**** Pound's statement On Mr. Livestrong.

Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
So what do the Lance lovers/ haters think of Richard Pound? lets discuss him he he he...

On WADA article 5.4.1 :

"You can catherise [using clean urine - ed.], you can drink tons and tons of water, you can do all sorts of things to spoil or affect the test. So that is exactly why you have this rule," he said.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
who gives a rat's *** about what penis half-kilo thinks?

seriously, that guy is a clown with absolutely no credibility. in his little mind everybody in cycling is doping. armstrong is by far not my favorite rider, but they took blood, hair and urine; all clean. should he have stayed in sight of the doping control officer? absolutely. everybody knows the rule. i will be very surprised he if he escapes sanctions from the french doping authority.

parenthetically, i wish the poo-bahs at cyclingnews.com would stop giving that moron a platform for his ill-informed, anti-cycling and inflammatory opinions.
 
Mar 10, 2009
504
0
0
It's the never ending whizzing contest between Armstrong (and his entourage) and Pound (and his entourage.)

No one's winning. And they both look idiotic.
 
Mar 12, 2009
331
0
0
Pound is a well intentioned ****

His mouth is in one time zone and his brain in another. He is passionate about catching dopers but has zero tact. I am Canadian and am embarrassed to say he is from Canada.
 
Mar 11, 2009
103
0
0
tifosa said:
It's the never ending whizzing contest between Armstrong (and his entourage) and Pound (and his entourage.)

No one's winning. And they both look idiotic.

Guess we can close the thread now 'cuz there is nothing else to add.
;)
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
All Pound said was Armstrong broke the rules and Armstrong knows the rules. Wth is so contentious about that? It's not true? This shouldn't be about loving or hating anyone, it's about following the rules.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
grimpeur said:
All Pound said was Armstrong broke the rules and Armstrong knows the rules. Wth is so contentious about that? It's not true? This shouldn't be about loving or hating anyone, it's about following the rules.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
 
Well, Pound is right. The rules are the rules. Armstrong has been in this racket for how many years? 15, 20...He also claims to be the most tested athlete in the history of sport. He, therefore, doesn't fit the criteria of naivè diletante. Some medics state that even the process of collecting urine samples at the Tour is flawed, because from the time a rider is told to give his pee to the time he actually gives it: enough time has passed to mask the results. Remember Willie Voigt's book? In any case Armstrong was suspicious, needed confirmation. Well then, have the guy wait a second outside while he goes and gets his cell, and, in his presence, call the UCI officials. Instead he let 20, maybe 30 minutes go by? What for? To take a shower? When that's enough time not only to drink gallons of H2O, but also put an IV in your vein.Thus the need for a protocal, which Armstrong flagrantly disobayed. Come on! Rediculous and totally unexceptable.:mad:
 
Mar 15, 2009
8
0
0
Inapt Tester

All reports indicate that Lance asked permission to go away while the tester's identity was being confirmed, and the tester explicitly allowed it. If the rules don't allow for this, this french genius should have stated it pronto and denied the request.

And the AFLD shouldn't be leaking to the press information that only concerns WADA and the UCI. Long ago, in the CN letter section, someone from the US Army pointed out how drug testing is conducted within the army, with laboratories being tested as well, and subject identity being kept unknown to the testers. AFLD and this corrupt french laboratory that keeps leaking confidential information to the press would never qualify for any serious testing program.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
If all reports include the AFLD's press release then they do not say that Armstrong was given permission - that is the crux of the problem.

The essence of what Pound is saying is correct, and a much needed antidote to the fawning sycophancy of much of the press who seem to think journalism is a question of simply rephrasing everything Armstrong twitters and are seemingly incapable of presenting another side to the story.
 
Pound has simply put into words what any credible cyclinfan knows.
If we know the rules, it's obvious Lance and Bruyneel did, too.

Simple fact is, Lance wouldn't have bothered to ask permission, since he already knew what the answer must be.

Grimpuer has put it in the clearest terms.

Bro Deal highlights both the UCI's and fan elements attitude to all things Lance.
 
Mar 18, 2009
981
0
0
If it hadn't been in the press we would have been none the wiser to the situation. So in a backwards way the press are doing something to highlight flaws in the system.

If there is a particular by-law, rule etc, there should be no exceptions to breaking it, no matter who you are.;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
fbergo said:
AFLD and this corrupt french laboratory that keeps leaking confidential information to the press would never qualify for any serious testing program.
The old blame the french ploy. The labs leaking positive results to the press is a good thing. Transparency is a good thing. People complaining about the press reporting on positives are nothing but doping apologists looking to find any bogus issue they can to cast doubt on the results. Reporting facts does not change the facts.

With the UCI taking $500K under the table payments from riders, who knows how many positives would just disappear (or be covered up with a post-dated TUE) if the UCI could operate totally in secret.
 
I think a lot of people, especially Lance fans are of the impression that AFLD leaked the 1999 retests to discredit Lance, whilst in fact they didnt know who the results belonged to. Yes it was unprofessional on their behalf as is the latest leak, but it was a French journalist who identifiied them as Lances using the identification numbers on them which I think he acquired from the UCI, maybe wrong on source.

One thing that still bothers me about those 99 results and the whole anti-french thing is that if they really wanted to get Lance, why did they go back to the 1999 test results, surely if they wanted to frame him, they could have done it during any of the other six tour wins. Was it because they knew there was a greater chance of finding EPO in the 99 tests as there was no test for it back then. On the other hand, has retrospective testing ever been carried out on tests from subsequent tours. If not, why not?

I am not a fan of **** Pound as he always seemed to give the impression that cycling was the only sport with a doping problem, however his comments on the test are spot on, a rider cannot go for a shower after a race before attending dope control so you cannot do it training either. No excuses, finally after all the lies fed to us fans by cyclists down through the years, how can believe every single word any rider says. I might not like Pound but I put more faith in his words over most pro cyclists.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
pmcg76 said:
I am not a fan of **** Pound as he always seemed to give the impression that cycling was the only sport with a doping problem, however his comments on the test are spot on, a rider cannot go for a shower after a race before attending dope control so you cannot do it training either. No excuses, finally after all the lies fed to us fans by cyclists down through the years, how can believe every single word any rider says. I might not like Pound but I put more faith in his words over most pro cyclists.
Yup. What is the word of Armstrong worth? It has been scientifically proven that he used EPO in 1999. He continues to lie about it. It would be a minor thing by comparison to lie about what happened during his recent doping scandal.
 
Apr 19, 2009
25
0
0
Even if it was technically an infraction, what could lance have done to impact the test in the time that it took for him to verify that the guy that showed up to take the test was legit?
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
oxlabs said:
Even if it was technically an infraction, what could lance have done to impact the test in the time that it took for him to verify that the guy that showed up to take the test was legit?
Invited the tester inside to have a shower with him ?
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
oxlabs said:
Even if it was technically an infraction, what could lance have done to impact the test in the time that it took for him to verify that the guy that showed up to take the test was legit?
The rules are in place because before there were chaperones, the riders were using the time between being informed of a test and the actual test to mask dope use. You can bet that Dr. Ferrari has instrtucted Armstrong well in that area. You don't pay Dr. Ferrari hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just for training advice.

If you give athletes times to mask their dope use then the tests are even more worthless than they already are.
 
Mar 15, 2009
8
0
0
BroDeal said:
The old blame the french ploy. The labs leaking positive results to the press is a good thing. Transparency is a good thing. People complaining about the press reporting on positives are nothing but doping apologists looking to find any bogus issue they can to cast doubt on the results. Reporting facts does not change the facts.
Leaking information to the press is unprofessional, and this continued practice makes cycling a joke among other sports. The fact that an institution is unable to follow such a simple rule casts huge doubts on its ability to conduct scientific testing of samples for substances that are barely detectable.

There wouldn't be enough newspaper pages if all soccer players caught out of competition with cocaine or marijuana were reported. However, soccer politics work way better than cycling politics, and they know better than to shoot themselves on the foot once a week.
 
Mar 20, 2009
156
0
0
fbergo said:
All reports indicate that Lance asked permission to go away while the tester's identity was being confirmed, and the tester explicitly allowed it. If the rules don't allow for this, this french genius should have stated it pronto and denied the request.
Who are your sources saying the tester explicitly allowed it? Sources also say the ALFD threatened to call the gendarmes. Non-compliance seems to make the LA and accomplice the ones that are mentally challenged.
 
Mar 15, 2009
8
0
0
grimpeur said:
Who are your sources saying the tester explicitly allowed it? Sources also say the ALFD threatened to call the gendarmes. Non-compliance seems to make the LA and accomplice the ones that are mentally challenged.
Lance himself, in a press release in the Astana site: http://www.astana-cyclingteam.com/news_press/lafrenchtest.html

I quote #1: "We asked if it was OK for me to run inside and shower while they made their calls and the tester said that was fine."

And #2 "In addition, the form asked the tester to state if there were any irregularities or further observations from the testing process and to that he wrote “no”."

Some people may question the truth of #1, but if the tester marked "no" as indicated in #2 (and there is documental proof), then the AFLD should silently punish the brilliant tester guy instead of calling off the press to claim that, basically, their testers are inept monkeys who can't fill forms properly.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
fbergo said:
The fact that an institution is unable to follow such a simple rule casts huge doubts on its ability to conduct scientific testing of samples for substances that are barely detectable.
That a lab member is leaking that a positive has occurred says absolutely nothing about the scientific testing. Again it looks like doping apologists making mountains out of molehills to defend the doping of their idols.

There is a long and sordid history of sports organizations covering up doping by their athletes. It has happened all over the world, and the UCI has a corrupt stench coming off it that would knock a dung beetle unconscious. The leaking helps prevent cover ups. It is a good thing.
 
I really cant believe people put their full belief in Lances twitter feeds, seriously never believe any cyclist 100%, reserve a bit of skepticsm. Sad I know but it helps reduce dissappointment.

I got this from an article in Procycling magazine in 1999 afters Lances first victory. It concerned an interview between L'Equipe and Lance regarding drugs in cycling. Draw your own conclusions.

L'Equipe: "Does cycling still have a drugs problem?"
Lance: "I have no idea, there is none in my team. And none in any of the teams I have raced in. The Festina affair was a huge surprise to me"
L'Equipe: "Really"
Lance: "Yes"
L'Equipe: "And you never spoke about it in the peloton"
Lance: "Now that you mention it, no"

Just for the record, Frankie Andreu & another unknown US Postal admitted to doping in 1999. Andreu lived in Nice, the same town as Lance and was a long time teamate & friend as well as a regular training partner of Lance.

Every man & his dog knew EPO was being used in the 90s, the surprise was how widespread and organised it was. If anyone had read Paul Kimmage, they would have known how cycling worked.

How many times have we heard a guy who is caught say, "everybody knows what is going on, but nobody says anything"

Bottom line, Lance is a global superstar, if he gos and take a shower whilst waiting to verify a tester, then every athlete in the world can start demanding to take showers and asking for credentials everytime a tester arrives. Then what king of system will we have, rules are there for a reason. Lance effectively missed a test, slap on the wrist, a warning, case closed, move on.
 
Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
I really think Richard Pound should stop speaking out about cycling. He and many of the others in the media want to continue to sensationalize doping in cycling and for what reason. This results in cycling looking very bad where they are doing more than most sports. If they weren't testing then EPO would be used even more. Doping will exist in all sports, and people will get caught because they are stupid for taking performance enhancments.

I think the big point to all of this is that you cannot believe either side 100%. Armstrong made a huge mistake by taking a shower. The AFLD tester made several mistakes as well; saying yes for the shower, not having a second tester, and then marking the sheet No for abnormalities. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the form is a carbon copy or that a copy of the form is given to the riders. If not then any lawyer can chew up the legalality of that document. AFLD should have sent two testers pretty obvious why.

Honestly, I don't care what Lance did in the past, anything older than 2005. All I care about is today and the racing for today.

Does anyone think that Michael Phelps doped? He seemed to be a freak for swimming, just like Lance is for cycling.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY