UCI in a panic over document in Friday's L'Equipe

[Benotti69]

Is this the 'Is Landis lying' thread?

I thought we were discussing the UCI list.

In that case, the 0 for Spartacus means just one thing.

There is a new Sherriff in town.

Ferrari this and Lim that are now irrelevant. Fuentes is an imposter from past history.

The entire Peloton is now scheduling trips to Swtizerland to meet the new boss.

Il dottore #2.

Dave.

in the case of Canc being a 0, it could be possible that like the Spaniards, a word in UCI's ear from the Swiss sports government minister keeps Canc in the 'clean' list.

While Swi$$land likes to appear all clean and chocolates on time, underneath it is a cess pool of money laundering and tax evasion from the upper echelons of monied society. Its why most big rich federations live there, FIFA, IOC etc...

 

[thirteen]

Getting back to the story here ....

My biggest question is - if this is a list of who the UCI thinks should be targetted for extra testing .... WHY is it only based on the biopassport?

why are other factors not taken into account? (yanno - like the fact that he has tested posative in the past might just indicate he should be considered at substantial risk again )

Is definitly off

other factors supposedly have been taken into account (repeat offenders, etc.), but i believe i read that it was a subjective call rather than on anything concrete... in other words, they definitely had a $hit list.

 

[ChrisE]

in the case of Canc being a 0, it could be possible that like the Spaniards, a word in UCI's ear from the Swiss sports government minister keeps Canc in the 'clean' list.While Swi$$land likes to appear all clean and chocolates on time, underneath it is a cess pool of money laundering and tax evasion from the upper echelons of monied society. Its why most big rich federations live there, FIFA, IOC etc...

A 0 is just too blatant IMO for a conspiracy.

 

[Benotti69]

A 0 is just too blatant IMO for a conspiracy.

This is the UCI we are talking about.

 

[thirteen]

A 0 is just too blatant IMO for a conspiracy.

and you think the UCI has been subtle thus far?

 

[ChrisE]

This is the UCI we are talking about.

I assume we are talking about people with a pulse with an IQ greater than the average toilet handle.

What would raise more suspicion....Canc with a 0 or Canc with say a 2 or 3 that would still keep him out of the spotlight? Would we be talking about it to the extent we are if he was a 3?

 

[hrotha]

This is the UCI we are talking about.

Maybe it's a they know we know they know we know kind of deal.

 

[Benotti69]

I assume we are talking about people with a pulse with an IQ greater than the average toilet handle.

What would raise more suspicion....Canc with a 0 or Canc with say a 2 or 3 that would still keep him out of the spotlight? Would we be talking about it to the extent we are if he was a 3?

We are talking about McQuaid, Hein and a gaggle of cycling media, so not greater than the average brothel toilet handle, no.

 

[Benotti69]

Maybe it's a they know we know they know we know kind of deal.

maybe, but i'm inclined to see McQuiad as cycling's homer simpson

 

[luckyboy]

Omega Pharma-Lotto was ranked a poor 17th in the list of teams calculated by L’Equipe, with a score of 31 for its riders in the 2010 Tour de France. However team doctor Jan Mathieu predicted that the Omega Pharma-Lotto would be much lower this spring.

“Between Paris-Nice and Liege-Bastogne-Liege, we had no blood monitoring. So we are in the safe zone and will all be around 0." he told Sporza.

er ..........

 

[ChrisE]

We are talking about McQuaid, Hein and a gaggle of cycling media, so not greater than the average brothel toilet handle, no.

You really think they are stupid? I don't, I think they are shrewd else how could the charade go on so long? I agree most of the cycling media, as well as the media in general, are nothing but stenographic *****s. Le Equipe does not seem to be in this mold, though. This is unlike the American sports press (see Rick "the *** who doesn't respond to my emails" Oreilly). The press in general enables the powerful to keep their position, since their version of events is rarely questioned or else access is cut off, but I digress.

Do you really think that Canc for example has a pile of test result data that points to him being like a 9, and it was whitewashed at the upper level? Instead of bringing that 9 down to say something like a 3 to keep him under the radar, they put the in-your-face score of a 0 on him that arouses uber suspicion? And, that whitewash will be kept under wraps? Really?????

Apparently I know your answer, but I tend to keep asking the same thing over and over again when my brain can't wrap itself around something that seems so outlandish. It is a flaw in my character I am trying to overcome. My apologies.

 

[andy1234]

maybe, but i'm inclined to see McQuiad as cycling's homer simpson

I have had the pleasure of meeting McQ on a number of occasions.
He is genuinely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

[Benotti69]

I have had the pleasure of meeting McQ on a number of occasions.
He is genuinely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

there goes that ol logic of yours, pleasure and mcquaid i would not put together when meeting the guy if i so had the misfortune.

 

[andy1234]

there goes that ol logic of yours, pleasure and mcquaid i would not put together when meeting the guy if i so had the misfortune.

You know what I mean.
We don't have disagree about everything

 

[MarkvW]

You really think they are stupid? I don't, I think they are shrewd else how could the charade go on so long? I agree most of the cycling media, as well as the media in general, are nothing but stenographic *****s. Le Equipe does not seem to be in this mold, though. This is unlike the American sports press (see Rick "the *** who doesn't respond to my emails" Oreilly). The press in general enables the powerful to keep their position, since their version of events is rarely questioned or else access is cut off, but I digress.

Do you really think that Canc for example has a pile of test result data that points to him being like a 9, and it was whitewashed at the upper level? Instead of bringing that 9 down to say something like a 3 to keep him under the radar, they put the in-your-face score of a 0 on him that arouses uber suspicion? And, that whitewash will be kept under wraps? Really?????

Apparently I know your answer, but I tend to keep asking the same thing over and over again when my brain can't wrap itself around something that seems so outlandish. It is a flaw in my character I am trying to overcome. My apologies.

I would suggest that "sports news" is "sports promotion," pure and simple. Occasionally, the media turns on its heroes, but that's only undertaken as part of a choreographed and stereotyped ritual dance.

 

[DirtyWorks]

yes, they do.

i believe i posted this some place - the first-hand information from a current pro rider - they can access some of their data via the wada 'adams' system.

this includes their biopass. i heard it's about one half of what wada and the uci officials can see.

The more interesting data for everyone interested in the doping issue is what WADA is generating and the UCI is accessing. I would prefer the data going public with no names associated with the profiles. That would meet personal information privacy standards and inform the issue. Per my crackpot theory, I have doubts that the list that was released matches what WADA is generating.

 

[Benotti69]

You really think they are stupid? I don't, I think they are shrewd else how could the charade go on so long? I agree most of the cycling media, as well as the media in general, are nothing but stenographic *****s. Le Equipe does not seem to be in this mold, though. This is unlike the American sports press (see Rick "the *** who doesn't respond to my emails" Oreilly). The press in general enables the powerful to keep their position, since their version of events is rarely questioned or else access is cut off, but I digress.

Do you really think that Canc for example has a pile of test result data that points to him being like a 9, and it was whitewashed at the upper level? Instead of bringing that 9 down to say something like a 3 to keep him under the radar, they put the in-your-face score of a 0 on him that arouses uber suspicion? And, that whitewash will be kept under wraps? Really?????

Apparently I know your answer, but I tend to keep asking the same thing over and over again when my brain can't wrap itself around something that seems so outlandish. It is a flaw in my character I am trying to overcome. My apologies.

Charade, its been easy peasy. Who actually cares if they are doping? a few select journalists who have written books about it! did anyone take notice? yes to write another paragraph about doping in cycling! Did anyone do anything about it? nope. Look at 98 TdF and then 99TdF. Of course they are stupid! as stupid as the riders who keep taking substances that they really have no medical idea about.

The press dont give a fig about doping. It is writ large across every sport in the performances of the winners of any sport with a few $$$s in it.

Do i think Canc has data that would prove him to be a doper? i honestly dont know. It wouldn't surprise me if he did and then again it would surprise me if his samples were binned and results falsified.

Sit back and watch the coverage of the sport on TV. Doping doesn't exist as far as TV is concerned. The papers are scared to write about it as they are suffering lack of advertising income so no way are they gonna rock the pharmacy. The internet is not gonna either because they depend completely on advertising and the rates are so low that they cant afford lose a big advertiser, and morality barely exists online.

In relation to Canc and his score not being a reality. Look at it like this, why didn't someone take the texan aside and say ok you won 5 in a row, now go ride the giro and then the vuelta, win those and then come back for 6 otherwise it looks bad. Nah these guys think they can pull the wool over everyones eyes and to a large extent they did. Nothing has changed. The old order still runs the UCI and what is going to change it????

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Interesting. A new development could be the UCI playing the PR game and being influenced to act via media pressure.

What's the UCI's relationship with the Giro? Assuming Menchov podiums here, if they knock him off it would be a slap in the face to the race. The evidence appears to be there to formally investigate him now.

I think what it does do is give the UCI a reason for getting rid of a rider who is not a household name, isn't a marketable name for the 'global brand' but is sufficiently 'name' to show that the UCI is not just busting big names.

It takes the heat off the better looking and more marketable Dertie Cont.

This leak means that should Menchov end up in Pink he will be subject to lots of press scrutiny a la Chicken in 2007 which will no doubt benefit the likes of Dertie (again).

Anyone wonder why Geox didn't get a PT and TDF invite again? Can't give Menchov a formal ban, so they do the next best thing which is an informal ban.

That Menchov can score a 9 while Dertie, Schlecks, Cuddles, Frodo, FC etc score under 5 shows that the list doesn't necessarily accurately reflect your level of doping but more how you've learnt to dope under the new system. The Schleck's and Saxo have got it sorted - Menchov hasn't.

 

[sniper]

I think what it does do is give the UCI a reason for getting rid of a rider who is not a household name, isn't a marketable name for the 'global brand' but is sufficiently 'name' to show that the UCI is not just busting big names.

It takes the heat off the better looking and more marketable Dertie Cont.

This leak means that should Menchov end up in Pink he will be subject to lots of press scrutiny a la Chicken in 2007 which will no doubt benefit the likes of Dertie (again).

Anyone wonder why Geox didn't get a PT and TDF invite again? Can't give Menchov a formal ban, so they do the next best thing which is an informal ban.

That Menchov can score a 9 while Dertie, Schlecks, Cuddles, Frodo, FC etc score under 5 shows that the list doesn't necessarily accurately reflect your level of doping but more how you've learnt to dope under the new system. The Schleck's and Saxo have got it sorted - Menchov hasn't.

+1
ex-frikkin-xactly

 

[Señor_Contador]

Vrijman has already been hired to exonerate everyone.

Report should be out in a week or two.

Dave.

I really do not know what the UCI or WADA or anybody else is looking to do or how to react to the list made public. One thing is certain, and this I haven't a shadow of a doubt, that the UCI is definitely NOT ****ed off at the fact that Da List was made public.

Once we make this clear we can then go on to more fruitful and informative exchanges.

If this is not the time for cycling's big teams to drop the UCI I really do not know what else needs to happen.

What a friggin disgrace.

 

[Benotti69]

I think what it does do is give the UCI a reason for getting rid of a rider who is not a household name, isn't a marketable name for the 'global brand' but is sufficiently 'name' to show that the UCI is not just busting big names.

It takes the heat off the better looking and more marketable Dertie Cont.

This leak means that should Menchov end up in Pink he will be subject to lots of press scrutiny a la Chicken in 2007 which will no doubt benefit the likes of Dertie (again).

Anyone wonder why Geox didn't get a PT and TDF invite again? Can't give Menchov a formal ban, so they do the next best thing which is an informal ban.

That Menchov can score a 9 while Dertie, Schlecks, Cuddles, Frodo, FC etc score under 5 shows that the list doesn't necessarily accurately reflect your level of doping but more how you've learnt to dope under the new system. The Schleck's and Saxo have got it sorted - Menchov hasn't.

if that is true, it seems harsh that because Menchov didn't get it together others get screwed because of it. Would not doubt that with McQuaid, but the team got done for it aswell!

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

if that is true, it seems harsh that because Menchov didn't get it together others get screwed because of it. Would not doubt that with McQuaid, but the team got done for it aswell!

It's also a Gianetti team as well.

So how many more reasons does the UCI need to **** over Geox. Menchov @ 9 on the dirty scale and Gianetti.

I'd be interested to see the scores for Savio's team as well last year.

I am pretty sure that 'teams likely to flunk tests in the middle of the race and cause us embarrassment' is one of the major reasons why some teams are not 'welcome' at specific events.

 

[Señor_Contador]

[...]I am pretty sure that 'teams likely to flunk tests in the middle of the race and cause us embarrassment' is one of the major reasons why some teams are not 'welcome' at specific events.

Yes, but the UCI and WADA are fully aware that doping in cycling is mostly done at an individual basis nowadays. The figure of a team doctor waiting in a room with a syringe full of PEDs and calling everyone in for a "slice" is so 1972 it's not even funny.

So, since cyclists are now taking it upon themselves to dope on their own (or in a group if you like) why are entire teams now the target of the UCI's ire? Don't these ídiots realise sponsors will leave the sport for good?

I really do not get the state of cycling nowadays. How cyclists and their managers allow themselves to be bítched in such a manner is beyond me.

 

[Benotti69]

It's also a Gianetti team as well.

So how many more reasons does the UCI need to **** over Geox. Menchov @ 9 on the dirty scale and Gianetti.

I'd be interested to see the scores for Savio's team as well last year.

I am pretty sure that 'teams likely to flunk tests in the middle of the race and cause us embarrassment' is one of the major reasons why some teams are not 'welcome' at specific events.

Yep, i suppose it is dope to the required level, but not over it. But what has Riis done to smooth Contador's road back?

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, but the UCI and WADA are fully aware that doping in cycling is mostly done at an individual basis nowadays. The figure of a team doctor waiting in a room with a syringe full of PEDs and calling everyone in for a "slice" is so 1972 it's not even funny.

So, since cyclists are now taking it upon themselves to dope on their own (or in a group if you like) why are entire teams now the target of the UCI's ire? Don't these ídiots realise sponsors will leave the sport for good?

I really do not get the state of cycling nowadays. How cyclists and their managers allow themselves to be bítched in such a manner is beyond me.

I think you are forgetting full bloods bags hanging from the ceiling on the team bus on a mountain side in the 2000s, while the Doctor walks down between the seats shouting, "show me your veins".