006 to see if they had received the money.

"They had forgotten about it," he said. "Then they went after the money and they got it. That's the whole story."

 

[sniper]

Lance's most awesome accomplishment was covering up a dozain or so positives.
Hein owned Lance.

 

[Velodude]

The number has always been $500,000. That is what Lance told Julien, Tyler, and Floyd and what Sylvia Shenck said it was. It is only Armstrong and Verburggen who cannot agree on the number, they have said many amounts that range from $25k to $125k

Sylvia Shenck per CyclingNews in 2005 before the Landis faeces hit the fan in 2010 re 2001 TdS:

“For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000.”

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I think he's taken more seriously by people with superficial at best interest in cycling than people who are more into the sport.

I saw a tool in a Radio Shack jersey yesterday. He was standing in a parking lot and talking with another rider. Both looked like they were preparing ride up the canyon MUT and back, a whopping round trip total of 20 miles provided they did not wuss out and skip the low grade side climb at the end, 12 miles otherwise You have to be some fanboy to pay money for a jesey that hideously ugly.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Sylvia Shenck per CyclingNews in 2005 before the Landis faeces hit the fan in 2010 re 2001 TdS:

“For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000.”

There you go. Forgot about that. Thanks for the memory.

 

[Velodude]

Lance Armstrong SCA deposition videos

Lance Armstrong SCA deposition videos with time indices of the subject matter of cross-examination including his difficult-to-recall (single) UCI donation.

LA attempts to run the line he is not a hands on operator and leaves the detail and decisions to others. Plus he must be afflicted with pre-senile dementia from his repetitive memory failure.

According to another page on the website displaying video extracts of the deposition:

"These clips of Lance Armstrong's SCA deposition came to us from a Tristan Zook of the firm of Grey Manrod Associates. According to Mr. Zook, these videos are fair game because Mr. Armstrong forfeited any claims of confidentiality by bragging about winning the SCA case in the media."

 

[ChrisE]

The level playing field never existed.

Give us the list of riders who gave the UCI $500,000 "Donations", got advanced notice of "Surprise" testing, positive tests erased, and had access to experimental drugs

Thanks

Then why didn't any of his major TdF rivals get busted at that GT until after he retired? I know you do not think they were clean during those 7 years.

Sorry, we go round and round about this but I have to at least throw this out there when you write these things RR.

 

[Merckx index]

Lance Armstrong, panel discuss power and danger of social media at Aspen Ideas

Armstrong didn't discuss his mastery of using Tweets to get his side of the story out in the ongoing doping allegations by former colleagues in bicycle racing. He did note social media is used to get information directly to people who want it, rather than going through filters like standard media. “Today it's not a crooked line. It's a straight line,” he said.

In a thinly veiled reference to disgraced U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., Armstrong noted that people need to realize that virtually all acts are open to scrutiny at all times. Events will be shared almost in real time.

“And with it getting faster, all of us need to be careful because there's always going to be somebody there to capture that moment,” Armstrong said. “So if you're a politician, you're an athlete or you're a public official, you better be careful because everybody's got a device waiting.”

Do as I say, not as I do.

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20110703/NEWS/110709957/1001&parentprofile=10589

 

[MacRoadie]

Then why didn't any of his major TdF rivals get busted at that GT until after he retired? I know you do not think they were clean during those 7 years.

I've often wondered about this too and have some completely unsubstantiated theories I throw around inside my head.

It would make some amount of sense (?) if the UCI realized early on that in order to keep their end of the deal with Armstrong (and in a much bigger picture, their underlying desire to keep doping scandals out of the public eye) they would be best served to avoid any doping positives at all during the Grand Tours.

Best to have guys **** hot at other lesser races, or during OOC testing, or maybe fail them on a missed test or inaccurate whereabouts information. Anything but a AAF during the Tour.

Avoiding positives (while keeping mum about how they were extending courtesies to Armstrong) keeps the spotlight off the sport, keeps the sport from falling under the microscope, and eliminates the one thing that is on everyone's mind NOW, from of the conversation THEN: how could Armstrong possibly be clean, while everyone else was dirty?

While Armstrong rode, the public projection of the UCI was that he WASN'T the only one clean, they all were. As a result, they don't have to try to explain a clean/dirty dilemna.

Even if you don't want to buy into the positives being orchestrated for Armstrong's benefit, the idea that the UCI would strive to avoid negative publicity during their showcase event fits perfectly with the old boy, nepotistic attitude of Verbruggen, McQuaid and the UCI et al.

Just food for discussion, of course...

 

[Race Radio]

Then why didn't any of his major TdF rivals get busted at that GT until after he retired? I know you do not think they were clean during those 7 years.

Sorry, we go round and round about this but I have to at least throw this out there when you write these things RR.

why would this matter?

How many got a positive test tossed out like Armstrong did? How many were allowed back dated TUE's? Advanced notice of testing?

One thing Landis has said is that he was always shocked at the risks Armstrong took. Tyler said that when Armstrong found out he was positive at the TdS he was casual, not worried......do you think Pantani was worried when he was tossed out of the Giro because of a surprise test? When he missed the Tour because they banned him? Ullrich was banned for 6 months after a surprise test....do you think he would have preferred to have advanced notice like Armstrong?

 

[Zoncolan]

Lance Armstrong SCA deposition videos with time indices of the subject matter of cross-examination including his difficult-to-recall (single) UCI donation.

LA attempts to run the line he is not a hands on operator and leaves the detail and decisions to others. Plus he must be afflicted with pre-senile dementia from his repetitive memory failure.

According to another page on the website displaying video extracts of the deposition:

"These clips of Lance Armstrong's SCA deposition came to us from a Tristan Zook of the firm of Grey Manrod Associates. According to Mr. Zook, these videos are fair game because Mr. Armstrong forfeited any claims of confidentiality by bragging about winning the SCA case in the media."

Thanks for the link. IMHO you can clearly see he is lying.

 

[ChrisE]

why would this matter?

How many got a positive test tossed out like Armstrong did? How many were allowed back dated TUE's? Advanced notice of testing?

One thing Landis has said is that he was always shocked at the risks Armstrong took. Tyler said that when Armstrong found out he was positive at the TdS he was casual, not worried......do you think Pantani was worried when he was tossed out of the Giro because of a surprise test? When he missed the Tour because they banned him? Ullrich was banned for 6 months after a surprise test....do you think he would have preferred to have advanced notice like Armstrong?

Macroadie said it better than I ever could, and that is my position. Mac I don't think your post is unsubstantiated at all if one employs logic, though he may want to re-examine his take since we agree.

My only problem with his take is the "all Grand Tours" analogy, which is not the case (especially the Giro). My take on that would be that LA didn't ride those tours thus they weren't showcased and a cash cow. I would bet, though we have no way of telling, if LA consistently rode those other tours things would have been quieter in them. Of course we will never know.

The examples you point out RR were pre LA reign with Pantani, and Ullrich was caught OOC. So, they don't really apply to my POV which is there was a blanket of cover shown by all the top riders in the TdF during 99-2005 for the reasons Mac wrote. I do not know how many others had tests thrown out...I just look at facts and the fact is nobody of any "value" got tossed in the TdF during those years. Nobody.

What FL says I am sure has merit, but FL was not on other teams so is unaware of the blatancy of others on their team busses or in private. TH said the peloton in a whole shared info to mass avoid detection. How blatant can somebody be in an atmosphere like that?

Now, since you think LA was the only one that had advanced notice, special treatment, etc. then which one of the following do you prescribe to?

1) The others were clean in the tour
2) The others were lucky not to get caught at the tour, contrary to other top contenders in other GTs.

It's either one of those, RR.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thanks for the link. IMHO you can clearly see he is lying.

I watched it again, and was struck by his demeanor. He looks to me like a surly kid who is getting chewed out and sitting there in a sulky, defiant manner. Nose rubbing, shoulders thrust forward and a snarl...

gawd.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Macroadie said it better than I ever could, and that is my position. Mac I don't think your post is unsubstantiated at all if one employs logic, though he may want to re-examine his take since we agree.

My only problem with his take is the "all Grand Tours" analogy, which is not the case (especially the Giro). My take on that would be that LA didn't ride those tours thus they weren't showcased and a cash cow. I would bet, though we have no way of telling, if LA consistently rode those other tours things would have been quieter in them. Of course we will never know.

The examples you point out RR were pre LA reign with Pantani, and Ullrich was caught OOC. So, they don't really apply to my POV which is there was a blanket of cover shown by all the top riders in the TdF during 99-2005 for the reasons Mac wrote. I do not know how many others had tests thrown out...I just look at facts and the fact is nobody of any "value" got tossed in the TdF during those years. Nobody.

What FL says I am sure has merit, but FL was not on other teams so is unaware of the blatancy of others on their team busses or in private. TH said the peloton in a whole shared info to mass avoid detection. How blatant can somebody be in an atmosphere like that?

Now, since you think LA was the only one that had advanced notice, special treatment, etc. then which one of the following do you prescribe to?

1) The others were clean in the tour
2) The others were lucky not to get caught at the tour, contrary to other top contenders in other GTs.

It's either one of those, RR.

If you cling to the limited timeframe you give (just the Tours, 99 to 05) then it almost looks good.
But of course Armstrong had the TUE accepted in 99 and a positive test from Suisse in '01 would have been announced during the Tour, not good scenario's for the UCI.

For the Tour the riders appear to have been far more worried about the police then the actual tests.

 

[Polish]

Can we talk about Lance's pee next?
And after that, a little dot org versus dot com?
Please Please Please.

 

[ChrisE]

If you cling to the limited timeframe you give (just the Tours, 99 to 05) then it almost looks good.
But of course Armstrong had the TUE accepted in 99 and a positive test from Suisse in '01 would have been announced during the Tour, not good scenario's for the UCI.

For the Tour the riders appear to have been far more worried about the police then the actual tests.

I wondered when you would be along. You and I discussed this awhile back, and I have tossed this out before. I just can't let it slide when the "LA was the only one protected" gets tossed out contrary to the facts of what happened in the face of the public, or didn't happen there over those years.

In 99, who was to know LA would be the force he would be the next 6 years? No backdated TUE's to muck up the narrative, for anybody after that.

I do agree that maybe LA had cover outside of the tour, maybe more so than some others. Probably USPS in general as well for obvious reasons.

But, using Heras as an example we know the Vuelta in 2005, right after LA's retirement, wasn't the first time he doped. Why didn't he get popped before then? Why didn't any of the typical TdF contenders get popped by a test anywhere in those years except JU with the OOC, for a non PED??? JU popping ecstacy sure doesn't put too much tarnish on him finishing second to LA in the tour all of those years IMO. Heck even something blatant like Rumsas took police action, not a test.

The systemic coverup of doping to avoid negative publicity at the tour is what I would like to see exposed in this whole investigation. You fix that, and alot of the things we talk about in this forum don't exist.

 

[D-Queued]

Can we talk about Lance's pee next?
And after that, a little dot org versus dot com?
Please Please Please.

Instead of all the other links in your sig, why don't you put a FAQ together on what you consider the obvious so that we can all join you in directing inquiries there?

Reconciling the multiple, independent statements on $500k versus 'whatever' is not something that has not been actively discussed. Especially not since Fat Pat started providing confirmation that it was 'only this, and no more. Oops, I mean only that.'

After all, it was questioning over the amount of the donation(s) that Lance provided the infamous "Which part of I don't know do you not understand?" remark.

Dave.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I wondered when you would be along. You and I discussed this awhile back, and I have tossed this out before. I just can't let it slide when the "LA was the only one protected" gets tossed out contrary to the facts of what happened in the face of the public, or didn't happen there over those years.

In 99, who was to know LA would be the force he would be the next 6 years? No backdated TUE's to muck up the narrative, for anybody after that.

I do agree that maybe LA had cover outside of the tour, maybe more so than some others. Probably USPS in general as well for obvious reasons.

But, using Heras as an example we know the Vuelta in 2005, right after LA's retirement, wasn't the first time he doped. Why didn't he get popped before then? Why didn't any of the typical TdF contenders get popped by a test anywhere in those years except JU with the OOC, for a non PED??? JU popping ecstacy sure doesn't put too much tarnish on him finishing second to LA in the tour all of those years IMO. Heck even something blatant like Rumsas took police action, not a test.

The systemic coverup of doping to avoid negative publicity at the tour is what I would like to see exposed in this whole investigation. You fix that, and alot of the things we talk about in this forum don't exist.

And it keeps coming back to one single fact that you ignore - who else has been caught paying off the UCI? Who else is there even a rumour of?

The reason LA got cover in 99 was because it was the 'Tour of redemption' after Festina 98 and it was right after Pantani had been kicked off the Giro.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

3) The others kept their doping below the detection threshold.

I imagine a number of top riders enjoyed prior warning for tour tests and most of them moderated their program to avoid an AAF. Would be surprised if there were many who took so much dope they failed tests they were warned about, then relied on bribing the right people to get them out of trouble.

 

[ChrisE]

And it keeps coming back to one single fact that you ignore - who else has been caught paying off the UCI? Who else is there even a rumour of?

The reason LA got cover in 99 was because it was the 'Tour of redemption' after Festina 98 and it was right after Pantani had been kicked off the Giro.

I just don't find it plausible that he was the only one with protection at the tour. It doesn't add up. Whether that was a benefit of solely LA bribing the UCI, who knows. It is irrelevant when taking into account nobody got busted in those years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I just don't find it plausible that he was the only one with protection at the tour. It doesn't add up. Whether that was a benefit of solely LA bribing the UCI, who knows. It is irrelevant when taking into account nobody got busted in those years.

That's because you are fixated with 'the Tour'.

The discussion is about LA getting off by the UCI, the 01 positive was in Suisse.

 

[ChrisE]

3) The others kept their doping below the detection threshold.

I imagine a number of top riders enjoyed prior warning for tour tests and most of them moderated their program to avoid an AAF. Would be surprised if there were many who took so much dope they failed tests they were warned about, then relied on bribing the right people to get them out of trouble.

Really? So there was a mass peleton micro-dosing on the cutting edge of test avoidance for 7 years, with no screw ups? While LA was running around with needles in his arm torqued to the max?

I don't buy it, and I don't buy JU, Beloki, FL, Vino, Heras, Chicken, etc. all stopped adhering to this "threshold" as you say once LA retired. What a coincidence that would be.

Did FL or TH, who we like to quote, ever insinuate such a thing? FL stated LA got out of the TdS positive. Has either stated LA had special treatment over all others, and that others were doping less? No, and both of them go out of their way to paint LA as a great rider which flies in the face of this theory if they thought he had a highing doping threashold than the others.

I stated upthread that TH stated the peleton were all in cahoots on test avoidance. Nothing has come to light stating what you were stating, and if it was the case somebody would eventually get ****ed off don't you think? Did FL and TH say they had to do things differently than they did on USPS do to having to stay on a lower threshold? No.

 

[Anonymous]

3) The others kept their doping below the detection threshold.

I imagine a number of top riders enjoyed prior warning for tour tests and most of them moderated their program to avoid an AAF. Would be surprised if there were many who took so much dope they failed tests they were warned about, then relied on bribing the right people to get them out of trouble.

Didn't Livingston comment on Ulle never racing above a 42% Hct after 2001 or so?

If LA knew that he had free reign and the others did not either know it, or have it, then that's advantage Armstrong.

 

[Polish]

And it keeps coming back to one single fact that you ignore - who else has been caught paying off the UCI? Who else is there even a rumour of?

The reason LA got cover in 99 was because it was the 'Tour of redemption' after Festina 98 and it was right after Pantani had been kicked off the Giro.

You can NOT buy a TdF victory.

You have to actually ride the race.
And finish ahead of all the other riders.

No one has ever bought a TdF victory.

It IS possible to donate money for testing equipment that catches out one of your competitors sure.
But you still have to WIN the race.
Ride it in less time than ALL the others.