The Triange: The lab, the UCI & Armstrong

Jul 8, 2009
501
0
0
Wow.

I've read most of this in this forum over the years... But placed in chronological order such as it is makes it seem somewhat sinister.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
thehog said:
Good find

Written by none other than Dr Michael Ashenden

Cycling's usual response to those who expose uncomfortable truths?

They kicked Ashenden of expert panels because he refuses to be gagged, 0 they certainly do not want anyone with expert knowledge having access to dirty laundry who might put it in public!. Which is significant for those who claim cycling has improved , because some of the evidence that outed Armstrong came from MA, so would not now be revealed in the present regime.. They would not let Ashenden present evidence of Doping bag Plasticiser in contador's blood at the time of the Clenbuterol hearings either. Omerta is still not dead.

MA should be considered to head up or be involved in leading any new doping authority.
 
Jun 20, 2009
81
0
0
thehog said:
you guys are forgetting usada and their incredible incompetence by not catching any of these cheats the many hundreds of times they competed in the usa. The same idiots that let them get away with it because they were too stupid to catch them are still sitting there. They disvovered it only by rider testimony which tells us they are still clueless. line em up and use one bullet...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
roadfreak44 said:
you guys are forgetting usada and their incredible incompetence by not catching any of these cheats the many hundreds of times they competed in the usa. The same idiots that let them get away with it because they were too stupid to catch them are still sitting there. They disvovered it only by rider testimony which tells us they are still clueless. line em up and use one bullet...
you are forgetting UCI are in control of testing. All samples go through UCI ;)

Give it up, Armstrong got done and he aint coming back, but we can hope he takes loads down as he plummets!
 
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
roadfreak44 said:
you guys are forgetting usada and their incredible incompetence by not catching any of these cheats the many hundreds of times they competed in the usa. The same idiots that let them get away with it because they were too stupid to catch them are still sitting there. They disvovered it only by rider testimony which tells us they are still clueless. line em up and use one bullet...
Even if the USADA were incompetent - which I think we can all agree they are not - it would not justify the UCI accepting bribes or being in other ways corrupt.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
Ashenden quit - he was not kicked off the panel.
I seem to recall he quit rather than sign some sort of prohibitive NDA, whose purpose was likely to muzzle him.

So describing him as being kicked off is not entirely inaccurate. They definitely didn't want him there acting as he was.
 
roadfreak44 said:
you guys are forgetting usada and their incredible incompetence by not catching any of these cheats the many hundreds of times they competed in the usa.
Haha. Willfull ignorance will not get you far in this forum.

WADA, and its American agency, USADA have limited powers such that they cannot test what has not been provided to them. If they are provided samples, they can only recommend opening cases to the UCI. The UCI then decides if they will open a case or not.

As the rules are written, they are about three years behind the dopers as it is. So, plenty of false negatives in the system for this and other reasons.

Perhaps you should check into the Tour of California where there was no testing at all and the UCI's role in anti-doping at that event.

I could go on, but your weak efforts to cause confusion where there is none are not worthy of the time.
 
May 10, 2011
247
0
0
Ashenden continues to be one of my favorite people in this whole heap of madness that is Cycling. Thanks for that. He poses a really great question and I hope it gets answered.
 
Top notch by Dr Ashenden. Pressure on UCI must keep mounting.

It's ironic that UCI can't even get the figure or number of times Armstrong made donations right. Shows the UCI incompetence even when engaging in corruption.:D
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
Fantastic link, very interesting read. My question is this: As a not-for -profit that is domiciled somewhere (Switzerland?) do the laws of that nation not provide for a public viewing of records? Surely a forensic accountant could make short work of the depositary history of the UCI, and thus could easily determine when the 100K was received. If the deposit does not appear then the issue is more clouded. So what is required to audit a Not-for profit in Switzerland?
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Good summary of the changing explanations coming out of the UCI concerning Armstrong's donations.

All been previously exposed and discussed on the Clinic but this serves as an excellent précis.

Hope Kimmage's lawyers use it and subpoena UCI to produce all documents relating to these specific donations.

I suspect the true treatment of these transactions, if they existed within UCI's books, will expose McQuaid and Verbruggen of having no credibility.

Given their 180 degree turns I would not be surprised if those amounts do not exist within the UCI's records.

The can't get right the timing of receipt, the purpose and how they were paid. Verbruggen says cash whereas McQuaid says check/cheque.

McQuaid says of the check of $25,000, which he must have a copy in his possession to identify who signed, went into funds of "then the Anti-Doping Council" and was used for doping tests on juniors (not to buy a Sysmex machine).

I can't find any reference to the Anti-Doping Council. By "then" he must mean that it now, conveniently, no longer exists (if you want to pursue the transaction).
 
argyllflyer said:
There's not been a huge amount made of this yet, but some of the more high profile cycling press are aware of it.
If the position is taken that Armstrong was clean and he made a donation to anti-doping efforts at the UCI then it can be somewhat explained.

Knowing that he was a prolific doper along with is team it begs the question – “why the hell was he buying anti-doping equipment”?

It doesn’t make sense.

Alas with the triangle complete it looks as though the lab has benefited in their role in pushing the suspicious results aside.

If all of this was legitimate then the UCI would have no problems in producing a receipt and/or minutes of the meeting whereby the donation was accepted along with the purchase of the machine.

The only other question I have remaining is why did the UCI declare the donation? Why not just keep it quiet for good? No one would have ever found out.
 
Oct 16, 2012
75
0
0
thehog said:
Knowing that he was a prolific doper along with is team it begs the question – “why the hell was he buying anti-doping equipment”?
Just a theory:
Tyler describes, that LA was truly obsessed with knowing all about doping and the scientific background in order to get hold of the latest knowledge and tricks to win over the controls. If he wants a lab to do tests for him (to find out about glowing time for example) and that lab is lacking a certain state-of-the-art machine: wouldn’t he buy them one?

But Ashenden showed already, that the chronological order of payments makes such a theory highly improbable.
 
Jul 15, 2010
306
0
0
And I bet this is EXACTLY what Kimmage will bring to court. In fact Ashenden has done most of his work for him.

Ashenden = Landis :cool:
 
What I find disturbing is that as late as June 2010, Pat McQuaid did not have a clear
understanding of how much or how often Armstrong had paid the UCI. By his own
admission he had to check the UCI archives to establish those facts.

Nor did Lance Armstrong have a clear understanding of how much or how often he had
paid the UCI. His statements under oath attest to this.

Nor did Bill Stapleton have a clear understanding of how much or how often Armstrong
had paid the UCI. His statements under oath attest to this.

Finally, it also seems that Hein Verbruggen did not have a clear understanding of how
much or how often Armstrong had paid the UCI. His confusion during his 2010 interview
attest to this.


Nice summary.

Maybe this is "the secret" that ties Hein and Pat to Wonderboy even now. One possible "secret" is that way more than $100,000 passed from Wonderboy's appendages like Capital Sports and Entertainment to Hein and Pat. It would explain the bromance staying alive pretty well and the long, impossible history of all-clear drug tests.
 
100 000$ to cover up/ignore the epo positives from 99?
Finance the Vrijman report?

Question is if this is just a part of the protection money Armstrong paid:
- One part to the UCI for something(the part we know about)
- And a big part for hein/pat? (stashed somewhere out of sight?)

And is Verbiest in on it?
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
Benotti69 said:
you are forgetting UCI are in control of testing. All samples go through UCI ;)

Give it up, Armstrong got done and he aint coming back, but we can hope he takes loads down as he plummets!
Is that what you believe? The UCI assigns an anti doping officer who might be a doctor, a paramedic, a plumber, an accountant or any number of professions in real life. They do not work for the UCI. They are responsible to test the riders as required in the anti doping rules as well as assign random tests also according to the UCI rules. The Anti doping official is responsible to see the testing is done, the paper work is filled out and the samples are shipped to the lab as well as the conditions the samples are to be identified and sealed. He sends a copy of the sheets to the lab with only control numbers, no riders names. He sends a copy to the UCI and maybe the race federation. Sometimes the Race Federation looks after the race or tests also. The lab is generally the closest accredited lab to the race. Maybe 2 or 3 in the US, Montreal, Where in Mexico? No samples ever go to the UCI headquarters in Aigle. No UCI employee touches the samples. There is also federation testing so USADA in the US also tests. Over the last 7 years I think there has been a marked increase in targeting testing too. So I completely fail to understand in what manner the UCI can influence testing? There are so many people just itching to catch a big fish that there is no way a real positive test is going to be passed over. These guys are very motivated to catch cheats. If a positive test is covered up the lab still does not know who it is until the UCI identifies them. You know 3 days after the lab tech divulged there was a positive test is leaked.
Enjoy the conspiracy theories.
 
blackcat said:
what about the 500k folks.
The 500k was for full protection from Day 1 from the UCI.

The 100k was for the lab not the UCI. The 100k bought the Sysmex to keep the lab happy and to report back to Armstrong on doping thresholds.

The 25k was to take Hamilton down.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS