sniper said:
Other relevant facts:
1. Since they had accepted the backdated TUE in 1999, the UCI knew in 2001 that LA was doping. They consequently must have been smart enough to understand that any value between 70-80% in Lance's peepee in 2001/2 was due to EPO.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-reveals-armstrong-made-two-donations-to-the-uci
Correct.
It doesn't matter if it was suspicious or positive. Prosecution is
rarely decided on one fact alone or a smoking gun. It needs to be looked in
sequence.
Saugy is in as much trouble as Armstrong and The Hog. He's dreadfully
comprised. PhD lab guy probably never thought he'd actually get to
meet Lance Armstrong. Testing his urine was as close he thought he'd
get. He sounds proud of the meeting. As if he really had something to
offer Lance. As if he was worthwhile. Like it was all innocent and
Armstrong "incidental" meeting was just that "incidental" and just to
brief an athlete on how the tests work because thats the "legal way" -
as if every athlete has the same recourse to check how the tests are
performed and the science behind them. Is this really the case? Did
all 568 ProTour Cyclists get the chance to travel to the lab to check
out the new EPO test? Would the UCI facilitate such a meetings? (who
up the chain set up such a meeting? & why send the deputy to collect? That's a testers job not your PhD analyst!)
Now lets place these events together in some order.
Remember positive test or suspicious test it doesn't really matter.
Hamilton expressed to Lance he was "worried" about the level of doping
and that he might get caught and be out of a job. Landis told Lance
about his Mercury situation and the battles he had on his hand with
the UCI. And this is the key point in the entire case - Armstrong
response. He didn't respond: "back off the doping" or "don't dope" it
was - "The UCI control this *** - don't mess with them. But don't
worry I'll make the call to them. Sort this out Floyd - Keep doping I
can take care of that but keep then on the good side" - Armstrong
proceeded to recount the story to Landis of how he paid of the UCI to
make "a result" disappear - again encouraging the use of dope and how
it can "go away". Hamilton got the same advice. Don't worry Tyler - I
have it all under control - I've paid off the UCI they will make
positive/suspicious or any other kind of test go away". Lance was
saying "I'll look after you both - I supply you then I make sure you
don't get caught". Leader of the team. Encouraging drug use,
facilitating drug use. You won't get caught as long as you help me
win. Subtle as it may have been but the picture starts to fill out… -
Procurer, trafficker, briber. No wonder the Armstrong camp deny any
such meeting took place. Thats the enabler between the the team, the
athletes, the lab and the UCI. Oh dear.
It *doesn't matter if it positive or suspicious it was that the
meeting took place facilitated by the UCI and then payment(s) were
made. The Feds are not adjudicating in a sporting context. We should
stop tying to decipher the facts from the case on that basis.
Underlining this is the donations and their sequence after the "Saugy meeting"
took place - why so close to such a meeting and to the "test" in
question? Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI say that Armstrong was
invited to visit the UCI centre in Aigle and this is where such a
proposal to donate money came from. Just a coincidence that such an
invitation for a very busy man like Lance Armstrong? And then the
"chance" meeting with Saugy. Then donation. Hmmmm…. I'm confused what
happened and when.
Holes are forming… Lab deputy says they all meet. Armstrong says no
we didn't. UCI says they only came to see us and made a donation. Wow
there's some dots to be connected here.
So intel time. Its hard to hide a positive test. It really hard to
make it disappear. There really is only one way to make a positive A
sample go away. And thats if you turn positive into "borderline". Lean
on deputy that the new EPO test is subject to conjecture and perhaps a
chance meeting with Lance Armstrong might clarify the position. If you
turn it into an AAF and send out a letter that should do it. Send it
to the UCI to inform the rider. Set up a meeting with the athlete to
explain how such a "situation" could have occurred. Done. Protocol
followed. Payment made. No wonder no such meeting ever took place.
Other lab personal have talked. Some gaps have been filled. (Seems
Saugy the fall guy was happy to release the letter sent to the FBI to
60 Minutes? not knowing what he has stepped into)
Now draw SCA into this. When the contract was taken out Armstrong was
knowing of his "unfair" advantage. He knew what he had to do to
collect 5 million. Doping clause or not is irrelevant. Armstrong
knowingly in a premeditated fashion committed fraud. SCA on good faith
took out the contract knowing Lance had to win 5 Tours in a row.
Unprecedented. But they did so on the basis of a "fair" sporting
event. Not knowing of the unfair advantage then they would have pushed
up the premiums or never agreed to the terms. Secondary to this is the
arbitration itself. You can't lie. Period. And you can't lie in open
court to cover the fact you've broken the law.
So what does this all tell us? We need to stop applying the laws of
sporting sanctions on this case. Nov doesn't want to know if Lance was
positive or suspicious or anything - we only want to know because it
beats "never tested positive" mantra. Nov established long ago that
Armstrong was using drugs. He wants to know whats in the **** but how
that connects to the rest of the events. You know same EPO type
(brand) that he trafficked into Switzerland. Then the fraud.
When you start to piece all of this together you start to understand
why certain labs would leak positive tests. They had to. It was the
only way to keep them positive. Contador is your classic example as is
Floyd. No way Floyd would have officially tested positive if the lab
hadn't leaked the result.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram