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

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not sure why you hammer this again because I admit there is proof that LA paid the UCI. With your sleuthing skills you cannot find a post of mine that says I don't think that happened, or that I think it was for the reason LA states.

Things happen, then rumors start. It is not a chicken/egg issue. Its a simpleton approach to take the "lack of rumor" card out to support your belief system. If AC's AAF and UCI attempted coverup wouldn't have leaked, would anybody have known about it? I guess in your world that would mean it didn't happen.

Ok - you admit there is proof that shows Armstrong paid off the UCI.

But because there is no proof or even rumor that other riders paid off the UCI then its a simpleton view to assume they did not pay (for protection that they did not receive).
Hmm, no.

Yes, riders like JU were caught and sanctioned but that was after LA retired. We had this debate last summer and I never did the look up of test counts, but there were no major busts at the TdF during those 7 years. There were busts at the Giro and Vuelta, but not TdF. Why?

What the...... Ullrich was caught in 2002.

No major busts during those 7 years at the TdF?? Whats that got to do with anything? Forget "7 years", there was no "major busts" by UCI until Landis.
It is well known that riders used EPO away from the Tour and reverted to blood doping.

And, if LA had all of this blanket protection, why did Ferrari tell him to stop taking EPO in June 1991? I have asked that question several times over the last couple of years, though I don't believe a logical answer has emerged that fits well into the prevailing opinion in here.

Admittedly, these last 2 paragraphs kinda contradict eachother but I freely admit I don't know these answers. Neither do you, nor anybody else in here.

Who said LA had "blanket protection"??
He didn't - but unlike others when he fell foul of the system he was allowed buy his way out of a positive.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Happy new year !
Great new news, guys.
Only around 10-5 years old. That's pretty new if you are old.
Soaking it up like some good old wine. Same about special posters group agreeing with each other in nearly every single post, like in Britsh parliament. Yeah. Wow. Yeah. Agree. Brilliant post.
How gay.
And wow again, now Lance is even responsible for OP and busted Ullrich himself. Wow. Amaaaazing.
Polish, please don't interrupt them all the time, because its more entertaining to watch them cooking in their own soup of awesomeness.
I guess the hog had to change his medication plans. Suspicious and testers are on him now. Always overhelmed by the way he rewrites reality and history. Adaptation may take a while. Tuesday it should be done I guess.

One thing is clear. You need proof to defend Lance, but not to attack him. Everyone should apply to this, and the world will be a better one soon.

@TFF
I have coprights on the "idiot wind" in the LA thread and posted it earlier. But don't feel adressed please.
Happy new year, my friend !

@Doc
Happy new year, my friend ! New year, new links and many new questions.
Looking forward to it.

@the hitch
Are you crazy or what ? Lance is never right. You need more hate. We still have to work on you and show you the right way.
Wheeze. Cough. If you don't let yourself beeing converted, we will have to crush you. Wheeze. Cough.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

Question---Will CyclingNews give a prize to the 10,000th poster to this thread. I hope so. It's only fitting that they do.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Question---Will CyclingNews give a prize to the 10,000th poster to this thread. I hope so. It's only fitting that they do.

10.000th must have already happended. At last year or something.
Perhaps earlier, shortly before the Superbowl but after indictments.

If you would include all the posts that have been deleted, we would be close to 100.000 posts I guess, and I would have outposted ACF's 15.000 easily.

 

[Velodude]

I thought he was a better responder. Can we get the story straight?

I would say you thought wrong.

Compare 1993-1996 to 1999-2005.

3 DNF's plus 36th v 7 straight wins.

On drug program in both periods.

1993-1996 for Ferrari in 1996 only allegedly instrumental in contracting testicular cancer. Exclusive arrangement with Ferrari 1999-2005. Ferrari paid as a team "consultant" allegedly out of team sponsorship funds.

1993-1996 team members independently doped. 1999-2005 team funded doping program under the guidance of the best doping DS (employed by LA) and renowned guru doping medico.

1999-2005 team doping program protected by UCI through payments in cashof claimed hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Article dated April 2005 (pre Sysmex machine)
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........ Eurosport.com also reports that when [Armstrong was] 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".

 

[Berzin]

Having an exclusive program is one thing but doping without fear of being caught is the edge that makes the difference.

Here it is, the exact truth, in a nutshell.

Who said LA had "blanket protection"??
He didn't - but unlike others when he fell foul of the system he was allowed buy his way out of a positive.

That would fall under the category of blanket protection, meaning regardless of what happened, he'd find a way out of it and keep on riding.

First with the back-dated prescription in 1999, second with advanced warning of testing, and last but certainly not least with his relationship with the UCI.

With all this going on, he didn't need anything else to cover his tracks.

 

[thehog]

Here it is, the exact truth, in a nutshell.




That would fall under the category of blanket protection, meaning regardless of what happened, he'd find a way out of it and keep on riding.

First with the back-dated prescription in 1999, second with advanced warning of testing, and last but certainly not least with his relationship with the UCI.

With all this going on, he didn't need anything else to cover his tracks.

Outside of these examples it was the ability to “hone” the program without having to worry about things like “surprise” tests and hemocrit readings. This was taken care of. They could all push the boundaries of their use and the program knowing that they could refill and use almost at will without the fear of being caught. I would add that I’m sure Ferrari had access to the testing judging by the warnings he gave Lance in 2001 that there was a lot of undetectable drugs also being used.

When you compare this with what the other teams had to grapple with it all came down to a doping arms race. Smaller teams had no chance. Yes they would dope but they would have been severely restricted in the use around race time. Larger teams could spend large on the junk itself but still had to be very careful at races. This was coupled that if “surprise” tests were ordered on a rival team it would be to USPS advantage.

Vaughters was right. With a perfectly executed program with the right logistics – doctor, compliant testers and delivery team - then it would beat any other program hands down.

Talent aside Armstrong and USPS had a distinct advantage at the Tour over their rivals. 2005 opening time trial was evident of this along with the first mountain stage. Ullrich being passed by Armstrong in a TT along with Ullrich and Vino going backwards in the opening mountain stage. I’ll go into more detail in a later post.

 

[MarkvW]

So now it's been established that Lance had "blanket protection"?

Isn't that stretching the thin (but suspicious) evidence of bribery in one instance more than a little too far?

But when you're biased by hate, I guess you can say anything!

 

[ChrisE]

Ok smart guys, answer the question.

Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Here it is, the exact truth, in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by thehog View Post
Having an exclusive program is one thing but doping without fear of being caught is the edge that makes the difference.

That would fall under the category of blanket protection, meaning regardless of what happened, he'd find a way out of it and keep on riding.

First with the back-dated prescription in 1999, second with advanced warning of testing, and last but certainly not least with his relationship with the UCI.

With all this going on, he didn't need anything else to cover his tracks.

Ok, I would not call that "blanket protection".
If LA had what I would term blanket protection he would not even need to get OOC warnings, or change from EPO to blood boosting.

I think LA got very lucky that his positive was in the UCI friendly lab of Lausanne and not in another laboratory. Favors had to be called in and that cost money.

 

[Polish]

Ah yes, the magical "Blanket of Protection". Mythical.
I need to add that to Lance's Quiver of Awesomeness.
The "Blanket of Protection".

Couple questions though.
Was the Blanket like Harry Potter's invisibility Cloak?
Lance could hide from the Vampires and Testers?
Or did the Blanket filter out the PEDs?
All the pee and blood and hair of Lance filtered through the Blanket?

I could see why Mr Pound and Inspector Bordry and the USADA and the FDA and Homeland Secuirity and the Justice Department and the FBI have all been foiled. The magical Blanket of Protection. Fluffy.

 

[spetsa]

Ok smart guys, answer the question.

Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

Ferrari wanted all of the available LA / USPS money coming his way. No need to waste it on covering up failed tests.

 

[thehog]

Ok, I would not call that "blanket protection".
If LA had what I would term blanket protection he would not even need to get OOC warnings, or change from EPO to blood boosting.

I think LA got very lucky that his positive was in the UCI friendly lab of Lausanne and not in another laboratory. Favors had to be called in and that cost money.

My understanding was Ferrari had access to the testing. He became “aware” that there was no longer a way around the “regular” use of EPO at races. That intake had to be modified to out of completion use and micro-dosing to boost hemocrit.

Ferrari knowing of the changes in testing sensitivity was the “protection”. Yes there was protection against surprise testing but if you go and win a mountain time trial at the TDS you’re going to be tested 100% - you cannot protect against the actual test occurring. That’s where Ferrari came in. He said don’t use it like you had been using it. Armstrong didn’t listen and subsequently returned an “adverse” reading which was smartly swept away.

Always pays to listen to the family friend ;-)

 

[fatandfast]

Polish you don't believe in free enterprise?
You don't think that the UCI has great interest in continuing the story of the boy raised by a single mom, beat cancer, broke every record and made more cash roll through their system than ever before?
Every race promoter,sponsor and federation had a vested interest in making sure any version of Lance was at their events . I don't think it's such a stretch to use terms like blanket protection.
everybody is there for the same reason.cash

 

[Velodude]

Ok smart guys, answer the question.

Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

Elementary.

There was a test for EPO in 2001. No test for blood doping, autologous or otherwise. The safe method of choice was then blood doping.

If you have a safe method and an unsafe method why use the risk method when you have to rely on calling up favors that involve numbers of people having knowledge.

Most conspiracies fail through too many people having knowledge.

Problem was that EPO is time efficient. Quick jab.

Blood doping requires extraction, separation of RBCs, storage and recovery. Using other person's blood is dangerous (1984!) - no chimeras!

Methinks that LA became impatient and wanted success in TdS without having access to blood doping stores.

If he had an AAF, which occurred, pay the money to make it disappear.

Problem developed when he boasted to a person who he made his enemy 7 years later. The conspiracy collapsed.

UCI now have problems explaining timing, amounts and reasons for LA's previously undisclosed "donations". Pre 2005 donations amount to 100's of thousands of cash but UCI can only offer $25,000 check which went into some fund which no longer exists.

Swiss lab boss has problems explaining the suspicious result to Federal investigators.

 

[thehog]

Ok smart guys, answer the question.

Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

For the very reason you mention – money.

Would you want to be forever be paying the UCI for positives to go away or pay Ferrari for a program that doesn’t test positive? Also the time of “arranging” the carpet sweeping exercise. Having to fly to Lausanne, then Geneva, the meetings. Makes sense to avoid all of that. And of course he could have ended up like Floyd with “leaks” then it would become a positive. Smart money is on Ferrari arranging the best program and not relying on the UCI to do their carpet sweeping.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ah yes, the magical "Blanket of Protection". Mythical.
I need to add that to Lance's Quiver of Awesomeness.
The "Blanket of Protection".

Couple questions though.
Was the Blanket like Harry Potter's invisibility Cloak?
Lance could hide from the Vampires and Testers?
Or did the Blanket filter out the PEDs?
All the pee and blood and hair of Lance filtered through the Blanket?

No, the blanket of protection you are thinking of can be bought at the Livestrong store for $40.

I could see why Mr Pound and Inspector Bordry and the USADA and the FDA and Homeland Secuirity and the Justice Department and the FBI have all been foiled. The magical Blanket of Protection. Fluffy.

Thats the "cancer shield", that is the ultimate blanket but it costs about $400 million.

 

[Polish]

Ok smart guys, answer the question.

Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

I heard it was because of health concerns. Not worth the risk.
Looking out for Lance health wise.

But Lance kicked **** 2001-2005 anyway - even with the conservative Ferarri approach. And of course, the conservative Ferarri approach was only one single arrow in the quiver. There was so much more.

 

[python]

Elementary.

There was a test for EPO in 2001. No test for blood doping, autologous or otherwise. The safe method of choice was then blood doping.

If you have a safe method and an unsafe method why use the risk method when you have to rely on calling up favors that involve numbers of people having knowledge.

Most conspiracies fail through too many people having knowledge.

Problem was that EPO is time efficient. Quick jab.

Blood doping requires extraction, separation of RBCs, storage and recovery. Using other person's blood is dangerous (1984!) - no chimeras!

Methinks that LA became impatient and wanted success in TdS without having access to blood doping stores.

If he had an AAF, which occurred, pay the money to make it disappear.

Problem developed when he boasted to a person who he made his enemy 7 years later. The conspiracy collapsed.

UCI now have problems explaining timing, amounts and reasons for LA's previously undisclosed "donations". Pre 2005 donations amount to 100's of thousands of cash but UCI can only offer $25,000 check which went into some fund which no longer exists.

Swiss lab boss has problems explaining the suspicious result to Federal investigators.

in essence you make sense but you just wasted a lot of energy trying to entertain a question that was posed to 'smart guys' but was little more than the usual primitive bait and (if one reeeaaallly wants to dig) was arrogantly stupid.

lets look closer - Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

it takes just 2 seconds reading the bait to realize that ferrari and texas are not 24/7 connected at their brains. what armstrong knows about his dark connections to the uci is not, and i'd say it's smart on texas, necessarily shared with his italian dottore who's just another risk asset in the crime circle.


to me the stuff is simple when one cares to read.

 

[thehog]

in essence you make sense but you just wasted a lot of energy trying to entertain a question that was posed to 'smart guys' but was little more than the usual primitive bait and (if one reeeaaallly wants to dig) was arrogantly stupid.

lets look closer - Why did Ferrari warn him off of EPO in 2001? If he could just buy his way out of anything why the ruse?

it takes just 2 seconds reading the bait to realize that ferrari and texas are not 24/7 connected at their brains. what armstrong knows about his dark connections to the uci is not, and i'd say it's smart on texas, necessarily shared with his italian dottore who's just another risk asset in the crime circle.

to me the stuff is simple when one cares to read.

Agreed. Ferrari took pride in his work. He was never going to let a pay-off undermine his work and ask Lance to ride without care of testing positive. That would not be “art” as Ferrari knew it.

We should add that when Armstrong was telling Floyd “not to mess with these guys” in reference to the UCI was when he told Landis about the positive test in 2001. The protection from the UCI came at a price. Meaning you didn’t want to have to be pulling favors all the time because it was going to cost you in more ways than one. Floyd immediately borrowed Lance’s phone and apologized to Hein.

And yes the bait on this forum is obvious and I can’t believe people continue to respond to Polish.

 

[Anonymous]

@TFF
I have coprights on the "idiot wind" in the LA thread and posted it earlier. But don't feel adressed please.
Happy new year, my friend !

Always the bridesmaid I am...oh well, great song.

Happy New Year Cobble! Have a great year.

 

[Velodude]

<snip>...it takes just 2 seconds reading the bait to realize that ferrari and texas are not 24/7 connected at their brains. what armstrong knows about his dark connections to the uci is not, and i'd say it's smart on texas, necessarily shared with his italian dottore who's just another risk asset in the crime circle.


to me the stuff is simple when one cares to read.
[/I]

You read "Lance Armstrong's War" and the author divulges his eyewitness accounts of the intimacy of the LA/Ferrari relationship.

Armstrong spent more time alone with Ferrari in Girona and beyond than he did with the team. The team were not usually aware of the whereabouts of Armstrong until they saw him on TV.

They would travel alone to the Canary Islands for "altitude training" sans the team. On a rare occasion Landis was invited to train with Ferrari and Armstrong in Italy before the big fall out.

But you now speculate that Armstrong did not share his secrets with Dr. Evil, with whom he had a professional and secret 10 year + relationship, but, to his eventual prospective legal demise, shared the secret of his UCI bribe to his team mates - one, Landis, who had just been signed on to the team in 2002.

Not sound reasoning.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Willie Voet's recollections of what happened when Laurent Brochard went positive seem relevant here.

"Bruno '...' called me back to say we had three days to come up with a therapeutic justification for the use of the anti-inflammatory, as the UCI permits this in certain cases. I don't know who he spoke to between the two conversations.
Officially the medical certificate should have been presented when the rider took the drug test, but it seemed the UCI didn't care in the slightest if the prescription had been drawn up before or after the world championships. The important thing was to keep up appearances. And they were kept up. '...'
This explanatory form, dated before the positive test and drawn up after it, didn't cause the international governing bodies any qualms. It was unethical - but we had abandoned ethics long ago - and against their own rules."

In my view, Armstrong is the arsehole who took doping and corruption in cycling to the next level, at a time when there was a chance for the sport to move in another direction. He saw the way cycling worked and cynically manipulated it to his maximum advantage, but he didn't invent doping and he didn't invent corruption within the UCI.

Kimmage sums up the Armstrong situation nicely with the words "professional cycling got the champion it deserved".

The UCI governance structure is fundamentally flawed. Far too much authority is vested in the president, who has significant powers at both governance and operational levels. Mismanagement, incompetence and corruption must be expected to continue until that issue is properly addressed.

 

[Velodude]

Agreed. Ferrari took pride in his work. He was never going to let a pay-off undermine his work and ask Lance to ride without care of testing positive. That would not be “art” as Ferrari knew it.

We should add that when Armstrong was telling Floyd “not to mess with these guys” in reference to the UCI was when he told Landis about the positive test in 2001. The protection from the UCI came at a price. Meaning you didn’t want to have to be pulling favors all the time because it was going to cost you in more ways than one. Floyd immediately borrowed Lance’s phone and apologized to Hein.

And yes the bait on this forum is obvious and I can’t believe people continue to respond to Polish.

I think it should be clarified that Floyd was pursuing Mercury for payment of outstanding moneys due to him in 2001 and went public to force payment under a guarantee.

In that context Armstrong brought up how the UCI covered up his 2001 posiitive and that Floyd should apologise to Verbruggen on his going public over the debt "because we’re going to need a favour from him at some point. It’s happened in the past. I had a positive test in 2001 at the Tour of Swiss and I had to go to these guys".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Willie Voet's recollections of what happened when Laurent Brochard went positive seem relevant here.

"Bruno '...' called me back to say we had three days to come up with a therapeutic justification for the use of the anti-inflammatory, as the UCI permits this in certain cases. I don't know who he spoke to between the two conversations.
Officially the medical certificate should have been presented when the rider took the drug test, but it seemed the UCI didn't care in the slightest if the prescription had been drawn up before or after the world championships. The important thing was to keep up appearances. And they were kept up. '...'
This explanatory form, dated before the positive test and drawn up after it, didn't cause the international governing bodies any qualms. It was unethical - but we had abandoned ethics long ago - and against their own rules."

In my view, Armstrong is the arsehole who took doping and corruption in cycling to the next level, at a time when there was a chance for the sport to move in another direction. He saw the way cycling worked and cynically manipulated it to his maximum advantage, but he didn't invent doping and he didn't invent corruption within the UCI.

Kimmage sums up the Armstrong situation nicely with the words "professional cycling got the champion it deserved".

The UCI governance structure is fundamentally flawed. Far too much authority is vested in the president, who has significant powers at both governance and operational levels. Mismanagement, incompetence and corruption must be expected to continue until that issue is properly addressed.

This.

The UCI do not offer "protection" to riders - in their minds they are protecting the sport.
No-one cares if some lowly rider gets popped, in fact its a nice way to keep up the appearances of being tough on doping.

Armstrong did not have protection - thats why USPS had notification of OOC testing. What Armstrong did was ignore Ferrari's advice.
Back in 2001 it was already known that EPO would be detectable for a few days, Armstrong probably thought he could top-up without going positive.

As I said earlier, he was fortunate that his test was Lausanne. Armstrong was a big name with big pockets, it could be all kept in-house as long as everyone got a little taste.