The Triange: The lab, the UCI & Armstrong

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
The opening paragraph: fabulous stuff. extremely clever yet logic thinking by ashenden.

In a parallel universe, on the occasion of Lance Armstrong donating money to the UCI to help its fight against doping, events might unfold as follows. Hein Verbruggen and Lance Armstrong would call a press conference, posing for cameras as a photogenic oversized cheque was handed over. The UCI would issue their trademark Press Pack detailing when and how the donation was to be spent. A win-win publicity event for all parties concerned.
Contrast that with how events transpired in our real world.
Definitely something Kimmage's lawyer would like to take note of.
 
Master50 said:
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.
This is all true based on my limited understanding of the process.

Master50 said:
Sometimes the Race Federation looks after the race or tests also.
Nothing wrong with the federation getting the information... Oh wait, maybe there is. No bad news is good news, right?

Master50 said:
No samples ever go to the UCI headquarters in Aigle. No UCI employee touches the samples.
You aren't new here are you?

No, Agile doesn't get their hands dirty with samples, but that's not the point. The UCI has total control over whether or not they open a case against a rider and total control over all the information. See the Contador case where the UCI tried and failed to make the positive "go away."

We have ample public evidence they have had positive A and B samples, but they contact the rider with "concerns" as they did with Armstrong. Then some money changes hands like it did with Armstrong and Pat and Hein are richer for it, the sport appears clean, and the athlete collects more wins.

Master50 said:
So I completely fail to understand in what manner the UCI can influence testing?
See above. Do you understand now?


Master50 said:
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.
Hahaaha!!!! You are just making sh!t up at this point. They are very motivated to toss out minor athletes like FuYu Li to appear as though they are doing something.

You mean how Pat tried to "pass over" Contador's clen positive? How Wonderboy in Hein's own words "never, never, never, ever doped."

Post whatever drugs your psychiatrist has you on because you are living in a fairy tale.
 
Oct 19, 2012
23
0
0
The Corrupt Triangle

Also please note that this weeks declaration from the Lab in Switzerland of the suspect LA test in 2001:
http://www.supersport.com/cycling/international/news/121020/Armstrong_2001_test_suspicious_not_failure_lab

If we suspect the lab is in on it...how hard would it have been for them to issue this statement now....11 yrs later...and have the UCI say this is a non issue.

"There was no positive test on the Tour of Switzerland in 2001," said Martial Saugy, the director of the Lausanne laboratory which conducted the tests.

Its all very dirty.
Going back again to Heins´ Never never never doped comments and his semi retraction of those comments a few days ago.
almost painfullly obvious he was trying to divert attention and then once cornered claimed he never issued those statements...
There is something here for sure.

Asheden is on the right track.

And what about Pats claim for anyone to come to the UCI to see the receipts of the donation. He lied in the press conference a few days ago saying the donation was always in the open. Bullsh!t.
As Ashenden points UCI they cant get their story straight because they are lying about it . Same as LA and Stapelton in their 2005 SCA desposition.

I thought you had to be 80+yr old president to claim amnesia.
Ronald Reagan in Iran Contra
http://www.moldea.com/reagan-gj.html
 
Aug 24, 2010
101
0
0
Master50 said:
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.
UCI didn't sign the WADA code until 2004 (Holding off until Lance was done winning tours maybe? :)), and this was 2001, 2002. That means any of their testing results were reported to them, not anti doping agencies. They, and only they, because only the rider and UCI got forms with names) had the opportunity to warn riders. Saugy's wishy-washy testimony suggests he was looking after the people who contracted his lab, ie the UCI, and is now squirming because WADA won't like one of their labs to have a record of doing this. And as we can see, the positive threshold varied in those days; Lausanne 80% synthetic epo, Paris was 85% I believe. So even a lab tech with morals couldn't really leak it, as we have relied on in the past. The evil deal here is that it looks like Armstrong got the warnings and advice on how to beat the test. Others didn't. Maybe they just didn't understand the open palm sign of the UCI. :rolleyes:
 
wirral said:
Didn't I read somewhere that these machines cost a lot less than $100,000.

So the Swiss lab got the machine and Pat and Hein got their broker's commission on the deal.
What I didn't know was the lab already has a Sysmex machine. So the new machine was a backup!

Which makes no sense. Why buy a backup machine?
 
Aug 1, 2009
1,038
0
0
thehog said:
What I didn't know was the lab already has a Sysmex machine. So the new machine was a backup!

Which makes no sense. Why buy a backup machine?
Do you think they would have been able to test Lance 800 times with only one machine?!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2

ASK THE COMMUNITY