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

[The Plediadian]

All I can guess is there was a big change after Lance retired. My guess is that Puerto raised so many red flags among the anti-doping authorities, that enforcement of doping controls began in ernest.

Also, that brought bad luck for Landis, vino and all the others, Puerto spotlighted the blatant usage.

 

[thehog]

All I can guess is there was a big change after Lance retired. My guess is that Puerto raised so many red flags among the anti-doping authorities, that enforcement of doping controls began in ernest.

Not really. The UCI sat on the Puerto documents for months on end first suggesting they needed to be translated then that there was little they could do in terms of sanctioning riders. Basso was back riding with Discovery in a matter of weeks after being booted off the 2006 Tour. At the time there was a lot of rhetoric from McQuaid but it was really only CONI and the race organisers that cracked down on the Puerto riders by not allowing them to race.

Mancebo, Botero etc. all went off to other continents to ride again.

Which brings us back to Valverde and Ullrich; both have been chased through the courts well into 2011 by the UCI even when Puerto was a distance memory for most.

You'd think with the tenacity that the UCI attempted with Valverde & Ullrich they would have applied the same with Armstrong not just with the 6 EPO samples but in 2010 with the Landis allegations. There was absolutely no intention to investigate any of the claims. Never has been, never will be.

Again thats protection. Risk free doping.

 

[ChrisE]

I think you need to delineate between "protected" and "preventive". It was always better to receive information ahead of the game and "prevent" a positive. This is where Ferrari came in. Hence why he warned Armstrong away from EPO. Very hard to turn back a positive - but it could be done. Protection wasn't protection from a positive but to give information on testing to Ferrari but also to receive advance warning on testing. Thats protection.

LOL. You just roll with it, don't you?

Yes, Ferrari "prevented" LA from testing positive for EPO because he was the only one in the world that new a test for it was out. That's what he paid Ferrari for......professional warner of common knowledge. What a deal.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not really. The UCI sat on the Puerto documents for months on end first suggesting they needed to be translated then that there was little they could do in terms of sanctioning riders. Basso was back riding with Discovery in a matter of weeks after being booted off the 2006 Tour. At the time there was a lot of rhetoric from McQuaid but it was really only CONI and the race organisers that cracked down on the Puerto riders by not allowing them to race.

Mancebo, Botero etc. all went off to other continents to ride again.

Which brings us back to Valverde and Ullrich; both have been chased through the courts well into 2011 by the UCI even when Puerto was a distance memory for most.

You'd think with the tenacity that the UCI attempted with Valverde & Ullrich they would have applied the same with Armstrong not just with the 6 EPO samples but in 2010 with the Landis allegations. There was absolutely no intention to investigate any of the claims. Never has been, never will be.

Again thats protection. Risk free doping.

Sortof.

The UCI did not (do not) want positives, its bad for business. But they did not actively protect the peloton, but by doing nothing they ensured that procedures were lax and if you had a decent 'programme' easy to get around.

Armstrong went against Dr. Ferraris advice to dial back on the EPO before the Tour de Siusse. The protection part came in cleaning up the mess.

 

[The Plediadian]

Not really. The UCI sat on the Puerto documents for months on end first suggesting they needed to be translated then that there was little they could do in terms of sanctioning riders. Basso was back riding with Discovery in a matter of weeks after being booted off the 2006 Tour. At the time there was a lot of rhetoric from McQuaid but it was really only CONI and the race organisers that cracked down on the Puerto riders by not allowing them to race.

Mancebo, Botero etc. all went off to other continents to ride again.

Which brings us back to Valverde and Ullrich; both have been chased through the courts well into 2011 by the UCI even when Puerto was a distance memory for most.

You'd think with the tenacity that the UCI attempted with Valverde & Ullrich they would have applied the same with Armstrong not just with the 6 EPO samples but in 2010 with the Landis allegations. There was absolutely no intention to investigate any of the claims. Never has been, never will be.

Again thats protection. Risk free doping.

Well, that is the UCI, no disagreement whatsoever with you.
However except for Frank S. and probably for a couple of other selected exceptions, were there no DNA checks?
Without naming individuals the UCI and national federations protect there "Golden Gooses."
I would guess there would be pay offs.

 

[Anonymous]

Nothing in my last couple of posts was in the slightest bit controversial. You're just a self-admitted biased hater.

Well, you got me there.

 

[Neworld]

Not really. Which brings us back to Valverde and Ullrich; both have been chased through the courts well into 2011 by the UCI even when Puerto was a distance memory for most.

You'd think with the tenacity that the UCI attempted with Valverde & Ullrich they would have applied the same with Armstrong not just with the 6 EPO samples but in 2010 with the Landis allegations. There was absolutely no intention to investigate any of the claims. Never has been, never will be.

Again thats protection. Risk free doping.

Well said. I defy someone to compare what happened to Valv and Ullrich to that of Armstrong especially given his status in cycling, number or wins and monumental claims of his wrongdoing. The UCI cannot be seen as anything but collusional and corrupt.

And, why is it that someone so nobel, awesome and clean as Armstrong (who apparently turned against the Omerta -Polish) would not willingly and opening allow for retesting of all his samples. Those potential retroanalyses could have been reviewed by WADA and an Armstrong rep simultaneously to ensure fairness... this was never done which speaks volumes.

NW

 

[thehog]

Sortof.

The UCI did not (do not) want positives, its bad for business. But they did not actively protect the peloton, but by doing nothing they ensured that procedures were lax and if you had a decent 'programme' easy to get around.

Armstrong went against Dr. Ferraris advice to dial back on the EPO before the Tour de Siusse. The protection part came in cleaning up the mess.

You missed my point. They weren't protecting the peloton they were protecting Armstrong - period. Again risk free doping.

I never understand why some riders like Ullirch and Valverde are chased down and prosecuted by the UCI whilst others like Armstrong are not.

Even to Floyd and Hamilton. Although both tested positive they got no favours from the UCI upon their return to the sport. In fact in both cases the UCI did all they could so they wouldn't ride at top flight again. Hamilton with Tinkoff and Floyd where the UCI actively told teams not to hire him.

Never understood the consistency aspect here. Something else was at play. Maybe it was something Vino understood.

 

[Velodude]

You missed my point. They weren't protecting the peloton they were protecting Armstrong - period. Again risk free doping.

I never understand why some riders like Ullirch and Valverde are chased down and prosecuted by the UCI whilst others like Armstrong are not.

Even to Floyd and Hamilton. Although both tested positive they got no favours from the UCI upon their return to the sport. In fact in both cases the UCI did all they could so they wouldn't ride at top flight again. Hamilton with Tinkoff and Floyd where the UCI actively told teams not to hire him.

Never understood the consistency aspect here. Something else was at play. Maybe it was something Vino understood.

Remember that after Landis & Hamilton left US Postal they were personae non grata to Armstrong and expendable.

As we have often discussed former riders in Armstrong's teams curiously end up with AAFs in subsequent teams.

That is the influence on the UCI of the patron of the peloton.

 

[Anonymous]

Nothing. You can't even infer that there have been no indictments (sealed indictments are a possibility).

The federal statutes of limitations for most crimes is five years, so any investigation involving the USPS team is definitely 'on the clock.'

Also note that SOL's are a defense. It probably has nothing to do with the indictments in this instance because they already know that regardless of what happens, Armstrong's defense team will raise it. That will be the first battle, but at this point, because of the timing, the SOL doesn't really betray anything. If they feel confident in their case for when the SOL runs, they can take all the time they feel they need. I am betting (call me crazy) that the government is pretty well researched up on making their case regarding any SOL issue.

 

[thehog]

Remember that after Landis & Hamilton left US Postal they were personae non grata to Armstrong and expendable.

As we have often discussed former riders in Armstrong's teams curiously end up with AAFs in subsequent teams.

That is the influence on the UCI of the patron of the peloton.

I know Floyd often wondered the same. After losing at CAS he could never understand why his sample was positive. After years of doping why pick up on testosterone when he hadn't used it in the days leading up to his win.

Wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong had some influence but we'll probably never sure what. It would be a stretch to believe Armstrong or the UCI could hatchet a positive.

Looking back Floyd's best defense at CAS would have been to show his doping and how he he wasn't detected in his career. Argument being if you couldn't detect me for 5 years how did you detect me for a substance I didn't take and why didn't I test positive for everything else?

He would have got off methinks with that approach. Open hearing as well. McQuaid would have blown a gasket.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You missed my point. They weren't protecting the peloton they were protecting Armstrong - period. Again risk free doping.

I never understand why some riders like Ullirch and Valverde are chased down and prosecuted by the UCI whilst others like Armstrong are not.

Even to Floyd and Hamilton. Although both tested positive they got no favours from the UCI upon their return to the sport. In fact in both cases the UCI did all they could so they wouldn't ride at top flight again. Hamilton with Tinkoff and Floyd where the UCI actively told teams not to hire him.

Never understood the consistency aspect here. Something else was at play. Maybe it was something Vino understood.

You missed my point, because I agree, I don't see any other rider getting that level of protection except Armstrong.

But I don't agree that he got the full "risk free doping", it is difficult to make a positive go away.

As for other riders - well as I said, the testing was so inadequate it was like saying, "ok, we will look away for 5 minutes, but after that if we see anyone doping you will get done".

You can imagine the conversation Pat had with Floyd...
"Sorry Floyd, you got caught, thats tough. There is nothing we can do for you, my advice is save yourself the time and money and admit".

 

[aphronesis]

I know Floyd often wondered the same. After losing at CAS he could never understand why his sample was positive. After years of doping why pick up on testosterone when he hadn't used it in the days leading up to his win.

Wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong had some influence but we'll probably never sure what. It would be a stretch to believe Armstrong or the UCI could hatchet a positive.

Looking back Floyd's best defense at CAS would have been to show his doping and how he he wasn't detected in his career. Argument being if you couldn't detect me for 5 years how did you detect me for a substance I didn't take and why didn't I test positive for everything else?

He would have got off methinks with that approach. Open hearing as well. McQuaid would have blown a gasket.

Sure, but that was before he knew he wasn't coming back. And it was unthinkable at that point--as it is for everyone still in.

 

[Velodude]

Also note that SOL's are a defense. It probably has nothing to do with the indictments in this instance because they already know that regardless of what happens, Armstrong's defense team will raise it. That will be the first battle, but at this point, because of the timing, the SOL doesn't really betray anything. If they feel confident in their case for when the SOL runs, they can take all the time they feel they need. I am betting (call me crazy) that the government is pretty well researched up on making their case regarding any SOL issue.

Also have to factor in the Cache Cache witness tampering by Armstrong on Hamilton and whether the Feds are in a position to toll or have tolled the SOL.

I agree, the Feds would have a handle on the SOL.

 

[Aleajactaest]

You consider someone showing you that you don't know what you are talking about a personal attack. Maybe you should stop making legally deficient proclamations? Your self-esteem will improve dramatically.

You're welcome.

As someone who has spent, to date, 195 posts in this thread, you might want to consider the status of your self esteem. I'd say that for all the top posters.

Dr. Maserati 524
Polish 504
MarkvW 479
thehog 475
Race Radio 431
Velodude 378
Cimacoppi49 358

You're all investing a lot in something most of you have zero stake in. 300 plus posts each on an investigation that's closed to the public. Just sayin'

 

[Anonymous]

As someone who has spent, to date, 195 posts in this thread, you might want to consider the status of your self esteem. I'd say that for all the top posters.

Dr. Maserati 524
Polish 504
MarkvW 479
thehog 475
Race Radio 431
Velodude 378
Cimacoppi49 358

You're all investing a lot in something most of you have zero stake in. 300 plus posts each on an investigation that's closed to the public. Just sayin'

You're investing a lot of time posting about someone else posting. I suggest going into your bathroom, looking in the mirror and repeating "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog gone it, people like me."

Now run along little fella'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As someone who has spent, to date, 195 posts in this thread, you might want to consider the status of your self esteem. I'd say that for all the top posters.

Dr. Maserati 524
Polish 504
MarkvW 479
thehog 475
Race Radio 431
Velodude 378
Cimacoppi49 358

You're all investing a lot in something most of you have zero stake in. 300 plus posts each on an investigation that's closed to the public. Just sayin'

A lot of my posts here are actually responses to people like you and showing the hypocrisy - these were your first ever posts:

What am I missing?

I've read 30 pages of this thread and there is nothing but I said, you said in the whole thing.

Wouldn't evidence to bolster the case for or against Lance be useful?

The haters all say they have evidence and the fanboys, all say it's not proven.

I say there isn't a good case either way and while I certainly have my suspicions, I'm not gonna get into arguments on web site where there can never be answers.

I'm interested in facts, apparently, that doesn't bother you folks. Continue your baseless speculation and specious arguments. I'll walk away and wait for some facts.

My self esteem is a lot better than yours, thanks for asking.

 

[Anonymous]

A lot of my posts here are actually responses to people like you and showing the hypocrisy - these were your first ever posts:




My self esteem is a lot better than yours, thanks for asking.

He certainly has a familiar stench, doesn't he?

Anyway, better stop before Susan comes in and defends him...

 

[Race Radio]

As someone who has spent, to date, 195 posts in this thread, you might want to consider the status of your self esteem. I'd say that for all the top posters.

Dr. Maserati 524
Polish 504
MarkvW 479
thehog 475
Race Radio 431
Velodude 378
Cimacoppi49 358

You're all investing a lot in something most of you have zero stake in. 300 plus posts each on an investigation that's closed to the public. Just sayin'

What?? I am only 5th? How is this possible? My self esteem is crushed! Not even on the podium. 4th place loser.

At least I don't suck as bad as TFF, that guy is a loser.

 

[Neworld]

I never understand why some riders like Ullirch and Valverde are chased down and prosecuted by the UCI whilst others like Armstrong are not.

Even to Floyd and Hamilton. Although both tested positive they got no favours from the UCI upon their return to the sport. In fact in both cases the UCI did all they could so they wouldn't ride at top flight again. Hamilton with Tinkoff and Floyd where the UCI actively told teams not to hire him.

Never understood the consistency aspect here. Something else was at play. Maybe it was something Vino understood.

It would be easy for any foe of Ullrich, Basso or Valv...to nail their doping 'supplier'.

E. Fuentes was an athlete himself and hurdled under the tutelage of Manuel Pascua Pizueras a national Track and Field coach. In the 1980s Pascua convinced him to give up Gyne and start preparing Spanish athletes for the 1984 Olympics (guess they new what the American's were doing and wanted to match them, who knows). Fuentes trained another hurdler named Cristina Peres who tested positive in 1988 Olympics, he later married her.

Fuentes and Pascua where basically kicked out of Spanish Track and Field that year and then as a team Doctor Fuentes hooked-up with ONCE (Siaz), then Kelme (Siaz), then Lib Seguros, the last 2 incognito. He quickly assisted many of those riders to win stages in GTs and the Vuelta for example. He was very good at his job and was in demand. Of note, Pascua's cycling brother worked with Orbea in 1985+. Those Pascuas'! Then He worked with innumerable athletes in Cycling as we all know; Operation P.

Just saying, it would be hard 'not' to know of Fuentes, his abilities and maybe someone 'helped crack the Omerta' by revealing to certain authorities his disposition and taking down a pile of competition, or old rivals, all in one day.

NW

 

[thehog]

Its would be easy for any foe of Ullrich, Basso or Valv...to nail their doping 'supplier'.

E. Fuentes was an athlete himself and hurdled under the tutelage of Manuel Pascua Pizueras a national Track and Field coach. In the 1980s Pascua convinced him to give up Gyne and start preparing Spanish athletes for the 1984 Olympics (guess they new what the American's were doing and wanted to match them, who knows). Fuentes trained another hurdler named Cristina Peres who tested positive in 1988 Olympics, he later married her.

Fuentes and Pascua where basically kicked out of Spanish Track and Field that year and then as a team Doctor Fuentes hooked-up with ONCE (Siaz), then Kelme (Siaz), then Lib Seguros, the last 2 incognito. He quickly assisted many of those riders to win stages in GTs and the Vuelta for example. He was very good at his job and was in demand. Of note, Pascua's cycling brother worked with Orbea in 1985+. Those Pascuas'! Then He worked with innumerable athletes in Cycling as we all know; Operation P.

Just saying, it would be hard 'not' to know of Fuentes, his abilities and maybe someone 'helped crack the Omerta' by revealing to certain authorities his disposition and taking down a pile of competition, or old rivals, all in one day.

NW

Maybe it was a Ferrari vs Fuentes shakedown. With Fuentes preparing Mayo, Beloki, Conatador, Valverde along with Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton etc. he was getting a good lot of results and may have been becoming the Doctor of choice. Ferrari just needed a few positives and chase downs on the Fuentes side and he is reestablished as the King of dope. Not hard to believe......

 

[Benotti69]

Maybe it was a Ferrari vs Fuentes shakedown. With Fuentes preparing Mayo, Beloki, Conatador, Valverde along with Basso, Ullrich, Hamilton etc. he was getting a good lot of results and may have been becoming the Doctor of choice. Ferrari just needed a few positives and chase downs on the Fuentes side and he is reestablished as the King of dope. Not hard to believe......

"Not hard to believe......"

An old family friend could assist in such matters....

 

[Anti-doping]

Look at the way the UCI chased Valverde and Botero. Both never testing positive. The only evidence that existed against Valverde was a bag of blood hanging in a fridge somewhere in Spain. But the UCI chased him down and finally landed him a 2 year suspension years after the face. Was his evidence any difference from the 6 single samples of EPO positive for Armstrong? Was his evidence any different than two former team-mates describing the doping regimes?

CONI, not UCI that chased Valverde down (and also Basso & Scarponi).

 

[Cloxxki]

So were the official donations to the UCI Armstrong made perhaps only effected when there were too many leaks? The initial payment may have been cash only. When the existence of donation leaked (monumental error by Verdruggen?), Armstrong had to make it official. Pay twice. Delays could come from the terms he set. He never pays a penny without clear to him path back to his own wallet.

 

[thehog]

CONI, not UCI that chased Valverde down (and also Basso & Scarponi).

Did you read any of my posts? Exactly what I stated. The UCI had no interest initially in pursuing anyone from Puerto. It was the race directors who refused to allow OP riders to ride. CONI was also instrumental in sanctioning Basso and Valverde on Italian soil only. The point I was making was once CONI had establish guilt the UCI were relentless in ensuring they all got there 2 years. Valverde wasn’t sanctioned until 2010. The UCI even went to CAS to palm down on Ullrich who had obvisouly retired and wasn’t coming back. All good and well but Armstrong has never had to face the type of pressure from the governing body – in fact it was quite the opposite.