• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Really, McQuaid? Really.

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
frenchfry said:
McQuaid remains a loyal Armstrong servant.

- investigation is motivated by vengence
- should never have been made public
- UCI is squeaky clean
- Armstrong never controlled positive

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2010/20100820_104403_mcquaid-defend-armstrong.html

Well, he did slip up this year when he proclaimed cycling was cleaner because Basso's blood values showed a steady decline throughout a three-week Tour, thereby unwittingly throwing other people under the bus.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Well, he did slip up this year when he proclaimed cycling was cleaner because Basso's blood values showed a steady decline throughout a three-week Tour, thereby unwittingly throwing other people under the bus.

i bet there were a few DS's especially Hog screaming down there mobiles at McWhack after that quote:D
 
Jul 29, 2009
85
0
0
Visit site
McQuaid = ProCycling's Tony Soprano.

I can just see the Global Cancer Awareness logo on the big fat brown envelope resting under Pat's guilty fingers....
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Mont Ventoux said:
McQuaid = ProCycling's Tony Soprano.

I can just see the Global Cancer Awareness logo on the big fat brown envelope resting under Pat's guilty fingers....

i see McQuaid more as Fredo to Pacino's Michael(HV), you just know he is gonna get whacked for being so stoopid. :D
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
SaftyCyclist said:
Veloresults puts forward a possible scenario of events, showing how a positive test could be avoided by the UCI.
http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/19/how-a-positive-could-be-buried/

Funny... You ever wonder if anyone out there in the real world actually follows what we write here on the clinic? The article you've referenced:

http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/19/how-a-positive-could-be-buried

seems awfully close to a post I wrote back in June:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=235787#post235787

And let me assure you I am not Martin Williamson (author of the veloresults piece).
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Tubeless said:
Funny... You ever wonder if anyone out there in the real world actually follows what we write here on the clinic? The article you've referenced:

http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/19/how-a-positive-could-be-buried

seems awfully close to a post I wrote back in June:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=235787#post235787

And let me assure you I am not Martin Williamson (author of the veloresults piece).

I've wondered a few times. I've seen Cyclingnews referenced as source in quite a few other news outlets, and it is among the best English language cycling sites. So it wouldn't surprise me if people would have a look into the forum from time to time.

It could also be a case of 'great minds think alike'.
 
Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Visit site
I know there not without flaws but wouldnt ya like to see Mc Quack, Golden Ball, Hog and about 75% of the pro peloton , ds`s etc take lie detector tests.
Me finks the graph would require extra wide paper for all the porkies the sad shower of curruption tell!.:rolleyes:
 
Tubeless said:
Funny... You ever wonder if anyone out there in the real world actually follows what we write here on the clinic? The article you've referenced:

http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/19/how-a-positive-could-be-buried

seems awfully close to a post I wrote back in June:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=235787#post235787

And let me assure you I am not Martin Williamson (author of the veloresults piece).

Very good. Doesn't surprised me such a good analysis was lifted. I suggested the same on the forums about the A reaching a positive then being shut down never to record a positive. Also why McQuaid keeps trumpeting the "no positive controls" line. Using the word control in every instance. It wouldn't surprise me if many riders dodged a bullet in this fashion. Its also why I think the labs leak the A result forcing the UCI to follow through. I remember in the Floyd case that the A result was leaked and McQuaid wasn't happy. I think the Floyd positive would have been shut down. Probably why Floyd hates McQuaid so much. For years the favours came in and then all of a sudden McQuaid jumped all over him. Floyd knows a lot about how McQuaid works.
 
Tubeless - apologies for using your great post from a couple of months ago, without a reference - I assure you it was not my intention to rip you off or plagerise your words. I copied the text at the time to a local file, thinking "wow, that makes a lot of sense", I should develop this idea, but subsequently forgot where the text for the idea came from.

However, with McQuaid's statements recently in the news, I thought a comment on our site would be in order, and I found the .txt file with your idea in it, and used it as a basis for the article. I couldn't remember where I got the words from initially, but am more than happy to give credit where it's due. You are one of a handful of posters on the forum who I pay attention to, and who actually talk a lot of sense - rather than try to derail discussions they don't like.

I have added an acknowledgement to you and your original idea in the article. Please accept my sincere apologies for using your great words without due credit.
 
Jul 12, 2010
117
0
0
Visit site
Can anybody point me to some official documentation which details the positive sample reporting protocol circa 2001. What I am asking is back in 2001, did a lab simultaneously report a positive to UCI, IOC, WADA, The Cyclingnew Formun Clinic etc...

thxs
 
Jan 18, 2010
3,059
0
0
Visit site
Darryl Webster said:
I know there not without flaws but wouldnt ya like to see Mc Quack, Golden Ball, Hog and about 75% of the pro peloton , ds`s etc take lie detector tests.
Me finks the graph would require extra wide paper for all the porkies the sad shower of curruption tell!.:rolleyes:

Mcquaid should be strip searched. And sooner this worthless person is gone from cycling the better.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Lajeretta4Ever said:
Can anybody point me to some official documentation which details the positive sample reporting protocol circa 2001. What I am asking is back in 2001, did a lab simultaneously report a positive to UCI, IOC, WADA, The Cyclingnew Formun Clinic etc...

thxs

Here is what Mc Quaid says and has. I don´t think he is soo stupid to say that he has prove, when in reality he hasn´t.
Of course the people who support and believe in the above mentioned "szenario" will always be "right".
They will always say: Come on, it was handled in some phonecalls and they are all corrupt.
Even if everything is documented, proved and proved to be impossible to handle because of the processes/order of events.
I think it is a little bit shortbrained thinking, that McQuaid lies every time he opens his mouth and every single one from the labs up to the highest authority is corrupt, only to save Lance. He didn´t only have friends - and this is just an optimistic description. :)
If you read some posts, you could come the idea that McQuaid is testing all samples himselft alone in a dark laboratory toghether with some friends.

This speculation-szenario won´t change the fact that Floyd has some problems, when he has no prove for his accusations and when there is simultaneously proved that there never was a positive in the TdS 2001. Or was it 2002 ? :D

I have no interest in documents that prove that there was nothing.
It is more interesting to read the Operation Puerto documents. Really thrilling.


"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.
"First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.
I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001."


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
Visit site
VeloResults.co.uk said:
Tubeless - apologies for using your great post from a couple of months ago, without a reference - I assure you it was not my intention to rip you off or plagerise your words. I copied the text at the time to a local file, thinking "wow, that makes a lot of sense", I should develop this idea, but subsequently forgot where the text for the idea came from.

However, with McQuaid's statements recently in the news, I thought a comment on our site would be in order, and I found the .txt file with your idea in it, and used it as a basis for the article. I couldn't remember where I got the words from initially, but am more than happy to give credit where it's due. You are one of a handful of posters on the forum who I pay attention to, and who actually talk a lot of sense - rather than try to derail discussions they don't like.

I have added an acknowledgement to you and your original idea in the article. Please accept my sincere apologies for using your great words without due credit.

No problem - since we're posting anonymously, not sure there's any requirement for you to acknoledge the source anyhow? Perhaps I should follow the example of my fellow poster Dr Maserati and call myself a doctor to give the reference you're including some additional credibility...

In any case, glad to see some of our thoughts out there in the wider world. There are some good posters and posts in here - not a bad place for both the prosecution and the defense alike to pick up ideas.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
VeloResults.co.uk said:
Tubeless - apologies for using your great post from a couple of months ago, without a reference - I assure you it was not my intention to rip you off or plagerise your words. I copied the text at the time to a local file, thinking "wow, that makes a lot of sense", I should develop this idea, but subsequently forgot where the text for the idea came from.

However, with McQuaid's statements recently in the news, I thought a comment on our site would be in order, and I found the .txt file with your idea in it, and used it as a basis for the article. I couldn't remember where I got the words from initially, but am more than happy to give credit where it's due. You are one of a handful of posters on the forum who I pay attention to, and who actually talk a lot of sense - rather than try to derail discussions they don't like.

I have added an acknowledgement to you and your original idea in the article. Please accept my sincere apologies for using your great words without due credit.

Accurate, unique, informative and truthful articles about the sport we love.

So what of a kind is that article ?
http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/19/how-a-positive-could-be-buried/
Must be unique but will never be a golden nugget !

Uh, this must be coincidence. Your readers were tuned perfectly, with the above article one day before.
http://www.veloresults.co.uk/2010/08/20/stop-messing-with-nature/

Germany has 9 riders at the worlds - and I love it. :D
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Here is what Mc Quaid says and has. I don´t think he is soo stupid to say that he has prove, when in reality he hasn´t.
Of course the people who support and believe in the above mentioned "szenario" will always be "right".
They will always say: Come on, it was handled in some phonecalls and they are all corrupt.
Even if everything is documented, proved and proved to be impossible to handle because of the processes/order of events.
I think it is a little bit shortbrained thinking, that McQuaid lies every time he opens his mouth and every single one from the labs up to the highest authority is corrupt, only to save Lance. He didn´t only have friends - and this is just an optimistic description. :)
If you read some posts, you could come the idea that McQuaid is testing all samples himselft alone in a dark laboratory toghether with some friends.

This speculation-szenario won´t change the fact that Floyd has some problems, when he has no prove for his accusations and when there is simultaneously proved that there never was a positive in the TdS 2001. Or was it 2002 ? :D

I have no interest in documents that prove that there was nothing.
It is more interesting to read the Operation Puerto documents. Really thrilling.


"We've contacted in recent days the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time. I have statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say. The letters will also soon be published on the UCI website in a sign of transparency.
"First the letter from the Paris lab, that is under the AFLD. They had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. Two in 2001 and one in 2003. All the reports were sent to the UCI in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 were also sent CPLD and also sent to the International Olympic Committee. In relation to Lausanne, there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI controlled by this lab between 2001 and 2003: six in 2001, four in 2002 and eight in 2003. All analysis were sent to IOC and Swiss Olympic.
I also have a letter from WADA that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to the WADA. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001."


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-acknowledges-accepting-armstrong-donation-a-mistake
You seem to trust Pat, and to show this give a quote from him - which contains another Pat lie.

Where are the 'letters' confirming his side of the story? 3 months later and still no sign.
 
Cobblestoned said:
This speculation-szenario won´t change the fact that Floyd has some problems, when he has no prove for his accusations and when there is simultaneously proved that there never was a positive in the TdS 2001. Or was it 2002 ? :D



[

That line above is really funny Cobble....Hilarious stuff. You know full well that Lance told him in 2002, what happened in the TOS in 2001....Is that so hard for you to understand?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You seem to trust Pat, and to show this give a quote from him - which contains another Pat lie.

Where are the 'letters' confirming his side of the story? 3 months later and still no sign.

You speculators will always be right. So no problem. I would never doubt that.
Just ask him or the UCI by email, if there is so much urgent need for these spectactulare papers.
The right and authorized people will get (have gotten) these papers, if they need it.
I don´t need them and I don´t know what "soon" means for the UCI. But if you want you can declare that as a "lie", just do it.

I don´t trust Pat 100 %. The only person I trust 100 % is my mother. :D
But his reaction came relatively fast or "soon". Too fast for a lie and corruption.
 
Cobblestoned said:
You speculators will always be right. So no problem. I would never doubt that.
Just ask him or the UCI by email, if there is so much urgent need for these spectactulare papers.
The right and authorized people will get (have gotten) these papers, if they need it.
I don´t need them and I don´t know what "soon" means for the UCI. But if you want you can declare that as a "lie", just do it.

I don´t trust Pat 100 %. The only person I trust 100 % is my mother. :D
But his reaction came relatively fast or "soon". Too fast for a lie and corruption.

And that fact that he has changed his srory about said donation, so many times? You think the truth changes so often?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Digger said:
That line above is really funny Cobble....Hilarious stuff. You know full well that Lance told him in 2002, what happened in the TOS in 2001....Is that so hard for you to understand?

I knew that, yes.
Better say: I hope to know which year Floyd meant, although some media where really confused about that one. :)
No problem. 2001 !. No TdS for Lance in 2002.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Digger said:
And that fact that he has changed his srory about said donation, so many times? You think the truth changes so often?

What is the truth ? I think you will tell me the truth and what McQuaid knew and what he didn´t knew so far.
But you are just mixing up the subject.

What you are trying to say is nothing different from what Lance does with his sour milk Landis. Same tactics as Lance.
Its your choice !
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
You speculators will always be right. So no problem. I would never doubt that.
Just ask him or the UCI by email, if there is so much urgent need for these spectactulare papers.
The right and authorized people will get (have gotten) these papers, if they need it.
I don´t need them and I don´t know what "soon" means for the UCI. But if you want you can declare that as a "lie", just do it.

I don´t trust Pat 100 %. The only person I trust 100 % is my mother. :D
But his reaction came relatively fast or "soon". Too fast for a lie and corruption.

I did declare it a lie - when you claim that you are going to do something and then not do so, that is a lie.

Why should I have to email the UCI for something they offered to produce?

You said: "The right and authorized people will get (have gotten) these papers" - can you name one person who has reported or even seen these "lab letters"?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Some media - yeah Lance's response, otherwise known as the Bible.

Pfffft. Another post with wishful thinking and selective hate.
Shall I really look for links to show you the general confusion about emails/timeline in nearly any media around that time ?
I will exempt you from that !