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

[ChrisE]

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.

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with this soemwhat and will toss some more stuff out there to ponder along these lines.

But, before that I want to thank IWCiJ for the great post that brings things in circle. Fortunately this line of discussion did not get derailed by our resident pseudo-scientist doing a drive by. Even "the hog" backhand slammed his shenanigans by saying he was referring to Polish lol. Yes, Polish, stop being obtuse lol.

"the hog" was spewing BS upthread, pretty much unopposed until now, about how simple it was for the UCI to squash positives. Now he backtracks and makes up some more BS to cover his tracks since the consensus now seems to be turning that LA did not have blanket "get out of jail free card", which is proven by the Ferrari warning and the TdS AAF.

Up until now, after thousands of posts on this thread, it has finally been agreed at least by some that he did not have "blanket" cover. Yes, he "donated" $ and I am sure that was for the many good deeds done for him in that past.

BTW TH and FL have never said USPS had heads up for OOC testing that I recall. This is still residual clinic rabid hater BS that hopefully will be eradicated in the next thousand posts.

But, what is going on? Does the UCI have incentive to cover up positives, regardless if there are kickbacks working? Or, do they have incentive to have dopers caught in their sport? How would it have looked if JU or Beloki turned up positive on a mountain stage after getting spanked by LA? Would that have been good for sponsorship? Business? LA's bucket of cash to be used for "donations"? Did LA, if he was the only one with "donations", want his competitors to be AAF? Why would he want to answer questions about beating dopers if he can beat them anyway? How would his income and stature be affected by that?

It makes perfect sense, and IWCiJ alludes to this. The powers that be in sports in general have zero incentive to hold dopers accountable because it is bad for business, on many levels.

FL was angry when he got caught. Why is that? He has made no indication that he got caught because he didn't pay off the UCI. He was angry he got caught because there has been doping with basic impunity in the sport, especially the TdF (its cash cow, shock), until then. Not surprisingly, this happened after OP and there was heat on the sport after the fall of its top riders. No shock that the next three years saw many positives in the TdF of their top riders. Gotta suck it up sometimes for the long haul.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with this soemwhat and will toss some more stuff out there to ponder along these lines.

But, before that I want to thank IWCiJ for the great post that brings things in circle. Fortunately this line of discussion did not get derailed by our resident pseudo-scientist doing a drive by. Even "the hog" backhand slammed his shenanigans by saying he was referring to Polish lol. Yes, Polish, stop being obtuse lol.

"the hog" was spewing BS upthread, pretty much unopposed until now, about how simple it was for the UCI to squash positives. Now he backtracks and makes up some more BS to cover his tracks since the consensus now seems to be turning that LA did not have blanket "get out of jail free card", which is proven by the Ferrari warning and the TdS AAF.

Up until now, after thousands of posts on this thread, it has finally been agreed at least by some that he did not have "blanket" cover. Yes, he "donated" $ and I am sure that was for the many good deeds done for him in that past.

Hold on- it was you that asked the forum, "And, if LA had all of this blanket protection...."
It was a point you raised, no-one else - not hard to find agreement when no-one was disagreeing.

BTW TH and FL have never said USPS had heads up for OOC testing that I recall. This is still residual clinic rabid hater BS that hopefully will be eradicated in the next thousand posts.

Eradicate? Or perhaps someone will confirm the story:

“The owner of this clinic, a renowned haematologist, called Walter Viru, who is one of the doctors for Kelme, [in order] to alert them the day before the UCI vampires were coming to take the samples from the cyclists. And he did the same thing with Del Moral, the doctor for the US Postal team and then Discovery, [who is] a good friend of his.

But, what is going on? Does the UCI have incentive to cover up positives, regardless if there are kickbacks working? Or, do they have incentive to have dopers caught in their sport? How would it have looked if JU or Beloki turned up positive on a mountain stage after getting spanked by LA? Would that have been good for sponsorship? Business? LA's bucket of cash to be used for "donations"? Did LA, if he was the only one with "donations", want his competitors to be AAF? Why would he want to answer questions about beating dopers if he can beat them anyway? How would his income and stature be affected by that?

It makes perfect sense, and IWCiJ alludes to this. The powers that be in sports in general have zero incentive to hold dopers accountable because it is bad for business, on many levels.

FL was angry when he got caught. Why is that? He has made no indication that he got caught because he didn't pay off the UCI. He was angry he got caught because there has been doping with basic impunity in the sport, especially the TdF (its cash cow, shock), until then. Not surprisingly, this happened after OP and there was heat on the sport after the fall of its top riders. No shock that the next three years saw many positives in the TdF of their top riders. Gotta suck it up sometimes for the long haul.

Pretty much.
But it appears, (for the UCI) more of a "we will look away for 5 minutes...." sort of job.

To bring this full circle, thats why I don't believe anyone else paid money to the UCI. All the others either kept within the unwritten limits or if caught were left to fall on their swords.

 

[ChrisE]

The story about the Kelme doctor doesn't exactly sound like USPS had special treatment due to LA "donations" to the UCI. He should get his money back if you have rogue clinic guys tossing out warnings.

"Eradication" pertained to the "its only USPS" talk in here.

Again, the best two sources we have for this whole thing is TH and FL, and neither have said USPS got special treatment. Note, I am not arguing they didn't get a heads up, but were they the only ones that got a heads up? Doubtful, and you prove it, and take it a step further by not implicating the UCI in your example.

OK, maybe nobody else paid, maybe they did. IF they didn't, that still does not take away the incentive to squash positives for the stars, for LA's benefit and the sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The story about the Kelme doctor doesn't exactly sound like USPS had special treatment due to LA "donations" to the UCI. He should get his money back if you have rogue clinic guys tossing out warnings.

"Eradication" pertained to the "its only USPS" talk in here.

Just like the "blanket protection" that you got everyone to agree on (because you were the first to raise it) we can add the "special treatment due to the donations".

Again, the best two sources we have for this whole thing is TH and FL, and neither have said USPS got special treatment. Note, I am not arguing they didn't get a heads up, but were they the only ones that got a heads up? Doubtful, and you prove it, and take it a step further by not implicating the UCI in your example.

Good grief - did you even read the article I linked? It also says Kelme got notification.

You are trying to beat some grand conspiracy that no-one has made.

OK, maybe nobody else paid, maybe they did. IF they didn't, that still does not take away the incentive to squash positives for the stars, for LA's benefit and the sport.

The UCI do not want positives, which is why they look the other way.

This is the whole point - Armstrong did not pay for "blanket protection" or "special treatment" everyone was given the nod - what Armstrong paid for was to make a positive disappear and as I said before, I think the only reason it could be pulled off was because it was the Lausanne laboratory.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just like the "blanket protection" that you got everyone to agree on (because you were the first to raise it) we can add the "special treatment due to the donations".



Good grief - did you even read the article I linked? It also says Kelme got notification.

You are trying to beat some grand conspiracy that no-one has made.



The UCI do not want positives, which is why they look the other way.

This is the whole point - Armstrong did not pay for "blanket protection" or "special treatment" everyone was given the nod - what Armstrong paid for was to make a positive disappear and as I said before, I think the only reason it could be pulled off was because it was the Lausanne laboratory.

give it a break Dr. Your just a hater!

ChrisE is a typical fanboy trying to bait as Python said upthread! Psudo this and that...whatever...UCI on the take only for Texas blah blah blah..Back to the bottle for me......

 

[Velodude]

Remember Jonathon Vaughters having to abandon the 2001 TdF through a wasp sting to his eye after the last rest day?

The only method of treating the sting was a cortisone injection in breach of the UCI anti-doping rules which Vaughters declined.

A person with the manner of Armstrong (“this particular rider didn’t do sympathy. No, his speciality was contempt.”) was quoted as sayingto Vaughters:

Poor Jonathan and his stupid little team,” he spat. “What the f*** are you like? If you were on my team this would have been taken care of, but now you are not going to finish the Tour de France because of a wasp sting.”

This person would know how an AAF could be made to go away. This incident happened just weeks after he had won the 2001 TdS.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Remember Jonathon Vaughters having to abandon the 2001 TdF through a wasp sting to his eye after the last rest day?

The only method of treating the sting was a cortisone injection in breach of the UCI anti-doping rules which Vaughters declined.

A person with the manner of Armstrong (“this particular rider didn’t do sympathy. No, his speciality was contempt.”) was quoted as sayingto Vaughters:



This person would know how an AAF could be made to go away. This incident happened just weeks after he had won the 2001 TdS.

Real Yellow Rose Men do not get all swollen up from a sting...... They are immersed in awesomeness.

 

[Cimacoppi48]

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.

There is one official counter for the thread. A prize should be given to the 10,000th poster.

 

[leftover pie]

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

.

and the wristband of righteousness for one dollar niney faive.


i love polish's posts, his/hers/their posts really make(s) this thread worth clicking on in this "inbetween old and new developments" period that it seems to be in.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Hmm you mean a lot less than Ferrari's previous clients before the 50% HCT rule?
But LA still would have been doping more than his RIVALS....

I always enjoy the debates where we attempt to quantify just how much PEDs Armstrong abused throughout his career. Progress.

PRISON is a key word in this conversation.

 

[MarkvW]

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

Here in the Clinic, Kimmage's statement would be assailed as a defense of Armstrong!

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

* barely resists temptation to rise to bait *

 

[ChrisE]

Just like the "blanket protection" that you got everyone to agree on (because you were the first to raise it) we can add the "special treatment due to the donations".



Good grief - did you even read the article I linked? It also says Kelme got notification.

You are trying to beat some grand conspiracy that no-one has made.



The UCI do not want positives, which is why they look the other way.

This is the whole point - Armstrong did not pay for "blanket protection" or "special treatment" everyone was given the nod - what Armstrong paid for was to make a positive disappear and as I said before, I think the only reason it could be pulled off was because it was the Lausanne laboratory.

I never said he had "blanket" protection except in jest to get somebody to address the Ferrari/EPO angle, finally. Sorry for the lack of emoticons. You know good and well from our conversations that I don't believe such a thing, and I have taken grief from the clown posse in here because of it. Even in this thread the past several days my position is clear.

So, stop acting stupid and denying the prevailing schreeching in the clinic since this stuff first broke was that LA had special treatment due to his donations, and he could get away with anything, moreso than his competitors. That was his "edge", remember? Along with the better responder BS. I thought that was BS then, as I do now. And no, I will not go dig up posts to placate your BS jerkaround debating skills.

I never believed that he was the only one that benefitted from whatever could be done to cover things up before they got out, unlike most of the crowd in here.

You have zero idea if anybody else went thru a situation like the TdS issue. The reason you know about that is because of FL, and later TH. Else, it didn't happen, right?

Are you one of those guys that thinks there is no sound when a tree falls in the forest if nobody is there to hear it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I never said he had "blanket" protection except in jest to get somebody to address the Ferrari/EPO angle, finally. Sorry for the lack of emoticons. You know good and well from our conversations that I don't believe such a thing, and I have taken grief from the clown posse in here because of it. Even in this thread the past several days my position is clear.

What have you run out emoticons?
Here, you can use some of mine - it sounds like you need some of these angry ones

So, stop acting stupid and denying the prevailing schreeching in the clinic since this stuff first broke was that LA had special treatment due to his donations, and he could get away with anything, moreso than his competitors. That was his "edge", remember? Along with the better responder BS. I thought that was BS then, as I do now. And no, I will not go dig up posts to placate your BS jerkaround debating skills.

Of course the prevailing clinic view - what is that again? Is it mine? yours? Polish? Makvws? RR? Python?? Billythekid? etc

Also - isn't being allowed pay off the UCI "special treatment"?

I never believed that he was the only one that benefitted from whatever could be done to cover things up before they got out, unlike most of the crowd in here.

You have zero idea if anybody else went thru a situation like the TdS issue. The reason you know about that is because of FL, and later TH. Else, it didn't happen, right?

We already knew that Armstrong paid the UCI - what FL & TH told us was what the payment was for.

Could someone else have paid off the UCI? Sure, but when you look through a likely list it turns out they got caught or sanctioned.

What you confuse is that we know Armstrong paid (from lots of sources) yet there is not as much as a rumour against anyone else.

Are you one of those guys that thinks there is no sound when a tree falls in the forest if nobody is there to hear it?

According to you the prevailing clinic view would be that Armstrong did it - and you would then argue that if Armstrong did it everyone else probably did it also.

 

[pmcg76]

There is always the possibility of all riders being warned about dope tests and bribery of the UCI.

However, looking at this logically from 1999 onwards, which one rider would the UCI really not have wanted to test positive? I think that is self evident.

Would the UCI have cared as much if say Fernando Escartin or Joseba Beloki had tested positive or say Alex Zulle/Richard Virenque whose reputations were already sullied owing to Festina. Dont think so.

I could see Ullrich being protected also, but then he did test positive for a non-sporting related substance so how much protection was he receiving. Pantani also had his difficulties with the dope testers.

Also how many riders would have been willing or able to shell out the money to bribe the UCI. Of course a possibility but once again Armstrong was making more per season than most of his rivals put toghether. $100,000 here or there was pocket change to Lance whilst for a lot of the other guys, it probably represented as much as a fifth or more of their annual salary.

More cash to bribe, more to lose for both Lance and the UCI in the result of a positive, would surely mean the likelyhood of Lance being protected or more protected than his rivals much, much greater.

 

[Polish]

The story about the Kelme doctor doesn't exactly sound like USPS had special treatment due to LA "donations" to the UCI. He should get his money back if you have rogue clinic guys tossing out warnings.
.

Great Point.

Kelme, notorious dopers Kelme, are given advance notice of testing.
Made it even harder for Lance to beat them.
No problem though. Kicked their butts. Next.

But Kelme DID do good at the Tour. Podium Finishes, Multiple Team Classifications, Climbers Jerseys, and best Young Rider.

And the Kelme example blows away the myth that "Lance was a better responder". Who started that BS? I would guess RR lol.

Oscar Sevilla Best Young Rider, is an example of a "Great Responder".
Lance is just the Opposite. Consistent and awesome his entire life.
Impossible to tell if Lance was on EPO or not. Indistinquishable.
Evidence, facts, indicate Lance was NOT a better responder.

"Respond to this suckers!" says Lance.
"How do you like those apples" Lance asks Escartin.
"And learn how to sit on a bike dude. Windtunnel"

Lance the "Great Responder" sitting under his "Blanket of Protection".
What a joke.

 

[thehog]

* barely resists temptation to rise to bait *

Be strong. Be very strong. Especially when the bait is as obvious as it was.

 

[Polish]

Of course Lance recieved Special Treatment. All the Patrons do.
Eddy recieved it. Hinault received it. They continue to recieve it.
Rank has its priviledges. Sit in the front row. Cut to the front of the line.

But WADA and the AFLD and the FDA and Interpol and so forth do not give special treatment.
Special Treatment does NOT mean Protection.
You know, Ms Slyvia Schenk said it was impossible for a test cover-up.
Of course it is.

Sure, it IS possible that the an important Lab sat the Patron and his DS down and explained that there was "a new EPO test being developed. Starting to pick up suspicious values see here. Be best for the sport if the word gets out on the street that the test is here. Don't want to see 70% of the peloton failing tests . no one wants that yikes."

Lance and Bruyneel ain't stupid. The word gets out to the peloton and Lance writes a check.
Lance is very generous. Donatious. Tons of evidence of generosity.

 

[Cobblestoned]

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.

So, it were the Postals and Lance who made Jan crash through the backwindow of his teamcar, leaving a deep cut and nearly cutting his head off.
That is what I call establishing an advantage on any costs, and in such an obvious style, so that it is nearly cool.

Always and still amazing it is, the way you experience and rewrite reality. Just go on. Still waiting for the details on that one.

 

[MacRoadie]

So, it were the Postals and Lance who made Jan crash through the backwindow of his teamcar, leaving a deep cut and nearly cutting his head off.

Talk about revisionist history:

Ullrich avoids injury after crash

...suffered superficial cuts to his throat and face.

The wounds were merely superficial - they don't need stitching," said Heinrich.

Hardly a "deep cut and nearly cutting his head off"...

Ullrich at the 2005 Tour:

 

[thehog]

So, it were the Postals and Lance who made Jan crash through the backwindow of his teamcar, leaving a deep cut and nearly cutting his head off.
That is what I call establishing an advantage on any costs, and in such an obvious style, so that it is nearly cool.

Always and still amazing it is, the way you experience and rewrite reality. Just go on. Still waiting for the details on that one.

Unfortunately it’s not as simplistic as you describe.

2005 was an interesting year. The lead up from the 2004 victory to the Tour was “unusual”. Discovery has taken over the sponsorship and Armstrong had to ride at least one of two Tours in the 2 year contract. He talked about skipping Tour 2005 in late 2004. But this stage he was dating Sheryl Crow and was on the celebrity circuit. He also talked of doing other races outside the Tour and potentially skipping 2005 Tour and perhaps riding it in 2006. Come January at Paris-Nice 2005 Armstrong rolled up looking rather rotund but it was January and you’d rarely see him race before late March. His opening prologue was woeful. Terrible in fact. For a guy who was the best time trialer in the world you’d expect more. Finished 109th. Well off the pace. Armstrong dropped out of the race. And was later to be seen attending the Grammy’s and other such events with Crow. A lot of press guys were secretly writing him off but no one wanted to bet against him publicly. He road Tour of Flanders in 2005 and the race was famous for Quick Step telling him to get off of the front for slowing the chase!

Before the Tour started in 2005 Armstrong was called for a “random” drug test. Armstrong was chaperoned by the testers to the testing center. Instead of going behind the barriers Armstrong requested they take him past the media contingent – he said he wanted to show he had nothing to hide – some called this a set up – it looked staged. At the same time Verbruggen release the information about Armstrong donating the Sysmex machine. Saying that Armstrong wouldn’t really want anyone to know because he is a humble guy but he really believes in “anti-doping”.

Come the prologue and Armstrong despite pulling his foot out of his pedal down the start ramp blew everyone away including catching Ullrich for one minute. Ullrich was carrying injuries from his crash but being caught for one minute in 19km?!!

The press gallery who had him secretly written off all year were a gasp. How did he do this when he was so clearly underprepared and overweight early in the year? Maybe he is a great champion. Or was something else at play?

A few stages later Vino start to attack the field and Armstrong was left isolated by his team but only lost time to Kloden. 3 days later Popo. Il Falco and Armstrong obliterated the field on the first real mountain stage. The press knew what was at play on this day. They remembered 1999. It was the same story. Do they write about it. No. we kept up appearances. We had to. Some of us connected the dots on the events before the prologue. We knew what was at play. But this was Armstrong’s swansong. We hoped this was the end of large scale team doping. It wasn’t to be.

 

[Polish]

During Lance's Reign of Awesomeness at the TdF, WADA/Pound and AFLD/Bordry were OBSESSED with trying to catch Lance. You older guys remember that I'm sure. OBSESSED. Back then "most tested" was not a joke but a reality. I agree that Lance was not worried about being caught for doping - why should he - but not because of some elaborate Early Warning System that only he had access to. C'mom guys, get serious. Really.

Not saying there were NO early warning systems. Of course there were. All the Teams and Directors and Officials and Mechanics and etc/etc/etc would discuss where the vampires were. Where they are headed next. Of course.

The Team Truck drivers warned eachother using CB radios probably
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdc0Oq1VwH4

 

[Berzin]

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.

I think you're getting caught up in semantics.

If you get blanket protection insurance (car, home, life) it doesn't mean you are paying to keep disaster at bay. It means you are covered in case anything happens from all angles.

This is what Armstrong was able to purchase for himself and his team-protection from any possible scenarios of a positive test popping up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think you're getting caught up in semantics.

If you get blanket protection insurance (car, home, life) it doesn't mean you are paying to keep disaster at bay. It means you are covered in case anything happens from all angles.

This is what Armstrong was able to purchase for himself and his team-protection from any possible scenarios of a positive test popping up.

Semantics, shemantics - whatever you want to call it.

The point is Armstrong bought his "insurance" AFTER the incident -thats not protection, thats a pay off.

 

[Polish]

I think you're getting caught up in semantics.

If you get blanket protection insurance (car, home, life) it doesn't mean you are paying to keep disaster at bay. It means you are covered in case anything happens from all angles.

This is what Armstrong was able to purchase for himself and his team-protection from any possible scenarios of a positive test popping up.

I realize you are being silly now, but I will Take the Bait anyway...

Are you saying WADA/Pound and AFLD/Bordry covered up positives? Huh?
Bordy would roll over in his grave if he heard that.
He would have a heart attack, die and be buried.
Then he would roll over and say "Whatchoo talking bout?"

If anything, Lance would have to worry about "tampered samples".
Greg LeMond himself worried about that back in his day. Said he was worried the French Testers would spike his samples to cause a positive. Greg was very meticulous with labeling and chain of custody etc while racing at the Tour.

Too bad Lance did not get put on trial for the 99 Pee samples. He could have called Greg as a witness for the defense. Supeena.