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

[Exroadman24902]

Terribly unlucky for radioshack the last 4 days but sure some bankers are happy with it

 

[Berzin]

Lance wasn't the only one paying for protection-he just got more of the information needed to do the job. Hein was happy to do it-for pay.

Who else are you implicating besides Armstrong in paying for and receiving protection from drug tests?

Or is your presumption just another attempt at obfuscation?

Because I do not recall an other rider puling out a back-dated TUE after a positive test became public and the rider in question gets to go on his merry way prancing around France while in the yellow jersey as if nothing happened.

 

[Oldman]

Who else are you implicating besides Armstrong in paying for and receiving protection from drug tests?

Or is your presumption just another attempt at obfuscation?

Because I do not recall an other rider puling out a back-dated TUE after a positive test became public and the rider in question gets to go on his merry way prancing around France while in the yellow jersey as if nothing happened.

Not implicating anyone specifically and, as I noted; Lance's "donation" was acknowledged. We've discussed ad nauseum the different ways riders and the UCI disappeared results including false tests for lower tier competitors; forced to pay extortion money. Are you purposely ignoring all of those discussion/examples and inserting the TUE issue as the standard for proof?
My point is large and small the UCI has managed to extort protection money.

 

[ChrisE]

WTF Skippy? I will try to type it slowly for your benefit.

It was of zero benefit, and probably much to his financial detriment, if his competition tested positive. His PR would take a huge hit if an alleged clean rider was beating dopers soundly. Thus, it was to his benefit that didn't happen. Perhaps this was a stipulation of his "donations". After all, he could beat their azz anyway, as history has shown. So why not let them stick around by not going AAF, making his PR easy and money for everybody? One could conclude his "donations" to the UCI gave everybody cover for this reason.

Now, that being said I doubt LA was the only one giving "donations" either.

 

[MarkvW]

WTF Skippy? I will try to type it slowly for your benefit.

It was of zero benefit, and probably much to his financial detriment, if his competition tested positive. His PR would take a huge hit if an alleged clean rider was beating dopers soundly. Thus, it was to his benefit that didn't happen. Perhaps this was a stipulation of his "donations". After all, he could beat their azz anyway, as history has shown. So why not let them stick around by not going AAF, making his PR easy and money for everybody? One could conclude his "donations" to the UCI gave everybody cover for this reason.

Now, that being said I doubt LA was the only one giving "donations" either.

Do you really believe that, or are you just exploring what is logically possible?

 

[Velodude]

WTF Skippy? I will try to type it slowly for your benefit.

It was of zero benefit, and probably much to his financial detriment, if his competition tested positive. His PR would take a huge hit if an alleged clean rider was beating dopers soundly. Thus, it was to his benefit that didn't happen. Perhaps this was a stipulation of his "donations". After all, he could beat their azz anyway, as history has shown. So why not let them stick around by not going AAF, making his PR easy and money for everybody? One could conclude his "donations" to the UCI gave everybody cover for this reason.

Now, that being said I doubt LA was the only one giving "donations" either.

Pat McQuaid is a person of high moral values and he said in 2010:

"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"

 

[MarkvW]

Pat McQuaid is a person of high moral values and he said in 2010:

"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"

Doesn't exclude the possibility of out-and-out (secret) bribes. I can't accept a theory that Armstrong was the only one to bribe/donate his way out of a jam.

 

[skippythepinhead]

WTF Skippy? I will try to type it slowly for your benefit.

It was of zero benefit, and probably much to his financial detriment, if his competition tested positive. His PR would take a huge hit if an alleged clean rider was beating dopers soundly. Thus, it was to his benefit that didn't happen. Perhaps this was a stipulation of his "donations". After all, he could beat their azz anyway, as history has shown. So why not let them stick around by not going AAF, making his PR easy and money for everybody? One could conclude his "donations" to the UCI gave everybody cover for this reason.

Now, that being said I doubt LA was the only one giving "donations" either.

So your theory is Lance paid money to the UCI to keep the lid on all positives during the Tour de France. No matter how doped the other riders were, Lance knew no one was going to get popped. Since Lance was the one who paid for the blanket immunity, the other riders still had to try to keep their doping below the level of detectability as they had no way of knowing they were in the clear, right? Or did everyone know that Lance was taking care of them?

 

[ChrisE]

So your theory is Lance paid money to the UCI to keep the lid on all positives during the Tour de France. No matter how doped the other riders were, Lance knew no one was going to get popped. Since Lance was the one who paid for the blanket immunity, the other riders still had to try to keep their doping below the level of detectability as they had no way of knowing they were in the clear, right? Or did everyone know that Lance was taking care of them?

I don't "know" any of the things you are asking. I am just looking at the fact that nobody got busted at the TdF during those 7 years, and directly before and immediately after there were scandals in that race. From that, I am tossing this out there for discussion. Nothing more.

FL and TH stated the UCI took care of an LA positive. Do you find it a stretch that he was the only one, and buy into the coincidence that nobody of substance screwed up in the TdF during those years with this "threshold" theory? Do you think it would look bad for LA if his competitors got popped while he was beating them?

 

[ChrisE]

Do you really believe that, or are you just exploring what is logically possible?

Just exploring what is logically possible; I have just laid out facts about what didn't happen during those years publicly. Who really knows WTF was going on? We do know from FL/TH that they started blood doping, and Ferrari warned them from EPO in 2001. If that is true, how could anybody conclude he or USPS had blanket immunity, and TH/FL have never insinuated he/USPS did? I have asked this question upthread but nobody can seem to answer that.....

Hey, we are just a bunch of clowns on an internet forum....

One thing to take into consideration here is how many times his competitors were tested. We all agree the tests can be beaten.

If yellow wins a stage, do they test the 2nd place rider on a stage? Each day they test the yellow, the stage winner, and a random, correct? What happens if yellow wins the stage?

I think it would be interesting to look at how many times he vs his main competitors got tested during those years (excluding the possibility of randoms), during the race. I cannot think of an instance that Beloki, for example, ever got tested, unless randomly, if I've got the rules right. I don't have time but I plan to count that up later.

 

[Oldman]

Just exploring what is logically possible; I have just laid out facts about what didn't happen during those years publicly. Who really knows WTF was going on? We do know from FL/TH that they started blood doping, and Ferrari warned them from EPO in 2001. If that is true, how could anybody conclude he or USPS had blanket immunity, and TH/FL have never insinuated he/USPS did? I have asked this question upthread but nobody can seem to answer that.....

Hey, we are just a bunch of clowns on an internet forum....

One thing to take into consideration here is how many times his competitors were tested. We all agree the tests can be beaten.

If yellow wins a stage, do they test the 2nd place rider on a stage? Each day they test the yellow, the stage winner, and a random, correct? What happens if yellow wins the stage?

I think it would be interesting to look at how many times he vs his main competitors got tested during those years (excluding the possibility of randoms), during the race. I cannot think of an instance that Beloki, for example, ever got tested, unless randomly, if I've got the rules right. I don't have time but I plan to count that up later.

I think the podium 3 got tested each stage and then the gc 1st. As for the idea that Ferrari's warning about Epo testing would reduce the use....Skippy's playing naive. The Bio passport is just a new angle on the old shakedown and it's been testified to by riders that a payment at the venue level made test results evaporate during that time.
Let's get on to something new like: does Lance drive a Nissan pickup or Leaf?

 

[Velodude]

I think the podium 3 got tested each stage and then the gc 1st. As for the idea that Ferrari's warning about Epo testing would reduce the use....Skippy's playing naive. The Bio passport is just a new angle on the old shakedown and it's been testified to by riders that a payment at the venue level made test results evaporate during that time.
Let's get on to something new like: does Lance drive a Nissan pickup or Leaf?

The UCI Anti-Doping Rules specify at Appendix 2 (in the absence of specific instructions from the Anti-Doping Commission) the selection for riders to be tested:

1. The stage winner.
2. The leader on general classification after the stage.
3. Two riders selected at random by the inspector.

In a TTT only 1. above is changed to a rider selected at random from the winning team by the inspector.

There is no provision to select a further rider if the stage winner & leader on GC are the same rider.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think it would be interesting to look at how many times he vs his main competitors got tested during those years (excluding the possibility of randoms), during the race. I cannot think of an instance that Beloki, for example, ever got tested, unless randomly, if I've got the rules right. I don't have time but I plan to count that up later.

Your ideas are too complicated for them to have much potential for being true.

Examining test results is an exercise in futility. I don't have the link handy, but in order to get a positive I recall values in some cases have to be something like two, maybe three standard deviations out. On top of that, a study intentionally put a number of subjects on EPO and sent test to WADA certified labs only to have most tests come back negative. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for a WADA. But, it's early days yet as dope testing is not living up to their promise.

Did you ever consider that positives look bad for ASO too? ASO's TdF leadership shifted away from a clean emphasis years ago. We know the Giro's leadership is promised to do CERA tests on samples and somehow no one has gotten around to it. Ever. Oldman's allegations just up from this post are a reflection of this. IMHO, Oldman is accurate.

Finally, I'm no clown. Often, quite a bit can be gleaned from having parts of a story. Small details are wrong at times, but the assembled general story is often not. I dedicate some time to it because cycling competitively is a great sport for competitive kids with enormous engines and not much else in physical gifts. There's been enough death and chronic illness as a result of doping in cycling already.

 

[ChrisE]

Your ideas are too complicated for them to have much potential for being true.

Examining test results is an exercise in futility. I don't have the link handy, but in order to get a positive I recall values in some cases have to be something like two, maybe three standard deviations out. On top of that, a study intentionally put a number of subjects on EPO and sent test to WADA certified labs only to have most tests come back negative. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad for a WADA. But, it's early days yet as dope testing is not living up to their promise.

Did you ever consider that positives look bad for ASO too? ASO's TdF leadership shifted away from a clean emphasis years ago. We know the Giro's leadership is promised to do CERA tests on samples and somehow no one has gotten around to it. Ever. Oldman's allegations just up from this post are a reflection of this. IMHO, Oldman is accurate.

Finally, I'm no clown. Often, quite a bit can be gleaned from having parts of a story. Small details are wrong at times, but the assembled general story is often not. I dedicate some time to it because cycling competitively is a great sport for competitive kids with enormous engines and not much else in physical gifts. There's been enough death and chronic illness as a result of doping in cycling already.

I don't think it is too complicated; I was giving credence to the opposite viewpoint that he did have exclusive protection. It may be unlikely even with the statistics you point out he tested negative all those years (thus the "protection" angle). And, since his main competition was hardly tested maybe it was possible they passed the tests by the statistics you point out...I thought of this earlier in the thread as I was arguing with RR about the amount of 99 samples that were LA's....

Yes, I considered positive tests look bad for ASO. Other times when this has been argued I noted "orgs" or "others", not just UCI I believe. I have always argued the incentive of those in power or with finanicial incentive is to cover up positives, not expose them. This is basic human nature when ethics are void. I first argued this when the FL fans in 2006 were saying "the French" were out to get him. That was BS, because they powers-that-be were hurting themselves.

Anyway, I am out of the country right now but when I get home I plan to at least sum up all of the testing over those 7 years (excluding randoms of course) of the main players. Even if it is pointless, I think it would be interesting to see the volume of testing given to LA vs others.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't "know" any of the things you are asking. I am just looking at the fact that nobody got busted at the TdF during those 7 years, and directly before and immediately after there were scandals in that race. From that, I am tossing this out there for discussion. Nothing more.

You are giving to much credit to the UCI and the anti-doping measures that were in place at the time (& pretty much that still are).

The scandals "directly before and immediately after" - with the exception of Landis - were due to Police intervention.

FL and TH stated the UCI took care of an LA positive. Do you find it a stretch that he was the only one, and buy into the coincidence that nobody of substance screwed up in the TdF during those years with this "threshold" theory? Do you think it would look bad for LA if his competitors got popped while he was beating them?

Definitely not a stretch - in fact it wouldn't suprise me. But for there to be a cover-up, the rider would first have to test positive.

This is why I am somewhat puzzled at your fixation of the Tour.
We know from numerous accounts that blood doping and micro-dosing was used when the EPO test came out in 2001 - that's what was being used during races like the Tour, which is why so few were caught through normal testing.

Best example of this - Txema del Olmo at the 2001 Tour. EPO usually clears within 3 days, so take it just before the Tour and you should be fine, as long as you are not unfortunate enough to get called as the random rider......

The test was taken on the first day of the Tour at the prologue in Dunkirk, and Cyclingnews observed Del Olmo being ushered by his team manager through the crowds towards the medical control with a very distressed look on his face. At the time, it was put down to nerves, but this morning's news puts it in a different light.

 

[ChrisE]

"Directly after" I mean in the following years. FL, Chicken, Ricco, Kohl. This after 7 years of nothing. Chicken got caught up being AWOL, but I am not too sure that would have been too hard to cover up. Much easier than an AAF, so WTF?

Anyway one thing that would potentially stop all of this, and I think we all agree, is an independent body doing the testing and doling out the punishments. No more UCI, and no more national orgs. Of course, that would be great until we discover somebody giving that independent org "donations" lol.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Directly after" I mean in the following years. FL, Chicken, Ricco, Kohl. This after 7 years of nothing. Chicken got caught up being AWOL, but I am not too sure that would have been too hard to cover up. Much easier than an AAF, so WTF?

This underscores my point - Ricco, Kohl etc were 2008 when the AFLD were at the Tour holding the UCI's hand.

The Chicken - he would have been home free except for Cassini's comments that he saw him in Italy, instead of Mexico and it wasn't even the UCI that removed him from the Tour, but his team.

Floyd appears to have screwed up his doping. One name you didn't mention is Vino - but again he was unlucky that the (IIRC) LLND lab had been given the criteria for detecting homologous blood doping from the Swiss lab just before that 07 Tour.

Anyway one thing that would potentially stop all of this, and I think we all agree, is an independent body doing the testing and doling out the punishments. No more UCI, and no more national orgs. Of course, that would be great until we discover somebody giving that independent org "donations" lol.

Agree - and I will add that if a testing agency is truly independent than they actually would not require additional funds and wouldn't have the need for "donations".

 

[Race Radio]

Chicken got caught up being AWOL, but I am not too sure that would have been too hard to cover up.

UCI did indeed try to cover it up, in order to inflict maximum damage to the Tour. The UCI's own rules at the time state that if you miss an OOC in the 6 weeks prior to a GT you could not start the GT. The UCI let the chicken's 4 missed OOC's slide, only to announce it on the eve of the Tour in order to cause maximum chaos.

What was their motivation to damage the Tour? Many people think it had to do with Verburggen and Armstrong's attempt to buy the Tour that fell apart because they could not raise enough $$$ to meet the ASO's price. Prudhomme at the time said “Verbruggen wanted to buy the Tour, but we said ‘No thanks,’ so now he wants to get the price down,”

The UCI used the Chicken as a tool to damage the Tour.....do you think they would have done that with Lance?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Never discount Tommy V!

Hey, patricknd - remember this from 22 June?

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

you have to love the "grassy knoll" trolls in here.....

 

[Race Radio]

you have to love the "grassy knoll" trolls in here.....

Agreed, all the babble about witch hunts, French conspiracies, haters, etc gets old after a while

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Fanboy Sighting

Yesterday, while in the checkout line at the Ace hardware store, there was a guy across the isle waiting like me who was wearing a Livestrong cycling jersey, baggy black cycling shorts, Oakleys perched on top of his head and the biggest wrist chronometer I have ever, ever seen on a human wrist. We both checked out about the same moment and I watched him go to his vehicle, a 2011 Escalade in cream white, immaculate like it was just washed and waxed. I suspect this is a major demographic sub-set of the Livestrong donor pool. A truly disgusting, consumptive sight, IMMHO.

 

[Polish]

UCI did indeed try to cover it up, in order to inflict maximum damage to the Tour. The UCI's own rules at the time state that if you miss an OOC in the 6 weeks prior to a GT you could not start the GT. The UCI let the chicken's 4 missed OOC's slide, only to announce it on the eve of the Tour in order to cause maximum chaos.

What was their motivation to damage the Tour? Many people think it had to do with Verburggen and Armstrong's attempt to buy the Tour that fell apart because they could not raise enough $$$ to meet the ASO's price. Prudhomme at the time said “Verbruggen wanted to buy the Tour, but we said ‘No thanks,’ so now he wants to get the price down,”

The UCI used the Chicken as a tool to damage the Tour.....do you think they would have done that with Lance?

With the Chicken out of the way, the next step for "Operation DeValue" was to have Cadel or better yet Levi win the Tour. Shudder.

And they came so close. So close.

But instead Mr Bang Bang wins the race yikes.
There goes the devaluation arrrg.

Unless their Evil Plan is/was to buy the TdF in late 2011?
Hmmmm.
THAT would be genius.
Evil Genius indeed.

 

[Velodude]

Doesn't exclude the possibility of out-and-out (secret) bribes. I can't accept a theory that Armstrong was the only one to bribe/donate his way out of a jam.

But I am inclined to believe ex UCI member Sylvia Schenk's statement in September 2005 that LA had "donated" about $500,000 and was receiving UCI preferable treatment.

That being the case LA might be considered be carrying the can for all the riders but I believe any money paid directly to the UCI or to line UCI decision makers' pockets was primarily intended to protect LA's vast potential endorsement income.

In the light of the release of LA Confidentiel in 2004 Verbruggen and LA were quotedin April 2005 of making statements that are consistent with Sylvia Schenk but inconsistent with only having paid $25,000 in May 2002 by personal check/cheque countersigned by his wife.

UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".

 

[MarkvW]

But I am inclined to believe ex UCI member Sylvia Schenk's statement in September 2005 that LA had "donated" about $500,000 and was receiving UCI preferable treatment.

That being the case LA might be considered be carrying the can for all the riders but I believe any money paid directly to the UCI or to line UCI decision makers' pockets was primarily intended to protect LA's vast potential endorsement income.

In the light of the release of LA Confidentiel in 2004 Verbruggen and LA were quotedin April 2005 of making statements that are consistent with Sylvia Schenk but inconsistent with only having paid $25,000 in May 2002 by personal check/cheque countersigned by his wife.

For me, the best explanation for this is that it was exactly what it appears to be: solely a donation to aid in the fight against doping.

If this was a "bribe" it is about the stupidest bribe possible because it (unnecessarily) left behind a clear paper trail and it didn't provide a financial benefit to a corrupt individual. I don't buy it.

I think that Lance sincerely wanted specific dope tests employed--tests that would discover doping regimens used by other members of the peloton (but not used by Lance and USPS).

If you can help the UCI catch your opponents out for doping, that would clearly help your own competitive advantage. That's how I interpret this mess.