The Conspiracy Line

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mrs John Murphy said:
(BTW - How does Armstrong make Contador test positive while the UCI attempts to cover it up?)
The quoted bit above, I'm not joining Armstrong and Contador together. I recall the Contador positive being uncovered by German media. I would not be surprised if we find out later there were a number of Contador positives, near-positives.

We know there is some kind of special relationship between Pat and Hein and Wonderboy that has even survived Wonderboy's global shame. So, there's something really special there even today. Who knows how that worked between the three of them many years ago.

The rest of the post were all good valid questions for which I have no answer.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The quoted bit above, I'm not joining Armstrong and Contador together. I recall the Contador positive being uncovered by German media. I would not be surprised if we find out later there were a number of Contador positives, near-positives.

We know there is some kind of special relationship between Pat and Hein and Wonderboy that has even survived Wonderboy's global shame. So, there's something really special there even today. Who knows how that worked between the three of them many years ago.

The rest of the post were all good valid questions for which I have no answer.
My guess is that the UCI is pretty factional. I'm sure that Armstrong isn't the only one pushing cash in McQuaid's direction and I'm sure Astana does the same.

My guess is that one group were trying to suppress the Contador positive and one group were trying to expose it.

I also think that the 2011 exclusion of Geox from the TDF was a 1 year silent ban for Menchov. They knew they had him, he/Geox took the exclusion and stuck two fingers up at the UCI when it came to the Vuelta.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
fat_boy_fat said:
Another thought: the German BDR is one of the bigger (and therefore wealthier) federations. Assume, that its influence inside the UCI wasn’t neglectable back then..
+ T-Mobile were one of the biggest teams / sponsors $$ in the sport.
+ German TV was paying $$$ for TdF boradcast rights
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Netserk said:
*While wearing the tinfoil hat*

Contador thought he was protected by the UCI, so they (UCI) had to act, so that AC thought they tried to protect him.
Wonderboy wants Contador to test positive
UCI spikes Contador
UCI keeps the positive secret
UCI leaks the postive themselves
Contador gets banned.
This.

Mrs John Murphy said:
My guess is that the UCI is pretty factional. I'm sure that Armstrong isn't the only one pushing cash in McQuaid's direction and I'm sure Astana does the same.

My guess is that one group were trying to suppress the Contador positive and one group were trying to expose it.

I also think that the 2011 exclusion of Geox from the TDF was a 1 year silent ban for Menchov. They knew they had him, he/Geox took the exclusion and stuck two fingers up at the UCI when it came to the Vuelta.
And this.

Also, no need for timorous qualifiers such as the thread title, and references to "tinfoil hats", in trying to figure these things out. USADA has already established that there was indeed conspiracy. We may not have all the details, or even the full outline of its scope, but we know for certain that corruption and collusion occurred and, probably, are still occurring. If this were merely paranoid fantasy, Lance Armstrong would still be a sports hero, and Pat and Hein would be dedicated, modestly paid bureaucrats with a conscience.

In the world of reality, these heads of the sport corrupt youth and the sport as a whole. In so doing they keep it small and ridiculous. Which necessarily involves answering to more than one master.

Alberto is the new lord of the peloton, and he has powerful interests behind him. If there were any inkling that Pat and Hein had a hand in setting him up, or weren't trying to protect him, these two fatties would be out of a job, and maybe even sitting in court.

On the other hand, though, when the Boss wants something done, and I mean *really* wants it done, his two lap dogs know to hop to it.

So the Contador thing must have been a bit of a dilemma for them. What to do?

Simple: be careful to be seen leading Contador into protection with your left hand, and say soothing words - even as your right hand has hold of the knife in his back. Problem solved.

Result: jobs saved (their own) and bank accounts stuffed.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Hat firmly glued in place :D.

blackcat said:
I thought that too. He needed a rival.

FL was inconvenient. Too easy to win the Tour, can abrogate the unique/novel quality.
Yes Floyd was a thorn (flaw) in the Golden Fleece. Lance perceived FL as a "mediocre" GC rider. Floyd winning called into question the dernier and quality of the MJ thread. Therefore FL's DQ removed/reduced the above question.

fat_boy_fat said:
Another thought: the German BDR is one of the bigger (and therefore wealthier) federations. Assume, that its influence inside the UCI wasn’t neglectable back then..
Given the Prime axiom (LA's influence in UCI activities) I am happy to give credence to the possibility that other riders had pull/other parties pulling for them. With or without said riders' knowledge. For that matter, (A) I concede that LA may have had parties acting for him without (on occasion) his direct knowledge/influence/input.

Gregga said:
Hamilton's positive is the weirdest, as he claims he never did any homologous transfusion. After '04 DL Ventoux ITT, Armstrong was pretty angry...
IMO Hamilton test was made by Verbruggen for Armstrong, as Landis' test was. Not so sure for Heras or Mayo. Pantani no way, EPO abuse.
Agreed... Tyler's and Floyd's positives appeared (to me) to have unexplained anomalies. Mix-up? Suggested targeted testing? Dob-in? Spiked? Unfortunate/lucky/planned combination of above? Whatever...twas weird.

Struck me subsequently as analagous to the speeding driver that gets pinged for running a red light (but not the speeding)...when they know full well they didn't run a red light!!

simoni said:
The idea of Armstrong having the clout to get Pantani popped in 1999 before he'd "won" his first tour is absurd, surely? At that point he was a just another tour contender (albeit with a story to tell). Yeah, he got his '99 positive covered up but I've always thought that sort of thing was fairly commonplace back then.
While I don't give much credence to Lance facilitating a Pantani false positive in 1999 (I agree, he didn't have the direct pull then), other options are certainly viable. As per above (A) or dob in/sly suggestion.

Cloxxki said:
Tyler's positive.
Back in 2006 they could not catch you on autologous too well yet. Huge scientific proof battle, and tyler might have won that.
Homologous, is something hard to deny once looking at the sample. Spike it, and there you go.
I believe more in spiking than in sabotage of BB's, although I won't rule that out either. It's too easy. Pass the old Fuentes assistent a sum of money to do it, and the next day the good doc has sincerely forgotten where the money in his pocket came from. Heck, you could send an "investigator" there, threatening to expose the whole place, UNLESS a favor is granted... Everyone in cycling knew about Madrid, but no-one acted against it.
Perhaps one time Tyler's body was rejecting the foreign blood, the other time it didn't. He may have been getting homologously diluted blood for a while. It takes one Fuentes trustee to mix things up.
Seems likely a mix-up...but I don't discount possibility of a set-up.

Mrs John Murphy said:
I guess the question is whether you think the Hamilton and Vino cases were blood bags getting mixed up, or conspiracy. I tend to view it as **** up rather than a conspiracy.

I think I struggle with the idea that Armstrong could ever have really had that much power, and that he could have orchestrated it. If it were true then it would suggest that the labs themselves are compromised.
I believe that LA had direct (inappropriate) access to UCI but it was limited in quality and quantity. That is...more akin to...an emergency get out of jail "free". However I strongly believe that other influential parties had direct/indirect pull in generating support for LA/discomfort for LA's opponents/"enemies".

Fortyninefourteen said:
If Armstrong had so much clout with the UCI, then why did he go to such lengths to hide, and disappear from OOC controls, as well as be so careful for in season race controls. If he knew he would never be 'positive' based on UCI assurances, he did not need to worry about anything.

Some seem to subscribe to the theory that he had some 'immunity' deal. That does not jive with me based on the elaborate cover-ups and schemes in the USADA report.

He may have convinced Hein that he was on the 'inside' of some other riders doping, and convinced the UCI that some riders were cheating and deserved a positive control.

Maybe we find out more, as the layers get peeled back, about the payments to the UCI, covered up tests.....I have a feeling that there is a lot more evidence in USADA's hands that will point to pharma collusion, testing results, etc.
LA and co generated a "pyramid of protection". Each tier was integral to maintaining LA "dope free" and Patron status.
Optimum coaching Dr F
Monopoly on above
Cutting edge PEDs AND doping technique
Warning mechanisms
Parties with influence on UCI for LA/against others
LA personal UCI contacts



Mrs John Murphy said:
My guess is that the UCI is pretty factional. I'm sure that Armstrong isn't the only one pushing cash in McQuaid's direction and I'm sure Astana does the same.

My guess is that one group were trying to suppress the Contador positive and one group were trying to expose it.

I also think that the 2011 exclusion of Geox from the TDF was a 1 year silent ban for Menchov. They knew they had him, he/Geox took the exclusion and stuck two fingers up at the UCI when it came to the Vuelta.
Yes all possible and in the end created an enormous stink. This raised even greater questions on the ever diminshing credibility of the UCI.

Dear Wiggo said:
+ T-Mobile were one of the biggest teams / sponsors $$ in the sport.
+ German TV was paying $$$ for TdF boradcast rights
Again parties of significant influence that may well have acted without rider/s' imprimateur.

Edit: sorry forgot. I think that LA's return was driven more by his perception that his legacy was threatened..."mediocre riders" were winning the TdF... than anything else. He figured he could return in 2009 and wipe the floor. Thereby demonstrating his omnipotence/awesomeness and the 'flawed' capabilities of the peloton...THE Legend of both the TdF and Cycling!
 
DirtyWorks said:
Didn't you get the memo? Doping in cycling is under control with only 2% doping. The Bio Passport fixed it. :rolleyes:

Unless ASO gets a conscience and brings back Patrice Clerc, it will be the most false negative Tour in a decade. The way the 2012 edition went, teams will be back on The Gear like it was 1995.
A free for all like 2009? With Hein replacing the Badger for the podium ceremony? Why not, we may even get rid of all the empty PR garbage in the process.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY