UCI's response to USADA report

[Carols]

Always easy taking pot shots at the greatest country on earth...haha

With that said, why did the USADA and UCI make such a huge penalty against Armstrong if they are so unbiased, and are doing this for all of the "clean riders" compared to other dopers?

CVV, Dianielson, Levi, Hincapie, JV and the list goes on and on, are just given a simple 6 month suspension (in the off season) and none of their victories or results are taken away?

Clean house with everybody that doped, take all of the results away. That is the "fair" thing to do IMO. Not make an example of one guy. The wrong message to all the clean riders, and guys that did dope during that period says, well, it really isn't that big of a deal, as long as we got Lance!

Guess you haven't bothered to read the USADA sanctions on the others also....they had results stripped also.

And they received 2 years which was mitigated as allowed by WADA code for cooperating.

Lance had the same opportunity; he Declined and kept up his lying and intimidation instead.

 

[boladelmundo]

The UCI are saving their own ars**, no?
When the FDA were investigating the case, they said it was USADA's and not FDA's jurisdiction. But when the USADA charge LA, they tried to challenge USADA until they lost.
And now they said LA has no place in cycling, well, the UCI masters are protecting their own interests here.

 

[Maxiton]

Always easy taking pot shots at the greatest country on earth...haha

With that said, why did the USADA and UCI make such a huge penalty against Armstrong if they are so unbiased, and are doing this for all of the "clean riders" compared to other dopers?

CVV, Dianielson, Levi, Hincapie, JV and the list goes on and on, are just given a simple 6 month suspension (in the off season) and none of their victories or results are taken away?

Is that "fair" to the "clean' athletes? Certainly not. No way, no how.

This is why the USADA/USA Cycling and now UCI look like a bunch of bloodhounds out for one guy to make an example of, hypocritical, and biased. They got the big fish, but of course needed all of the little fish and anybody/everybody in between to land him. So, like most prosecutors with big cases, they offer deals to give lenience in return for cooperation. But it sends the wrong message to everybody.

Clean house with everybody that doped, take all of the results away. That is the "fair" thing to do IMO. Not make an example of one guy. The wrong message to all the clean riders, and guys that did dope during that period says, well, it really isn't that big of a deal, as long as we got Lance!

They cooperated. If reports are to be believed, LA had many opportunities to reach agreement with USADA and cooperate, with the promise of a much lighter outcome (losing maybe only two Tour titles). Had he done so, he'd have been forgiven by all and sundry - his fans, sponsors, etc. His own PR machine, which was considerable, could have even spun this into something tragic, noble, heroic. Instead, though, he chose to remain intransigent, thus ensuring his own doom. Really stupid.

 

[D Avoid]

I am not a fan of Kenny when he interviews sports people or guys like Kimmage. The plank should stick to politics, like The Frontline show he does on RTE tonight. Hopefully McQuaid will be also on Newstalk "Off the Ball". Eoin McDevitt will ask the tough questions and grill him. Listening to him this week, he can't wait to interview him and he has grilled McQuaid on many occasions before. I wonder will Pat dodge him.

Thanks for the heads up anyway.

I'm not a fan of Kenny when he breathes, my young, very bright friend was Frontlined a few months back and it was like being in a dictatorship, the nice guy dozen't exist!!

 

[labratty]

I suspect UCI spin at large here, that last photo of Pat was clearly photoshopped, but I think I found the original...

 

[Fidolix]

I must say that McQuaid's performance sickened me.

OK, let's be generous at this point and say that the UCI isn't guilty of covering up any positive tests, in the sense of a test backed up by a B sample that would pass all legal challenges. However, the UCI have been very aggressive in their defence of Armstrong over the years, despite having had notice of at least 2 tests 'indicating' Armstrong's use of Epo in 2001 and 2002; then in 2005 they were made aware of the fact that Epo had been found in his 1999 Tour samples, their response to this being the notorious Vrigman report which gave them an excuse to do nothing; then there is the way they accepted a pre-dated medical certificate when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids in 1999; the way they allowed him to make a comeback without undergoing the required period of pre-competition testing; then there was the fight to stop the USADA investigation progressing, the multiple statements made in defence of Armstrong over the years etc. etc. etc.

In short had the UCI done their job properly Armstrong would have been busted as a doper back in 1999 and none of this mess might have come about. They are as responsible as he is and yet seem intent in pretending what was in the report was a big 'shock'. What a joke when most of it had been public knowledge for years!

And why didn't the 'journalists' present (I use the term loosely) point out any of the above. Have their old habits re-established themselves already?

The UCI seems to be very focused on stopping anyone from saying that they covered up positive tests by Armstrong. In reality this is a side issue: more pertinent is the fact that they had good evidence he was doping and yet they protected him for years. Someone with some balls needs to hammer this fact home. Let's hope that Paul Kimmage is the man for the job.

+1000 exactly, excellent summary.

 

[D Avoid]

-007 dwarfs his previous achievements!!


Pat very clearly scratching(clear indication of lying) his nose after clearing up the mess of Lance's donation!!

 

[pedaling squares]

Judging purely by my own circle of acquaintances (US, UK, Euro) I'd say that the only people left who are still unwilling to condemn him, are Americans.

Many of the forum members who, as cycling fans, were among Armstrong's loudest and most persistent critics are Yanks.

You have to love Fatty McQuack's flip flops. He tries to deep six the USADA investigation - didn't work. He says nothing, does nothing, until public opinion is so against Armstrong that Fatty cannot publicly reveal anything but disgust for the man. Only then does he adopt the USADA report as gospel... well, except for the sticky bits that show the UCI as complicit in the doping scheme. Those bits are of course untrue. But the rest... My God! That man has no place in our sport. What a joke.

The time for Pat to go was 2005, but now will do.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The UCI seems to be very focused on stopping anyone from saying that they covered up positive tests by Armstrong.

Or, perhaps something quite a bit worse than that? The UCI has not given a second thought to threatening their legitimacy with the IOC over the Armstrong issues. Which suggests some kind of corruption far bigger than what has already come out is yet to be uncovered.

Everyone won with this outcome and the UCI remains as unaccountable as ever, thus watering the seeds for the next doping/corruption scandal.

 

[Microchip]

Where was Hein during the conference?

 

[BroDeal]

Prudhomme announcement on the front page - it must be an era without winners.

To be consistent 2006 and 2010 should show no winner. Armstrong will always claim he is the winner because no one else is recognized as such, so it is not as harsh a punishment as Landis was given. Landis is getting screwed again.

 

[CosmicRocker]

Finally, we have the doper stripped. And we can have squeaky clean riders like Jan Ulrich, Ivan Basso and Andreas Kloden declared winners.

According to Tyler Hamilton, when asked what Armstrong did, he responded "What we all did. Everybody was doing it." That being said, what the UCI needs to do after their ruling today is to erase ALL results from 1998 (the Festina scandal) through 2005.

If the UCI doesn't do that, my interest in professional cycling goes into serious decline.

 

[Morbius]

There are lots more papers on teh UCI site, including 'Facts Related to Testing', 'Background information on Jörg Jaksche' etc. Are these papers what was included in the press pack?

 

[Amsterhammer]

Many of the forum members who, as cycling fans, were among Armstrong's loudest and most persistent critics are Yanks.

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I wrote, 'judging purely by my own circle,...' by which I meant real people in my real world as opposed to people with whom I only communicate virtually, like here.

 

[Fidolix]

Always easy taking pot shots at the greatest country on earth...haha


I sure as h... hope you are being sarcastic...

It´s a very well known, and misled opinion among Americans, but knowing most don´t know crap s... about any other countries than their own.

GODS OWN COUNTRY.. and all that crap.

 

[Turner29]

Always easy taking pot shots at the greatest country on earth...haha


I sure as h... hope you are being sarcastic...

It´s a very well known, and misled opinion among Americans, but knowing most don´t know crap s... about any other countries than their own.

Typical Euro trash.

 

[Turner29]

They cooperated. If reports are to be believed, LA had many opportunities to reach agreement with USADA and cooperate, with the promise of a much lighter outcome (losing maybe only two Tour titles). Had he done so, he'd have been forgiven by all and sundry - his fans, sponsors, etc. His own PR machine, which was considerable, could have even spun this into something tragic, noble, heroic. Instead, though, he chose to remain intransigent, thus ensuring his own doom. Really stupid.

I have said this several times. Lance Armstrong could not admit to doping. If he did so, it would leave him open to both civil and criminal liability. For example, regarding the SCA Promotions case, he signed depositions stating he never doped. To now say they he did would be at the very least perjury and in larger context perhaps fraud. At the very least, he would be almost immediately on the hook to pay SCA Promotions back the $5 Million, plus legal fees and interest. Throw in the Sunday Times suit and an "admission" would cost Armstrong close to $10 Million on those cases alone.

 

[Fidolix]

Typical Euro trash.

Typical american crap once again And to your information I actually lived in the states. Have you ever been in Europe? Or even outside the States?

Thought so.

 

[frenchfry]

I have said this several times. Lance Armstrong could not admit to doping. If he did so, it would leave him open to both civil and criminal liability. For example, regarding the SCA Promotions case, he signed depositions stating he never doped. To now say they he did would be at the very least perjury and in larger context perhaps fraud. At the very least, he would be almost immediately on the hook to pay SCA Promotions back the $5 Million, plus legal fees and interest. Throw in the Sunday Times suit and an "admission" would cost Armstrong close to $10 Million on those cases alone.

In other words, he is a victim of his own arrogance.

 

[IFRider]

Kimmage just did an interview on an Irish radio station. Typically scathing about McQuaid and the UCI, said he listened to the conference with a sense of "rage".

I tried to type the highlights but couldn't quite keep up. Nevertheless, I think these are pretty much accurate:

"Sometimes I let myself done because I cannot discuss the issue of doping in sport without being passionate, because i experienced it first hand... Every time I speak, it's from the heart... Sometimes I let myself down in the way I do that"

"Well, the UCI, the message that Pat McQuaid is sending out is that it's business as usual here. They want to do with Lance Armstrong what they've done with everyone who's ever spoken out on doping or been convicted of doping, which is to get it under the carpet as quickly as possible, without acknowledging the role they've played."

"They've said they didn't have the tools... so what were the tools USADA had? ... They had the testimonies of 11 riders"

People have died in this sport... young people have died. Nick Roche talks about encouraging parents to bring their kids into the sport, but... how could you?"

"Why doesn't he pursue Armstrong? Armstrong is the guy who's been going around for years telling his teammates he had the UCI in his pocket. Who is slandering the UCI? Is it Paul Kimmage or Lance Armstrong?"

On leaving the titles unawarded:

"It's the only logical thing you can do with those titles. let's draw a line through and let's start over again"

He feels the story cost him his job:

"I was called into the office by my employer and they had an accountant going over the number of pieces I'd written over the years... I hadn't been the paper enough and a lot of the pieces I wrote were never published. I was looked on as being a trouble... obsessed probably. Was it an obsession? it's been a costly obsession, I'll put it like that"

"People have died in this sport... young people have died. Nick Roche talks about encouraging parents to bring their kids into the sport, but... how could you?"

 

[Lukenwolf]

I have said this several times. Lance Armstrong could not admit to doping. If he did so, it would leave him open to both civil and criminal liability. For example, regarding the SCA Promotions case, he signed depositions stating he never doped. To now say they he did would be at the very least perjury and in larger context perhaps fraud. At the very least, he would be almost immediately on the hook to pay SCA Promotions back the $5 Million, plus legal fees and interest. Throw in the Sunday Times suit and an "admission" would cost Armstrong close to $10 Million on those cases alone.

He's facing the same risks by being silent. But the fact is, he could still redeem himself by confessing and taking an active role in bringing down all the enablers. He wasn't able to build up a mafia-like system without at least the gouverning body turning a blind eye. He knows more than the USADA has dug up. If he, Bruyneel and Ferrari got together and told everything, a lot of people would take the dive, but it would at last be a chance to REALLY reform cycling.

 

[VeloCity]

Finally, we have the doper stripped. And we can have squeaky clean riders like Jan Ulrich, Ivan Basso and Andreas Kloden declared winners.

No one is being declared the winner in Armstrong's stead.

 

[DirtyWorks]

He's facing the same risks by being silent. But the fact is, he could still redeem himself by confessing and taking an active role in bringing down all the enablers.

What are the risks of his current strategy? He's not going to jail, yet??? He's not been on the defense for claw backs from widespread lying in the civil courts, yet??? If there are claw back attempts, well, he's "broke." Except somehow those high-priced lawyers are gettting their Wonderboy bills paid.

He's taking the hit as the "evil athlete." Once the furor dies down, he'll be back in some other form. Lots of examples of this. Michael Milken, Michael Vick, and so on.

Meanwhile all kinds of corruption is alive and well inside the UCI and IOC. Carmelita Jeter and hurdler Jason Richardson only got a footnote to their Olmpic titles for defending their current association with Mark Block. So far, so good.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Oprah will offer to come out of retirement and pay LA $25m (or more) to confess to her on live tv. The commercials would sell for Superbowl prices.

He might do it for that.

 

[rhubroma]

To be consistent 2006 and 2010 should show no winner. Armstrong will always claim he is the winner because no one else is recognized as such, so it is not as harsh a punishment as Landis was given. Landis is getting screwed again.

That's a fine point there BroDeal!