Several striking this jump out at me in reading that article.
1. We have a new addition to the use of Lance paid funds "juniors testing" - had never heard that one. What rationale is there for citing this as a direct use of those funds? As a show of strength against doping or is the dope testing of juniors underfunded?
2. The perpetuation of the lie regarding "It’s impossible for us to be corrupt in relation to anti-doping" and the reason cited as “Every test result that comes to the UCI also goes to the World Anti-Doping Agency. And so if they see a positive coming in and the UCI is sitting on it, they’d be straight onto it. There’s no way you can hide evidence under the table.” - As reference in connection to the allegation that Lance paid the UCI to make a 2001 Tour de Suisse EPO positive disappear, this is not true. Results of tests in 2001 were not forwarded simultaneously to WADA. In fact, it was not until 2004 that transmitting results to multiple parties occurred. Mr. McQuaid is simply lying as to this point. I really wish someone would take this point uo with him and press. The fall back position is that the UCI went back and checked their records and there was no positive... Duh! That's kind of the point of a cover-up, to MAKE SURE there are NO RECORDS lying about!
3. McQuaid reveals "Dr Mario Zorzoli, showed us a graph of the average blood values of the peloton from 1998 to 2010. It’s the figures for haematocrit, reticulocytes and haemoglobin – all important elements for knowing if there’s something illicit going on. And it shows from 1998 and up to 2001 or 2002, figures were quite high and that covers the erythropoietin (EPO) period" - what do we take from this? That it is only NOW they understand what has transpired? Or that it is OK to call that "time" the EPO Period, as if it was some forgotten ancient age? Or, as baseball does, by calling things the "Steroid Era", permit us to squint our eyes and look sideways at the results during that time? And these are in the center of Lance's TdF victories? What does that imply? McQuaid is ethically and intellectually bankrupted, as he was there during that "time" and now waxes about how far they've come, as if he has some accomplishment.
Boy, this fool gets me worked up.