Tyler's Book

[Lanark]

Wiggins was 4th at the Tour in 2009, and joined Sky in 2010. Contador was pinged in 2010. Wiggins was on track to podium 2011.

Pat McQuaid knew Sky were going to win this year's Tour on July 11 - 11 days before the race had finished - good enough prediction skills for me.

Wiggins finished 23rd in the 2010 Tour, in 2011 he crashed after a couple of days, he wasn't on track for anything. Team Sky did terrible in pretty much all stage races in 2010, it's not like Contador was the only guy standing in the way of a British TDF win, there were dozens of other things preventing that. It wasn't untill Froome's Miraculous Breakthough, Wiggins fantastic season leading up to the TDF this year and the sudden incredible increase in performance by the likes of Rogers and Porte that Wiggins became a favorite, non of those things were present (or even hinted at) in 2010.

 

[Futuroscope]

**** Armstrong. I hope his legal troubles continue and the French go after him. He is obviously a very very sick man. A sociopath.

 

["Jeff"]

What does that have anything to do with it? He didn't confess because the burden of lying all these years got to much for him. He confessed because D'Hondt wrote a book descibing the doping abuse at Telekom, and after several of his teammates from that time already confessed, he was practically forced to do the same. It was just a calculated move, I don't see how it would change the likelihood of him doping his riders after that 'confession'.

You act, like everyone is 'forced' to admit doping abuse, just because someone else is saying so. I'm not saying D'Hondt was wrong or so, far from.
Fact remains, he still could have said nothing, just like many and many others who are being accused and even being caught. Riis confessed in 2007 and Hamilton is talking about 2002 when he joined CSC (when Riss was still pro-EPO). If this happened after 2007, than this would be a disgrace on a greater level. That's what I'm saying.

 

[airstream]

How about this. How about the UCI identifies the best candidate for "golden goose". Somebody they think is credible, can carry the water, and, most important, who will bring in the most filthy lucre for them. Obviously baby Schleck was their man, but that didn't work out, as we know. They look for a fallback candidate and identify Wiggins. Feelers are sent out. The possibility is established. Armstrong is sent to talk to the candidate. Candidate is up for it. He is then hooked up with Ferrari. Voila, new golden goose.

Maybe that's a rough sketch, at least, of how it panned out.

As I see, your theory implies that ASO, UCI and WADA (though I have difficulty to measure its role) should work in absolutely the same direction, having the same goal, — to grow up and feed this notorious 'golden goose' which is not very likely IMO. Really difficult scheme. I think it's business solely between DS's and UCI. Though then why WADA and AFLD still can't catch some big fish in the Tour and how all this anti-doping sieve is regulated by UCI and works... All that remains a riddle for me.

If we had been in 2006, SaxoBank would have been thrown away from the Vuelta I think.

 

[the big ring]

Wiggins finished 23rd in the 2010 Tour, in 2011 he crashed after a couple of days, he wasn't on track for anything. Team Sky did terrible in pretty much all stage races in 2010, it's not like Contador was the only guy standing in the way of a British TDF win, there were dozens of other things preventing that. It wasn't untill Froome's Miraculous Breakthough, Wiggins fantastic season leading up to the TDF this year and the sudden incredible increase in performance by the likes of Rogers and Porte that Wiggins became a favorite, non of those things were present (or even hinted at) in 2010.

You have no idea what was hinted at in 2009 when Sky met with ASO. The team that had no World Tour professional team license - didn't even have a team - were meeting with the organisers of the Tour de France.

That doesn't strike you as slightly odd?

Then a few months later, British citizen Wiggins on "team clean" comes 4th behind
Armstrong - here for but a short while
Schleck - WTF
Contador - enemy of Armstrong

Sky did not have to convince you or the public they could win, they just had to convince ASO and the UCI. That's doable with far less than a team of superstars at your disposal. Look at how much faith Krebs Cycle puts into "IP world champion" BS - and he's a PhD exercise physiologist. Sky went to ASO with their track program results as proof that they could do it.

 

[Elagabalus]

How about this. How about the UCI identifies the best candidate for "golden goose". Somebody they think is credible, can carry the water, and, most important, who will bring in the most filthy lucre for them. Obviously baby Schleck was their man, but that didn't work out, as we know. They look for a fallback candidate and identify Wiggins. Feelers are sent out. The possibility is established. Armstrong is sent to talk to the candidate. Candidate is up for it. He is then hooked up with Ferrari. Voila, new golden goose.

Maybe that's a rough sketch, at least, of how it panned out.

How about something much simpler. Armstrong wanted to win TdF 2010 and Contador was going to be the main rival.

 

[taiwan]

How about this. How about the UCI identifies the best candidate for "golden goose". Somebody they think is credible, can carry the water, and, most important, who will bring in the most filthy lucre for them. Obviously baby Schleck was their man, but that didn't work out, as we know. They look for a fallback candidate and identify Wiggins. Feelers are sent out. The possibility is established. Armstrong is sent to talk to the candidate. Candidate is up for it. He is then hooked up with Ferrari. Voila, new golden goose.

Maybe that's a rough sketch, at least, of how it panned out.

This. I look forward to Froome or whoever's book in a few years' time. As someone posted earlier: don't dismiss the gut feeling.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

There is no truth in that at all.

It's not doping per se that'll make you a champion, that's true, but how you dope and what you have access to will make a huge difference, as it apparently did for Armstrong.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html?168178276

Whoa. That is mind-blowing. Great to see confirmation, and so much more, for everything that has been said on this forum for years.

This review in Outside should go viral in cycling circles. Pass it on!

 

[Lanark]

You act, like everyone is 'forced' to admit doping abuse, just because someone else is saying so. I'm not saying D'Hondt was wrong or so, far from.

Fact remains, he could have said nothing, just like many and many others who are being accused and even being caught. Riis confessed in 2007 and Hamilton is talking about 2002 when he joined CSC (when Riss was still pro-EPO). If this happened after 2007, than this would be a disgrace on a greater level. That's what I'm saying.

Well, he wasn't forced to admit doping abuse, only if he wanted to keep being a DS. It wasn't 'just' someone else saying so. D'Hondt had carefully described the doping abuse in Team Telekom, in the days leading up to Riis his 'confession' several of his teammates admitted doping use, and confirmed D'Hondt's story. There was immense pressure on Riis admit as well, he wouldn't be credible at all if he continued denying his past. It wasn't an attempt to come clean, it wasn't an attempt to deal with his demons of the past, it wasn't because he suddenly had the insight that doping was immoral, it was the only solution for him left to continue to work in the sport.

That Riis referred Hamilton to Fuentes before his 'confession' doesn't mean anything in my opinion, because that confession says absolutely nothing about Riis his stand on doping. There's nothing to suggest he though different about doping in 2002 than he did in 2007 after he confessed. So no, I don't think it would be a bigger disgrace if he referred riders to Fuentes after 2007 (well, apart from the fact that it would be pretty stupid to use a doctor who's in the middle of a police investigation )

 

[Lanark]

You have no idea what was hinted at in 2009 when Sky met with ASO. The team that had no World Tour professional team license - didn't even have a team - were meeting with the organisers of the Tour de France.

That doesn't strike you as slightly odd?

Then a few months later, British citizen Wiggins on "team clean" comes 4th behind
Armstrong - here for but a short while
Schleck - WTF
Contador - enemy of Armstrong

Sky did not have to convince you or the public they could win, they just had to convince ASO and the UCI. That's doable with far less than a team of superstars at your disposal. Look at how much faith Krebs Cycle puts into "IP world champion" BS - and he's a PhD exercise physiologist. Sky went to ASO with their track program results as proof that they could do it.

Ok, let's agree to disagree. I think the idea that Contador's positive is plot by Team Sky is completely preposterous. There wasn't any reason to think they would have a more than small chance of winning the Tour, and there wasn't any reason to think that Contador would be the biggest obstacle for them to win the Tour. If anything there is more reason to suspect the UCI was trying to cover up the Contador positive, not orchestrate it. Contador was caught because he's been a dirty rider for probably most of his carreer, and after many tests that he passed, this time he slipped.

 

[Futuroscope]

Whoa. That is mind-blowing. Great to see confirmation, and so much more, for everything that has been said on this forum for years.

This review in Outside should go viral in cycling circles. Pass it on!

Yes, I have been saying this for years to all those who say that they are all doping. Not all doping is equal, just look at the early 90s and the rise of the Italians. Some have more knowledge than others, access to better doctors, more protected depending on contacts and nationality etc etc.

 

["Jeff"]

Well, he wasn't forced to admit doping abuse, only if he wanted to keep being a DS.

Who says so ? That is pure your opinion.

It wasn't 'just' someone else saying so. D'Hondt had carefully described the doping abuse in Team Telekom, in the days leading up to Riis his 'confession' several of his teammates admitted doping use, and confirmed D'Hondt's story. There was immense pressure on Riis admit as well, he wouldn't be credible at all if he continued denying his past. It wasn't an attempt to come clean, it wasn't an attempt to deal with his demons of the past, it wasn't because he suddenly had the insight that doping was immoral, it was the only solution for him left to continue to work in the sport.

Well you dont have to tell me what happened. I'm starting to think you are Bjarne Riss in disguise. I mean you seem to know how he thinks. That he absolutely didnt have any sleepless nights at all ! Perhaps that book was just what he needed.

That Riis referred Hamilton to Fuentes before his 'confession' doesn't mean anything in my opinion, because that confession says absolutely nothing about Riis his stand on doping. There's nothing to suggest he though different about doping in 2002 than he did in 2007 after he confessed. So no, I don't think it would be a bigger disgrace if he referred riders to Fuentes after 2007 (well, apart from the fact that it would be pretty stupid to use a doctor who's in the middle of a police investigation )

Well I think that's laughable. Of course we both dont know for 100% how he thinks about doping RIGHT NOW but if this happened after 2007 than we AT LEAST know a lot more. Dont you think ? If you fail to see this and says this doesnt make a difference to you, than I dont know what to say....I'm sorry.

 

[the big ring]

Ok, let's agree to disagree. I think the idea that Contador's positive is plot by Team Sky is completely preposterous.

So do I, and if you can point to where I wrote that, I'll log off for a month. I am happy to agree to disagree, but you're disagreeing with things I have not said.

What I have been saying all along is UCI were plotting / looking for a different / more compliable, more marketable golden goose, and Sky came along at the right time to fill that gap. With proven results on the track. And enough clout that ASO agreed to meet with people who had no license for racing or even a team.

There wasn't any reason to think they would have a more than small chance of winning the Tour, and there wasn't any reason to think that Contador would be the biggest obstacle for them to win the Tour.

You have got to be kidding me. In 2009, Brad Wiggins was definitely a potential winner finishing 4th - just behind known (by the UCI) dopers. ANd Contador won. How is this not potential winner vs current greatest threat to winning?

If anything there is more reason to suspect the UCI was trying to cover up the Contador positive, not orchestrate it.

And what I have suggested, all along, is they were doing both. Get something on him, and offer to cover it up so he is on board with the "program". They are used to working with the winner and getting some kickbacks. If Contador does it without their help - and unlike Sastre and Evans he's young and has many GT winning years left in him - their (McQuaid's) personal kickback income is back to 0.

Add to that LA wanting to smack Contador down a notch or two, and you have more than enough conjecture, wild and unfettered, to paint this picture.

 

[mastersracer]

So do I, and if you can point to where I wrote that, I'll log off for a month. I am happy to agree to disagree, but you're disagreeing with things I have not said.

What I have been saying all along is UCI were plotting / looking for a different / more compliable, more marketable golden goose, and Sky came along at the right time to fill that gap. With proven results on the track. And enough clout that ASO agreed to meet with people who had no license for racing or even a team.




You have got to be kidding me. In 2009, Brad Wiggins was definitely a potential winner finishing 4th - just behind known (by the UCI) dopers. ANd Contador won. How is this not potential winner vs current greatest threat to winning?



And what I have suggested, all along, is they were doing both. Get something on him, and offer to cover it up so he is on board with the "program". They are used to working with the winner and getting some kickbacks. If Contador does it without their help - and unlike Sastre and Evans he's young and has many GT winning years left in him - their (McQuaid's) personal kickback income is back to 0.

Add to that LA wanting to smack Contador down a notch or two, and you have more than enough conjecture, wild and unfettered, to paint this picture.

The US market is much bigger than Britain, and LA-Contador was a great rivalry that was much-hyped in the US, particularly when they were both on Astana. So, Contador was good from a business standpoint. Plus, Contador's positive is completely plausible as a transfusion/masking program as reconstructed by Ashenden with the clen coming from contaminated plasma (plus the fact that Contador has been linked to doping throughout his career). No need to posit a conspiracy with this one. Now Frank's positive...

 

[the big ring]

The US market is much bigger than Britain,

And much bigger again than Spain. An English speaking winner is far more valuable than a Spanish speaking one. This supports my theory.

Lance was only going to be there for 2 years, and failed miserably in 2010 and that's when the polemic between LA and AC stopped.

Sky + Wiggins would have looked like a shining beacon of hope in 2009 / early 2010. The heir apparent to the Armstrong dynasty.

 

[ElChingon]

How about this. How about the UCI identifies the best candidate for "golden goose". Somebody they think is credible, can carry the water, and, most important, who will bring in the most filthy lucre for them. Obviously baby Schleck was their man, but that didn't work out, as we know. They look for a fallback candidate and identify Wiggins. Feelers are sent out. The possibility is established. Armstrong is sent to talk to the candidate. Candidate is up for it. He is then hooked up with Ferrari. Voila, new golden goose.

Maybe that's a rough sketch, at least, of how it panned out.

Option 2:

A rider thinks he can be the Golden Goose, agrees to abide by the Omerta en tow including funding the inner circle during their run. All gain financially, as in funding the pyramid.

We've seen many golden goose pass by, I don't think there is only one otherwise this would of ended long a go, there is too much at stake to squeal on just one for the rest would then take the same hit. This thing goes deeper than just one.

 

[Elagabalus]

one more from Outside

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Lance-Armstrong-Case-Closed.html?page=2

 

[Maxiton]

As I see, your theory implies that ASO, UCI and WADA (though I have difficulty to measure its role) should work in absolutely the same direction, having the same goal, — to grow up and feed this notorious 'golden goose' which is not very likely IMO. Really difficult scheme. I think it's business solely between DS's and UCI. Though then why WADA and AFLD still can't catch some big fish in the Tour and how all this anti-doping sieve is regulated by UCI and works... All that remains a riddle for me.

If we had been in 2006, SaxoBank would have been thrown away from the Vuelta I think.

It's only necessary for the rider, his Tour team, and his DS to be in on the deal with the UCI. ASO also benefits, and apparently their prior approval of the candidate and his team is required. WADA and AFLD are most definitely not in on it, but can usually be circumvented.

From the time of Armstrong, and perhaps since long before him, the multi-Tour winning champion is a UCI-manufactured creature.

How about something much simpler. Armstrong wanted to win TdF 2010 and Contador was going to be the main rival.

The beauty of this (Contador's positive) is that UCI can eliminate the one rider who threatens to upend their designated golden goose plans, and in doing so satisfy Armstrong's need to spite (if not smite) his enemy and eliminate him as rival for greatest Tour champ of all. But you'll recall that Contador didn't go positive until after the 2010 Tour, so I doubt LA wanting to win had anything to do with it.

 

[runninboy]

Stories like this show that the fans have been missing so much of the drama of pro racing. I can't wait to learn more of the real reasons why the pros have "bad legs" or whatever the excuse is. .

In Socal alot of US Pro's and Euro pros would spend their off season and we would get some good stories. Remember that year when a certain mexican on an American squad seemed to under perform? He kind of had a thing for the ladies of France and would stay out all night partying with several.

 

[runninboy]

The beauty of this (Contador's positive) is that UCI can eliminate the one rider who threatens to upend their designated golden goose plans, and in doing so satisfy Armstrong's need to spite (if not smite) his enemy and eliminate him as rival for greatest Tour champ of all. But you'll recall that Contador didn't go positive until after the 2010 Tour, so I doubt LA wanting to win had anything to do with it.

No but it gave the UCI alot of leverage to get an even bigger "donation" then they got from Lance. Since the positive was not announced immediately to the media and uncovered by a journalist, i imagine it was never to be public knowledge" If you double Lance's donation we will see what we can do, if not he might come back and try to win another Tour. He still looked good he just lost alot of time & blood in all those crashes..."

 

[Roland Rat]

one more from Outside

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Lance-Armstrong-Case-Closed.html?page=2

Nice. Larry and the UCI's public lives are about to get a whole lot more difficult.

Cue Fat Pat hollow threat to sue in 5... 4... 3...

As an aside, wonder how much JV paid him to complement his "gas".

 

[Robert21]

all along is UCI were plotting / looking for a different / more compliable, more marketable golden goose, and Sky came along at the right time to fill that gap.

It would not surprise me at all if it came to light that the UCI had given Sky the same 'protected' status as they gave to Armstrong, and for much the same reasons. McQuaid has already said how Wiggins' Tour win was part of a 'fairy-tale story' (how apt...) that he hoped would continue at the Olympics and which would be 'good for cycling'.

However, I think that McQuaid also has other motivations, other than doing what he thinks is 'good for cycling'. First of all he seems to be motivated by a desire to destroy the power of what he has called the 'Mafia Western European' nations. (Meaning the traditional heartlands of the sport.) In part this relates to his plans for 'globalising' the sport, but is also underpinned by some rather xenophobic attitudes towards non English-speaking nations. For example, think back to McQuaid's rantings about the supposedly different attitude to doping on the part of the 'Anglo-Saxon nations' to those of the 'Mafia Western European' ones.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jan07/jan08news

McQuaid's hypocrisy here was stunning, given the way the UCI have done everything in their power to protect Armstrong and facilitate his doping. If anything it is the 'Anglo-Saxon' "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing" attitude of Armstrong and his ilk that have brought the sport to its knees. In fact Armstrong's approach might be best described as an attempt to bring the concept of American-style 'Full-Spectrum dominance' to bike racing!

Secondly, McQuaid seems to be strongly motivated by a xenophobic dislike of 'the French' in particular. Like Armstrong himself, McQuaid has often gone out of his way to pander to the anti-French prejudices of a sizable sector of cycling fans, especially those in the USA. For example, he helped to feed the fantasies of those loonies who thought that barring Astana from the Tour was all part of a 'French plot' to stop 'another American' (Leipheimer) from winning the race, saying that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana to the Tour was "a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public".

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/features.php?id=features/2008/mcquaid_on_astana_feb08

Then there was this classic from the Irish Independent on 28 February 2010

"The French?" McQuaid muses, carefully choosing his words. "They're an unusual race let's say.

And…

Though the weight of circumstantial evidence against the seven-time Tour winner is considerable and controversy stalks the Texan rider every step of his career, McQuaid believes in him and the value he brings to the sport.

"The only papers that were negative were the French," he said of Armstrong's return to race riding last year, "because they don't like him anyway."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling-still-covering-the-big-breaks-2083523.html

There are numerous similar examples out there from McQuaid.

 

[Bushranger]

The UCI sound like KGB, CIA and NSA all in one. Perhaps they are the worlds sneakiest SOBs.

 

[ManInFull]

The three outsideonline.com articles are pretty compelling. Be sure to send all three to all of your "true believer" friends. The tide will slowly turn...

"Armstrong: Case Closed": http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Lance-Armstrong-Case-Closed.html

"The Secret is Out": http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html

"My Life with Lance": http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html

 

[airstream]

Seems like all the pieces are going to be published on the internet before official sells will start. Hehe. Thanks..