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

[MarkvW]

I think you are confusing LeBlanc with Laurent Brochard who won the Worlds in 97. His positive was hidden but there was never any mention that it was paid for.

What a charitable act of corruption!

 

[thehog]

I think you are confusing LeBlanc with Laurent Brochard who won the Worlds in 97. His positive was hidden but there was never any mention that it was paid for.

Read Willy's Voet's book - Breaking the Chain. It's in there.

and the court notes from the Festina trials.

 

[thehog]

What a charitable act of corruption!

UCI payments didn't start with Lance. They'd been occurring for years.

Lance turned it from blind corruption into a donation because he was so well known. He could just hand over money like the others.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Read Willy's Voet's book - Breaking the Chain. It's in there.

and the court notes from the Festina trials.

I have read it - which confirms that you are mistaken, it was Brochard not LeBlanc.

From a CN piece about Voets book:

He talks about Hein Verbruggen: "He was one of the people who made necessary arrangements to ensure that the doping scandal surrounding Laurent Brochard during the 1997 World Championships in San Sebastian never became public.The doctors made a statement that Brochard was positive to Lidocaim when he was tested at the end of the race. But the statements was delayed and outside the time limit."

 

[Velodude]

Whew! That was quite an ordeal (reading half a dozen pages of posts of questionable worth).

I'm starting to wonder if the Doc, Chris, and Polish are having some sort of contest...

If there is indeed a competition involving this pointlessly circumulating thread, I have to say (with a bit of chagrin) that Polish is clearly winning.

His/her posts over this day have made me laugh the most.
To the others? Yawn. Done and done. Everybody knows this sh*t. Give it up Chris; keep fighting the fight Mas (although your endurance is unparalleled).

Right on! Good humour...

You obviously award more points for entertainment value than debating skills supported by facts!

Maybe LA should send in the clowns to replace his professional PR propaganda machine.

♩ ♪ ♫

"Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns
Well, maybe next year"

 

[Polish]

I think you are confusing LeBlanc with Laurent Brochard who won the Worlds in 97. His positive was hidden but there was never any mention that it was paid for.

So it is possible to get Preferential Treatment for free?
Preferential Treatment without making donations?
Pro Bono?
Preferential treatment doesn't sound as special anymore.

And it hardly seems fair for the the guys who paid for preferential treatment

 

[thehog]

So it is possible to get Preferential Treatment for free?
Preferential Treatment without making donations?
Pro Bono?
Preferential treatment doesn't sound as special anymore.

And it hardly seems fair for the the guys who paid for preferential treatment

Yes and apparently "making arrangments" doesn't include payments!!

Sorry Doc you're reaching. Pick a different fight. Lance wasn't the first nor last.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes and apparently "making arrangments" doesn't include payments!!

Sorry Doc you're reaching. Pick a different fight. Lance wasn't the first nor last.

You said it was Leblanc and you said there was a payment - in fact you said:

Read Willy's Voet's book - Breaking the Chain. It's in there.

and the court notes from the Festina trials.

I have read Voets book and read all the reports from the Festina trial - it was Brochard and there was no payment.

If you have something on LeBlanc or that a payment was made (for anyone) than show it.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You obviously award more points for entertainment value than debating skills supported by facts!

Maybe LA should send in the clowns to replace his professional PR propaganda machine.

♩ ♪ ♫

"Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
But where are the clowns? Send in the clowns
Well, maybe next year"

On this thread I certainly do.

As Jan said...

I just love the interplay at this point. I'm not buying the trollsters, but their arguments (or theirs statements that are supposed to be contrarian) can be too sweet to not get a chuckle out of.

Polish is the best! There's a reason he hasn't been tanked by the mods.

He's the Hardy to our Laurel. Look it up, junior...

 

[Velodude]

On this thread I certainly do.

As Jan said...

I just love the interplay at this point. I'm not buying the trollsters, but their arguments (or theirs statements that are supposed to be contrarian) can be too sweet to not get a chuckle out of.

Polish is the best! There's a reason he hasn't been tanked by the mods.

if you are an LA fanboy then Polish would be a person held in high respect and admiration as the (folktale) modern day Horatius Cocles alone on the bridge defending Rome. However, I see that he or she or it has not been tanked by the mods as village idiots attract sympathy rather than scorn and ridicule.

He's the Hardy to our Laurel. Look it up, junior...

Now you are debating with ridicule.

 

[Polish]

Me, I'm just a Lawn Mower - you can tell me by the way I walk

if you are an LA fanboy then Polish would be a person held in high respect and admiration as the (folktale) modern day Horatius Cocles alone on the bridge defending Rome. However, I see that he or she or it has not been tanked by the mods as village idiots attract sympathy rather than scorn and ridicule.
.

Horatius huh?

How about Tiresias....
Take a little trip back with father Tiresias,
Listen to the old one speak of all he has lived through.
"I have crossed between the poles, for me there's no mystery.
Once a man, like the sea, I raged.
Once a woman, like the earth, I gave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqZUVP_rtzs
.
..

 

[Mr. O'Clock]

lance is as relevant in every pedal stroke of the '11 Tourand in every bit of work he does in cancer fighting he does, 24 -7.

 

[ChrisE]

LOL, look that this O'Clock guy that just rolled in. Welcome to the party, Mr. O'clock lol.

 

[Spider1964]

Is Polish Treebeard the oldest Ent?

While we're all banging on about fables and fairytales... I think I have the answer that everyone has been searching for...

Is Polish a He or a She?

I've seen his/her bike in the "What Bike are you riding thread"... and it's a big mother? Mmmmm, who rides a big Mother bike? An Ent! Polish is an Ent! And in particular he's Treebeard... the oldest and largest Ent.

I think Wikipedia says it best

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ent

Treebeard, the oldest living Ent,[3] is described as being around 14 feet (4 m) tall:
[A] large Man-like, almost Troll-like, figure, at least fourteen foot high, very sturdy, with a tall head, and hardly any neck. Whether it was clad in stuff like green and grey bark, or whether that was its hide, was difficult to say. At any rate the arms, at a short distance from the trunk, were not wrinkled, but covered with a brown smooth skin. The large feet had seven toes each. The lower part of the long face was covered with a sweeping grey beard, bushy, almost twiggy at the roots, thin and mossy at the ends. But at the moment the hobbits noted little but the eyes. These deep eyes were now surveying them, slow and solemn, but very penetrating.[4]

 

[thirteen]

An Insult?
I beg your pardon?
(said with attitude while rocking my head from left to right)

Anyway, I posted a picture of my bike a while back on the "Your Bike" thread.
Revenge of the Amazon Women grrrr.

ah, merci for clarifying

 

[ferrellm]

You are a scholar, sir

Now that we have concluded that, no, 6/13 is not a majority (to my disappointment; I was beginning to hope that my candidate of choice could be elected Pres with 246 electoral votes), let’s turn to RR’s more substantive claims:



From the Vrijman report (yes, I know it’s something of a whitewash, but this is not a conclusion but a citation of other sources):



Was there ever a final resolution of these numbers? It also says in the report that 40 of the 102 samples were not found, implying that maybe only 62 were tested. Maybe this is what RR is referring to when he says 40/70??

I think it matters, because while in any case there were a greater proportion of positives in 1998, given the widespread use of EPO then, one might have expected more than 30-40% positives. Even 40/62, which seems to be the maximum estimate, might seem low if every team was organizing doping for all its members. The discrepancy could be explained if some riders who were positive didn’t test positive, because of factors such as degradation of EPO over time during storage and ambiguity in determining the band pattern (e.g., a rider with a large amount of natural EPO excreted in urine would have to have a larger amount of synthetic to trigger a positive).

What I’m getting at here is that it’s quite plausible that the proportion of positives in both 1998 and 1999 was underestimated. So even though there were more positives in 1998—I will concede this to RR—there might have been more than 13 in 1999. In fact, I believe in both years not all the samples given were tested, so the estimated numbers would have to be corrected for this factor as well.

Also, the point made earlier about LA being tested more is relevant. He won the Prologue and held the MJ for all but five stages overall. In fact, he gave samples after seventeen different stages, which is quite unusual. The only other wearer of the yellow I believe was not a GC contender, and most of the other stage winners were not, either. In contrast, six different riders wore the yellow in 1998. It may have been that the usual suspects got tested more then. Not saying this explains all the difference, but it could be a contributing factor. Specifically, about a third of LA's samples were positive, a proportion that may reflect inability to detect more positives as well as his not using EPO on certain stages. In either case, one would not expect other riders to return more than one positive sample if they were not tested more than a couple of times, and I believe that was generally the case.

As for what stages the samples corresponded to, my understanding, from DR’s CN interview in Sept. 2005, is that several of the positives of the other riders came from stages after the Prologue. Does anyone have any further information on this?

I will say that in checking back on some of the data, I am more impressed than before that these EPO tests provide support for the theory that LA was protected. But I’ve followed bike racing too long to believe that all or even most riders in the peloton would be afraid to dope in 1999, especially when a test still did not exist. Those of us watching these guys have repeatedly underestimated the risks they’re willing to take.

Thanks for the post!

 

[skippythepinhead]

I must admit I'm uncertain about the course of this thread, perhaps someone could clarify for me in layman's terms, the kind we'd use explaining to a non-cyclist why there's a TTT in a cycling event that Lance Armstrong wins all by himself:

It seems the argument is that Lance Armstrong's donation to the UCI had less value because he wasn't the only rider protected during the Tour de France. I gather this notion is provided as further support for the idea that Lance was just another doper in a field full of dopers.

Is that it, or is there some other detailed nuance that's not piercing my thick skull?

 

[Oldman]

I must admit I'm uncertain about the course of this thread, perhaps someone could clarify for me in layman's terms, the kind we'd use explaining to a non-cyclist why there's a TTT in a cycling event that Lance Armstrong wins all by himself:

It seems the argument is that Lance Armstrong's donation to the UCI had less value because he wasn't the only rider protected during the Tour de France. I gather this notion is provided as further support for the idea that Lance was just another doper in a field full of dopers.

Is that it, or is there some other detailed nuance that's not piercing my thick skull?

Lance's "donation" is a certified known act. The amount is debatable.
It would be beyond naive to think the UCI wouldn't mine this franchise vein of fraud with others as well; effectively extending the concept of protection and it is unlikely LA's team enjoyed exclusive protection. It's totally possible that the combination of suppressed results, lost samples and advance testing notice would actually favor one team as a particular race played out; particularly if Heins had an interest in that occurring. It eventually is speculative until proven.

 

[theswordsman]

Lance's "donation" is a certified known act. The amount is debatable.
It would be beyond naive to think the UCI wouldn't mine this franchise vein of fraud with others as well; effectively extending the concept of protection and it is unlikely LA's team enjoyed exclusive protection. It's totally possible that the combination of suppressed results, lost samples and advance testing notice would actually favor one team as a particular race played out; particularly if Heins had an interest in that occurring. It eventually is speculative until proven.

I'll veer a bit off topic, but for me an example is the three guys who got busted at the Tour the year they had everyone sign a rider's agreement where they'd give up a year's salary if they tested positive. Vino retired, so they weren't necessarily going to see cash from him. Sorry, I don't recall the name of the third rider off the top of my head - I posted it here before. Anyway, there's a bill for the other two on the UCI's website from back in the day. Cristian Moreni made news in October 2009 when he paid the fine voluntarily, even though I don't see that he ever raced again. For Vino to come back, the UCI wanted 1.2 million Euros of salary, but he took it to CAS, and they decided it was a marketing gimmick and not a real contract. Things got real interesting when a French court announced earlier this year that a case against the 3 riders was dropped because the UCI refused to hand over evidence of their doping.

So basically, in July 2007, the UCI had signed documents from 3 guys who doped, and they expected a year's salary from at least two of them to let them race again. At the same time, the French were building a legal case against the three. Turning over evidence might greatly impact the possibility of the UCI seeing cash. They didn't turn over the evidence. Why did Moreni pay them if he wasn't to race again, and why not try to get it back once the CAS said payment wasn't required? Was it a payment in exchange for withholding evidence?

I sure hope for Lance legal news soon.

 

[Velodude]

UCI payments didn't start with Lance. They'd been occurring for years.

Lance turned it from blind corruption into a donation because he was so well known. He could just hand over money like the others.

Hein was up to it while Lance was abandoning Tours.

Courtesy of BBC

Cycling cash linked to Olympics

Documents given to the BBC suggest that $3m (£1.5m) was paid by organisers of a Japanese cycling event to the UCI - the world cycling body.

The payments were allegedly made in the 1990s. The event, called the keirin, was supported for inclusion into the Games by the UCI, and admitted in 1996. <snip>...

For years there have been rumours in cycling that the Japanese gave money to the UCI in return for its promotion of keirin as an Olympic event.

According to one member of the UCI at the time, the Japanese donated a "big envelope" in return for access.

Denmark's Henrik Elmgreen was also a member cycling's governing body at the time.

"We must admit that when they came it was because the Japanese were very influential in the UCI and they offered a lot of money in order to promote this discipline.

"You can to a certain extent say they bought their way in but on the other hand it is a spectacular discipline <snip>...

The payments total some $3m - that is about a fifth of the UCI's annual budget - paid as reimbursements for things like the routine travel expenses of top UCI officials including Mr Verbruggen, the man who is now in charge of the organising committee for the Beijing Olympic Games

And the Sysmex machine was of Japanese manufacture

 

[ChrisE]

I must admit I'm uncertain about the course of this thread, perhaps someone could clarify for me in layman's terms, the kind we'd use explaining to a non-cyclist why there's a TTT in a cycling event that Lance Armstrong wins all by himself:

It seems the argument is that Lance Armstrong's donation to the UCI had less value because he wasn't the only rider protected during the Tour de France. I gather this notion is provided as further support for the idea that Lance was just another doper in a field full of dopers.

Is that it, or is there some other detailed nuance that's not piercing my thick skull?

Explain what you mean by "less value" because nobody is saying that if I am understanding your English.

 

[skippythepinhead]

Explain what you mean by "less value" because nobody is saying that if I am understanding your English.

"Less value" as protection from TdF testing, since he was going to be protected anyway, along with everyone else in that race.

 

[ChrisE]

"Less value" as protection from TdF testing, since he was going to be protected anyway, along with everyone else in that race.

Who wrote that everybody was going to be protected anyway in that race, regardless of whether he paid or not?

Maybe you should go back and reread the last 15 pages, slowly and carefully this time. More than once if need be. No offense.

 

[skippythepinhead]

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.

What else is it about, aside from you not finding it plausible that LA was the only one with protection at the tour?

Is there anything else I should be getting other than your opinion that the UCI are corrupt to the marrow? Because I already was able to glean that on my own.

Other than putting forward the idea that no major busts during the Tour was a UCI policy during the Lance years and a bunch of insults, that seems to be the entirety of the past 20 pages of this thread.

If there's something I'm missing, then please enlighten me, but talk slowly and use small words, since there's always a chance I'm even more stupid than the way you respond to me suggests you think I am.

 

[Oldman]

What else is it about, aside from you not finding it plausible that LA was the only one with protection at the tour?

Is there anything else I should be getting other than your opinion that the UCI are corrupt to the marrow? Because I already was able to glean that on my own.

Other than putting forward the idea that no major busts during the Tour was a UCI policy during the Lance years and a bunch of insults, that seems to be the entirety of the past 20 pages of this thread.

If there's something I'm missing, then please enlighten me, but talk slowly and use small words, since there's always a chance I'm even more stupid than the way you respond to me suggests you think I am.

I responded with words with several syllables but the meaning was similarly clear. No insults were included and the answer looked good.
Lance wasn't the only one paying for protection-he just got more of the information needed to do the job. Heins was happy to do it-for pay.