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

[ChrisE]

But that really falls in line with what you would "expect" from the UCI. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the IOC (with Verbruggen sitting in the back of the room) didn't downplay it, possibly as a practice "from the past". That's always a good excuse. Blame all those bad guys who aren't there anymore (but who really just moved up the food chain or remain curiously faceless and nameless).

As far as "accounting" goes, there are already numerous posts just in this forum about all of the questionable committees and pet "development" projects at the UCI that seem to get all sorts of funding, yet produce no product or results. Plus, they picked Switzerland for a reason. I don't think accounting will ever be a major concern for the UCI. Where is that Sysmex receipt again?

I'm not suggesting that they would be out of the woods by changing their story or tactics, I'm simply suggesting that they could have more easily covered it up with their existing smoke-and-mirrors and "hey, look over there" schemes that are already place and that everyone seems to have resigned themselves to simply looking beyond. The UCI just being the UCI.

As you said, no one would be surprised to find McQuaid or Verbruggen skimming, because we've all grown accustomed to the corruption. It's when they hatch something new that the fog temporarily clears (see ProTour team selection, battles with ASO over the Tour, UCI controlled testing, etc).

Both the UCI and the IOC have long standing traditions of operating active old-boy networks while at the same time conveniently blaming away corruption and shady practices on regimes from the past.

The really amazing thing is they pull off the obvious and blatant dichotomy.

I don't know why they spouted off about it unless it was unusual, and they didn't expect it. Hmmm.

 

[Polish]

The thing I can't get my head around is this: the best thing the UCI could have done (or could do) is to come out and say "Sure, plenty of riders have donated funds to the UCI to further the fight against doping. it is quite common". Whether it happened or not.
It mitigates the idea that Armstrong was the only one sending cash to the Federation, and undermines the whole argument of preferential treatment.
.

But you have to remember these donations were made public by the UCI way back in 2005. The UCI almost seemed to be boasting about the donations.

The UCI publicly patted Lance on the back for making multiple donations over the years for anti-doping. No secrets. Or the secret was let out of the bag pre-emptively by the UCI if you want to argue that angle.

But anyway, there was no reason for the UCI to lie and say other riders were making donations for anti-doping.

 

[ChrisE]

But you have to remember these donations were made public by the UCI way back in 2005. The UCI almost seemed to be boasting about the donations.

The UCI publicly patted Lance on the back for making multiple donations over the years for anti-doping. No secrets. Or the secret was let out of the bag pre-emptively by the UCI if you want to argue that angle.

But anyway, there was no reason for the UCI to lie and say other riders were making donations for anti-doping.

Yes, so why would UCI bring this heat upon themselves?

 

[Velodude]

But that really falls in line with what you would "expect" from the UCI. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the IOC (with Verbruggen sitting in the back of the room) didn't downplay it, possibly as a practice "from the past". That's always a good excuse. Blame all those bad guys who aren't there anymore (but who really just moved up the food chain or remain curiously faceless and nameless).

As far as "accounting" goes, there are already numerous posts just in this forum about all of the questionable committees and pet "development" projects at the UCI that seem to get all sorts of funding, yet produce no product or results. Plus, they picked Switzerland for a reason. I don't think accounting will ever be a major concern for the UCI. Where is that Sysmex receipt again?

I'm not suggesting that they would be out of the woods by changing their story or tactics, I'm simply suggesting that they could have more easily covered it up with their existing smoke-and-mirrors and "hey, look over there" schemes that are already place and that everyone seems to have resigned themselves to simply looking beyond. The UCI just being the UCI.

As you said, no one would be surprised to find McQuaid or Verbruggen skimming, because we've all grown accustomed to the corruption. It's when they hatch something new that the fog temporarily clears (see ProTour team selection, battles with ASO over the Tour, UCI controlled testing, etc).

Both the UCI and the IOC have long standing traditions of operating active old-boy networks while at the same time conveniently blaming away corruption and shady practices on regimes from the past.

The really amazing thing is they pull off the obvious and blatant dichotomy.

Until the Feds became interested after the Floyd emails the UCI dictatorship believed they were teflon coated.

Verbruggen stated in July 2005 - 5 years prior - and before his retirement in September 2005.

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".

McQuaid was left to chronicle after the Feds became interested of an alternative explanation to the small amounts of Armstrong "donations" in the UCI records and their purposes (Sysmex machine & junior anti doping testing).

McQuaid stumbled and varied as the facts did not support the time lines.

I believe the Feds intervention screwed up McQuaid as he was aware of the likelihood of forensic accountants would be calling.

Both Verbruggen and McQuaid during their presidencies have ignored media requests for details on UCI transactions. They cant shut the door on a formal investigation.

 

[Polish]

Both Verbruggen and McQuaid during their presidencies have ignored media requests for details on UCI transactions. They cant shut the door on a formal investigation.

Was the Door of Formal Investigation even ever opened?
Is it open still? Doubt it.
Can you shut an unopened door?
How about a Mythical Door of Formal Investigation?

 

[Velodude]

Was the Door of Formal Investigation even ever opened?
Is it open still? Doubt it.
Can you shut an unopened door?
How about a Mythical Door of Formal Investigation?

Polish, still trying to play the village savant?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Surprised you replied to this Melman guy; I type in pretty plain English. He was just trolling. I was planning to ignore him but I guess you wanted some light intermission banter during your cage match on the other thread.

Why do I fail to acknowledge anything? Why is the fact you discussed it in July 2010 have anything to do with my posts? I did not intend this is new information, or the UCI doing underhanded things is something new. Again, I guess my sarcasm without emoticons has done me in once again.

As for your last sentence, we will never know. I highly doubt LA was the only one that had a positive squashed, or made a "donation". As I noted the other week, they tried to do it for AC but the leak tripped them up. Did AC have somebody on the payroll? Who knows. There are other incentives than a bloated bank account to not have publicized AAFs of this sport's, or any sport's, stars. That also keeps bank accounts bloated. Think about it.

So, does Contador get a refund because the UCI was unable to hide his test?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the UCI do not want to catch people- as you say there are plenty of incentives not to have AAFs - which is why the UCI try to keep testing within their control.

However, while possible, there is zero evidence of any other rider paying his way like Armstrong has.

 

[Polish]

Yes, so why would UCI bring this heat upon themselves?

You could argue the UCI made the donations public back in 2005 to take the heat OFF of themselves. Pre-Emptive disclosure. But I won't argue that. The non-fanboys might agree with me and then worlds would collide.

But to me it is no suprise that Lance was the only rider making multiple donations to the UCI for anti-doping. Lance was THE Patron of the Peloton after all. His job to keep things in line. What I find interesting is - how did Lance explain to fellow riders, some of them dopers, how did he explain all these donations? Would Lance deny that they were being used for anti-doping? Maybe Lance told some riders they were for "bribes" instead. Lance can such a kidder sometimes I guess

 

[ChrisE]

So, does Contador get a refund because the UCI was unable to hide his test?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the UCI do not want to catch people- as you say there are plenty of incentives not to have AAFs - which is why the UCI try to keep testing within their control.

However, while possible, there is zero evidence of any other rider paying his way like Armstrong has.

This is a tired argument. Let's give it a rest.

 

[Velodude]

This is a tired argument. Let's give it a rest.

You are the one throwing down the gauntlets.

Now you are throwing in the towel.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Surprised you replied to this Melman guy; I type in pretty plain English. He was just trolling. I was planning to ignore him but I guess you wanted some light intermission banter during your cage match on the other thread.

Why do I fail to acknowledge anything? Why is the fact you discussed it in July 2010 have anything to do with my posts? I did not intend this is new information, or the UCI doing underhanded things is something new. Again, I guess my sarcasm without emoticons has done me in once again.

As for your last sentence, we will never know. I highly doubt LA was the only one that had a positive squashed, or made a "donation". As I noted the other week, they tried to do it for AC but the leak tripped them up. Did AC have somebody on the payroll? Who knows. There are other incentives than a bloated bank account to not have publicized AAFs of this sport's, or any sport's, stars. That also keeps bank accounts bloated. Think about it.

So therefore....LA is absolved of his obvious guilt??? Again, so what?

 

[ChrisE]

You are the one throwing down the gauntlets.

Now you are throwing in the towel.

Not quite. My point was that the UCI is corrupt, period. Yes, that is obvious but when it comes to LA there is no "proof" pointed out by the unfanboys they are corrupt in any manner that doesnt' paint LA in the worst possible light. IE, LA is the only one that bribed so he had an unfair advantage. I don't find that credible because of UCI past and even recent actions, regardless of the "donation". This argument like all in here basically falls upon the same lines; you either hate LA and believe the worse possible thing about him or his results, or you look at it objectively. How can somebody rationally come to the conclusion that the UCI only did this with LA, knowing their history? Or, even knowing what I have said before about AAFs being bad for the sport. As I alluded to upthread covering up bloats bank accounts in more ways than with payoffs. You don't need a payoff for corruption because there are other incentives.

Doc and I have been going at it for a year or two on whether or not LA was the only one that paid the UCI off. He thinks LA is the only one because nobody else has been on the front page of a newspaper in relation to this. I say things like this happen all the times behind the scenes in not only sport, but life in general by even powerful famous people, and it is not on the front page because nobody knows about it. Plus, I point to the UCI as corrupt in general so why would LA be the only one?

So, he and I are at a standstill and have been for quite some time. That is the reason I posted to give it a rest. I have no "proof" nobody else ever did what LA did, except logic.

BTW, bravo on your post upthread about the keirin issue being OK because Japanese culture says so. That line of reasoning is a new one, and you must have dug deep for that excuse to absolve the UCI and keep the anti-LA hate express firmly in the left lane.

But, this thread is taking an interestiing turn I never thought about here in why the UCI announced this. Why did LA make such a large "donation" that would possibly get out even if they didn't announce it? Why not do it under the table over the course of time if it was really a payoff?

 

[Berzin]

The difference, ChrisE, is that there is proof that Armstrong made payments to the UCI. That money has never been fully accounted for in a straightforward manner by the UCI.

What you are conjecturing, that other riders have also made payments, is unfounded. There is nothing anywhere that remotely suggests your ridiculous premise has any shred of validity whatsoever.

That you believe it to be true despite conjuring it out of thin air is just a form of *** on your part to obfuscate Armstrong's shady dealings.

You do this because you have nothing better to do with your life than support your hero at any and all costs, even if it's at the point where you are willing to make up stories to hypnotize yourself with.

 

[doolols]

He thinks LA is the only one because nobody else has been on the front page of a newspaper in relation to this. I say things like this happen all the times behind the scenes in not only sport, but life in general by even powerful famous people, and it is not on the front page because nobody knows about it. Plus, I point to the UCI as corrupt in general so why would LA be the only one?

But LA is really the biggest cycling name in the outside world, and the one who had huge sums of money floating around (remember the Tailwind invoice that was posted some time ago?). The bigger the person, the bigger the sums, the bigger the scandal, and (hopefully) the harder the fall.

 

[Benotti69]

The difference, ChrisE, is that there is proof that Armstrong made payments to the UCI. That money has never been fully accounted for in a straightforward manner by the UCI.

What you are conjecturing, that other riders have also made payments, is unfounded. There is nothing anywhere that remotely suggests your ridiculous premise has any shred of validity whatsoever.

That you believe it to be true des[ite conjuring it out of thin air is just a form of mental masturbation on your part to obfuscate Armstrong's shady dealings.

You do this because you have nothing better to do with your life than support your hero at any and all costs, even if it's at the point where you are willing to make up stories to hypnotize yourself with.

chrisE, Polly, MarkVW, PatrickND etc are you suggesting are circle jerks?

That you believe it to be true des[ite conjuring it out of thin air is just a form of mental masturbation on your part to obfuscate Armstrong's shady dealings.

i believe Armstrong enjoys this form of mental masturbation as much as his live$trongians.....

 

[ChrisE]

The difference, ChrisE, is that there is proof that Armstrong made payments to the UCI. That money has never been fully accounted for in a straightforward manner by the UCI.

What you are conjecturing, that other riders have also made payments, is unfounded. There is nothing anywhere that remotely suggests your ridiculous premise has any shred of validity whatsoever.

That you believe it to be true despite conjuring it out of thin air is just a form of *** on your part to obfuscate Armstrong's shady dealings.

You do this because you have nothing better to do with your life than support your hero at any and all costs, even if it's at the point where you are willing to make up stories to hypnotize yourself with.

How does concluding more people than LA paying off the UCI, or more people benefitting from coverup, obfuscate or absolve LA of anything? If you go off and murder somebody, does that make it ok if it is discovered that I murdered somebody as well?

Another example....people get arrested for insider trading all the time. Does that mean ones that get arrested are the only ones that are doing it? The only ones that get speeding tickets are the only ones speeding?

It is preposterous to conclude that the UCI, with everything we know about them, did not accept things under the table or were not involved in coverups. Somebody gets popped AAF, they are informed and told it can go away if they do X. This is not a stretch to conclude this is not only possible, but probable. All of that without le Equipe or Greg Lemond knowing about it!

I am not trying to excuse anything LA did, I am just trying to put it into perspective and be objective about this whole issue. The total concept here is completely lost on you, and I will leave it at that.

***

 

[ChrisE]

But LA is really the biggest cycling name in the outside world, and the one who had huge sums of money floating around (remember the Tailwind invoice that was posted some time ago?). The bigger the person, the bigger the sums, the bigger the scandal, and (hopefully) the harder the fall.

Not sure what your point is.

But, again, and I am just tossing this out for discussion, why make the "donation" public if it was a payoff? I surely hope this question doesn't cause some springs to pop in the heads in here like my question about Ferrari warning the "protected" LA off of EPO.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure what your point is.

But, again, and I am just tossing this out for discussion, why make the "donation" public if it was a payoff? I surely hope this question doesn't cause some springs to pop in the heads in here like my question about Ferrari warning the "protected" LA off of EPO.

Because Lance is an egomaniac who wanted to publicly show that he is against the thing he was secretly guilty of by using something nefarious as though it were virtuous? That's just off the top of my head.

That you cannot fathom Armstrong's continued use of good motives to cover bad ones is mystifying considering the number of times he has done so. If you want more pontification on the reasoning behind such things, I will try to oblige when I get the time, but really Chris, you are smart enough to do that heavy lifting yourself.

 

[ChrisE]

Because Lance is an egomaniac who wanted to publicly show that he is against the thing he was secretly guilty of by using something nefarious as though it were virtuous? That's just off the top of my head.

...snip remaining wrong conclusions about what I think......

So, he would make a donation which clearly would be construed as a conflict of interest just to throw off the dogs?

 

[Benotti69]

So, he would make a donation which clearly would be construed as a conflict of interest just to throw off the dogs?

or he made it because he wanted a positive from Tour De Suisse to disappear

 

[Anonymous]

So, he would make a donation which clearly would be construed as a conflict of interest just to throw off the dogs?

1. He lied about the amount.
2. It wasn't to throw off anyone. Like many things he has done, he revels in being able to take his nefarious activities and rub people's noses in his twist making it virtuous. You are pretty deficient in understanding of a narcissist's behavior evidently. You are certainly ignoring his many instances of doing just that.
3. The only other option is that the payments were legit and you aren't that stupid.

But keep arguing as your point is to be divisive, and admitting you are doing that would defeat the purpose of your divisiveness. You can't kid a kidder.

 

[pmcg76]

Not sure what your point is.

But, again, and I am just tossing this out for discussion, why make the "donation" public if it was a payoff? I surely hope this question doesn't cause some springs to pop in the heads in here like my question about Ferrari warning the "protected" LA off of EPO.

I thought it was Sylvia Schenk who was the first person to mention the donation and Armstrong then openly admitted to it. Again, correct me if I am wrong on this. I thought Armstrong initial response was they didnt publically announce the donation because they didnt want to make a big deal out of it, like in the normal Armstrong way on not playing thing for PR purposes.

Anyway, its just like the backdated TUE and how they publically acknowledged working with Ferrari because they got wind David Walsh was gonna do the expose. Doubly amazing considering Ferrari never got mentioned in "Not about the bike" which was 2000 and the reveal was 2001.

They were damage limitation exercises so Lance could fool the believers before they had time to figure things out for themselves.

 

[Cloxxki]

I may be hog-exact in my wordings.

First I heard it, was on UCI/LA's international media outlet, being Dutch national broadcaster, "NOS". Verbruggen was defending yellow's beautiful work, and seemed provoked into telling the little known fact about the wonderful anti-dope donation to buy the testing machine.

 

[Polish]

The difference, ChrisE, is that there is proof that Armstrong made payments to the UCI. That money has never been fully accounted for in a straightforward manner by the UCI.
.

Sure there is proof.

1) The UCI themselves openly dicussing the multiple donations back in 2005 or earlier. Widely covered in the cycling press. No big deal back then. Greg did NOT say "Lance is either the most charitable or the biggest fraud". What is it with the either/or anyway. But I guess Ms Schlenck was the "dissapointed" one way back then.

2) Lance himself supposedly boasting to other riders. Like many others here, I read about that supposed boasting here in the Clinic and later in Floyd's e-mails...

3) Invoices and Press Releases from anti-doping concerns.

Now if the donations stayed private - THAT would have certainly looked suspicious. But it has been openly discussed for onetwothreefourfivesixseven years now. SSDD.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not quite. My point was that the UCI is corrupt, period. Yes, that is obvious but when it comes to LA there is no "proof" pointed out by the unfanboys they are corrupt in any manner that doesnt' paint LA in the worst possible light. IE, LA is the only one that bribed so he had an unfair advantage. I don't find that credible because of UCI past and even recent actions, regardless of the "donation". This argument like all in here basically falls upon the same lines; you either hate LA and believe the worse possible thing about him or his results, or you look at it objectively. How can somebody rationally come to the conclusion that the UCI only did this with LA, knowing their history? Or, even knowing what I have said before about AAFs being bad for the sport. As I alluded to upthread covering up bloats bank accounts in more ways than with payoffs. You don't need a payoff for corruption because there are other incentives.

Doc and I have been going at it for a year or two on whether or not LA was the only one that paid the UCI off. He thinks LA is the only one because nobody else has been on the front page of a newspaper in relation to this. I say things like this happen all the times behind the scenes in not only sport, but life in general by even powerful famous people, and it is not on the front page because nobody knows about it. Plus, I point to the UCI as corrupt in general so why would LA be the only one?

So, he and I are at a standstill and have been for quite some time. That is the reason I posted to give it a rest. I have no "proof" nobody else ever did what LA did, except logic.

BTW, bravo on your post upthread about the keirin issue being OK because Japanese culture says so. That line of reasoning is a new one, and you must have dug deep for that excuse to absolve the UCI and keep the anti-LA hate express firmly in the left lane.

But, this thread is taking an interestiing turn I never thought about here in why the UCI announced this. Why did LA make such a large "donation" that would possibly get out even if they didn't announce it? Why not do it under the table over the course of time if it was really a payoff?

Thanks for bringing me back in to it - it allows me to point out where you are wrong.

I understand it is much easier to label me a hater than address the actual issue, that Armstrong is the only person we know of to pay off the UCI (let alone more than one bri... I mean donation).

You also overlook where I continue to point out that it is indeed possible that others paid off the UCI - yet your "objectivity" as you call it never addresses that there is no hint or rumour of anyone else buying off the UCI and that most of Armstrongs rivals fell foul of the system that they were somehow to have bought off?