• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Where did Lance get the money to pay the money?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 29, 2009
409
0
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Okay, but after his cancer he was not exactly considered a winning bet. That's hardly starting from a position of advantage relative to many of his competitors.

I really think the key difference is what he learned about doping and himself while overcoming cancer. If so, is that really unfair?

what does fairness have to do with it?

erader
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Fairness, or lack thereof, is key to the argument that Lance was "more wrong" than the other cheaters.

I have to ask, what has that got to do with your opening point on this thread - which has been covered before?

As for fairness - even though you admit that Lance doped, he is still free to ride, that is where the unfairness is.
 
Jul 22, 2009
107
0
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
A little off topic but why would Trek jump in in 1999 to sponsor a team built around TDF non contender Lance when they had never tried to supply a tour team? They sure hit a gold mine or did they know the tdf was about to get to know a pharma superman? or could it have been a condition of their involvement? (we need 3 times as many bikes and equiment for you know, you know)
I think a lot of that had to do with timing.

Trek was still a relatively small bike manufacturer in the early 90's. Motorola was still riding Eddy Merckx bicycles during this time period.

Before cancer, Lance dominated the Tour Dupont stage races here in the US, won the Worlds, Triple Crown, etc, so his name was already fairly popular state side.

I think Trek used Lance (post-cancer) because of his domestic popularity, along with his cancer comeback story, and because they wanted to expand into the European market and elsewhere. A gamble that ended up paying off in spades.


As far as initally getting the money for doping, what if (hypothetically) Lance hired Ferrari on a performance basis?

Something like "I pay you X Percentage of my salary starting out. The more races I win, the higher that percentage goes?" Or even if the percentage stayed the same, he'd earn more money, so the good doctor's take would be more anyway....

Just guessing at possible scenario's.
 
Jul 17, 2010
49
0
0
Visit site
By the time he was diagnosed with cancer Lance had already banked a fair bit of cash. He got a million $ (at least) for winning the triple crown, I think in 1993. Not sure what he got for winning the WC. He had started 3 TDFs, had signed a contract with Cofidis, etc. I know that Tom Weisel was a financial counselor of Lance's and underwrote his first cycling team, Subaru-Montgomery. I remember reading an interview with Lance post-cancer where he said he was set financially, even if he never raced again.

As for the Ferrari angle, I suspect that Lance began working with him in late '95. Late in '95 Velonews ran an interview with Lance, a sidebar to the story where they awarded him US Male Cyclist of the year. He was asked about Motorola's poor results for the season, and Lance responded (paraphrasing here):

"Yeah, everybody else seemed to have gotten a lot faster. We are going to have to look into changing our program."

I have looked high and low for that interview - anyone still have that edition of VN? Probably the last issue of the year.
 
Jun 13, 2010
263
0
0
Visit site
kurtinsc said:
Not to belittle your situation... but of course that's possible.

I'm not aware of connections between his doping practices and getting testicular cancer. I'm just saying that just because something can be used as a treatment for a disease... doesn't mean it can't cause the same problem. You wear glasses to correct your eyesight... but if you wear glasses with perfect vision... it can damage your eyesight. Shoving a scalpel in your knee would probably damage it... and it might be fixed by surgery... using a scalpel. And of course you use radiation to cure cancer... but radiation causes cancer.

The cause and the cure often can be the same thing.

I will just stick this here; of course, ONE (famous) data point does not make a trend:

Steroid Use and Death

Alzado is probably most remembered today for being one of the first major U.S. sports figures to admit using steroids. In the last years of his life, as he battled against the brain tumor that eventually caused his death at the age of 43, Alzado asserted that his steroid abuse directly led to his fatal illness. According to some reports, Alzado was using natural growth hormone, harvested from human corpses, as opposed to synthetic growth hormones. However, shortly before his death, Alzado recounted his steroid abuse in an article in Sports Illustrated.

He said:
“ I started taking anabolic steroids in 1969 and never stopped. It was addicting, mentally addicting. Now I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 lb (140 kg) or jump 30 ft (9.1 m) But all the time I was taking steroids, I knew they were making me play better. I became very violent on the field and off it. I did things only crazy people do. Once a guy sideswiped my car and I beat the hell out of him. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support, and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish? That no one else ever dies this way."[10]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyle_Alzado
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
I have to ask, what has that got to do with your opening point on this thread - which has been covered before?

As for fairness - even though you admit that Lance doped, he is still free to ride, that is where the unfairness is.

Actually the real point is that Lance has not admitted to doping. I could admit I think Cadel Evans doped, would that stop him riding?

Regarding Lance still being free to ride, can you point to a contravention of the rules that should have meant that he couldn't ride? I have not noticed him failing any test recently and despite what anybody thinks, that is what ultimately matters.

By the way I only use Cadel as an example, I don't actually think he dopes.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
SpartacusRox said:
Actually the real point is that Lance has not admitted to doping. I could admit I think Cadel Evans doped, would that stop him riding?

Regarding Lance still being free to ride, can you point to a contravention of the rules that should have meant that he couldn't ride? I have not noticed him failing any test recently and despite what anybody thinks, that is what ultimately matters.

By the way I only use Cadel as an example, I don't actually think he dopes.

LA's blood values from the TdF 2009 would probably guarantee a 2 year ban:rolleyes: IIRC at a consistent level for the first two weeks and they rose in the third week.

Dr Maserati never stated LA admitted to doping. Why respond in that manner?
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Visit site
redtreviso said:
A little off topic but why would Trek jump in in 1999 to sponsor a team built around TDF non contender Lance when they had never tried to supply a tour team? They sure hit a gold mine or did they know the tdf was about to get to know a pharma superman? or could it have been a condition of their involvement? (we need 3 times as many bikes and equiment for you know, you know)
US Postal were already riding Treks in 1997 so it was nothing to do with Armstrong's pull. It was pure luck that they found themselves supplying the winner of the Tour in 99.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Ninety5rpm said:
Fairness, or lack thereof, is key to the argument that Lance was "more wrong" than the other cheaters.
I have to ask, what has that got to do with your opening point on this thread - which has been covered before?

As for fairness - even though you admit that Lance doped, he is still free to ride, that is where the unfairness is.
One of the arguments against Armstrong is that he had unfair advantages over the others, including the others who doped, and that at least some of those unfair advantages stemmed from having the money that is the subject of the OP to buy those advantages.

If the unfairness is that he is still free to ride, then that applies to everyone who was caught up to the point that they were caught (Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Rassmussen, Heras, Beltran, Hamilton, Landis, Millar, Musseuw, etc., etc.), and applies to everyone who dopes but has not yet been caught (Hincapie, Van de Velde, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov, Petacchi, Cav, etc.). What is the uniqueness of the Lance Armstrong situation that deserves such ire besides his relative success?

Now, if the reason he has not yet been caught is because he paid someone off, that's different. Now, I know the known UCI payments are highly suspicious, but does anyone know enough to be convinced that payoffs specifically to counter positive tests occurred?
 
SpartacusRox said:
Actually the real point is that Lance has not admitted to doping. I could admit I think Cadel Evans doped, would that stop him riding?

Regarding Lance still being free to ride, can you point to a contravention of the rules that should have meant that he couldn't ride? I have not noticed him failing any test recently and despite what anybody thinks, that is what ultimately matters.
Exactly.

If it's unfair that Lance has not admitted to doping, why is it not also unfair that Cadel has not admitted to doping. One difference is that Cadel does not go out of his way to claim he does not dope, but that's consistent with the behavior of many proven dopers prior to their getting caught (Ullrich, Hamilton, Landis, etc.).

By the way I only use Cadel as an example, I don't actually think he dopes.

That's the sentiment that fanboys have always had about Lance. That's the sentiment the fans of Hamilton and Landis had prior to those guys getting caught.

How naive can we be? Evans' ups and downs in his performances are quite similar to that of Leipheimer. Why does that indicate doping in the case of Leipheimer but not in the case of Evans?
 
Apr 23, 2010
27
0
0
Visit site
ultimobici said:
US Postal were already riding Treks in 1997 so it was nothing to do with Armstrong's pull. It was pure luck that they found themselves supplying the winner of the Tour in 99.

Actually, this is incorrect--they were on either Cannnondale or GT in 97, the Trek move happened in 1998. Also, Lance placed 3rd or 4th in Worlds TT at the end of 98, and also had a fairly successful Vuelta (top 10, IIRC)
 
Mar 10, 2009
341
0
0
Visit site
pnwrider said:
Actually, this is incorrect--they were on either Cannnondale or GT in 97, the Trek move happened in 1998. Also, Lance placed 3rd or 4th in Worlds TT at the end of 98, and also had a fairly successful Vuelta (top 10, IIRC)

he was forth in the Vuelta in 98. Think this was the race where he realised he could win the TdF.

No idea when trek started sponsoring USPS though. Who did the bikes for Motorola ?
 
sherer said:
No idea when trek started sponsoring USPS though. Who did the bikes for Motorola ?

Eddy Merckx

650_eddy-merckx-1992-motorola-cycling-team.jpg
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
One of the arguments against Armstrong is that he had unfair advantages over the others, including the others who doped, and that at least some of those unfair advantages stemmed from having the money that is the subject of the OP to buy those advantages.

If the unfairness is that he is still free to ride, then that applies to everyone who was caught up to the point that they were caught (Pantani, Ullrich, Basso, Rassmussen, Heras, Beltran, Hamilton, Landis, Millar, Musseuw, etc., etc.), and applies to everyone who dopes but has not yet been caught (Hincapie, Van de Velde, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov, Petacchi, Cav, etc.). What is the uniqueness of the Lance Armstrong situation that deserves such ire besides his relative success?

Now, if the reason he has not yet been caught is because he paid someone off, that's different. Now, I know the known UCI payments are highly suspicious, but does anyone know enough to be convinced that payoffs specifically to counter positive tests occurred?
On the money issue - obviously LA could afford a PED programme that not every Pro was making, let alone afford.
Obviously the like of Ullrich, Basso, Pantani and other top names would have been able to afford the same programme.

What Lance had that was different to the latter group was the special attention of Dr. Ferrari and the help of the UCI - who have yet to release any documentation on the 2001 positives, donations or purchase of the Sysmex machine.


You offered these names - Hincapie, Van de Velde, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov, Petacchi, Cav- none of these had 6 samples with EPO in them, or a TUE that appeared after a positive, none of them have made payments to the UCI.

** Pettachi was caught before, but for an inhaler, his present difficulties are being investigated.
Pantani never failed a doping test.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
On the money issue - obviously LA could afford a PED programme that not every Pro was making, let alone afford.
Obviously the like of Ullrich, Basso, Pantani and other top names would have been able to afford the same programme.
Okay, so that's unfair relative to all other pros, but it's no more unfair than the advantage these other guys also had.

Dr. Maserati said:
What Lance had that was different to the latter group was the special attention of Dr. Ferrari and the help of the UCI - who have yet to release any documentation on the 2001 positives, donations or purchase of the Sysmex machine.
But prior to having the special attention of Dr. Ferrari, all those others were free to establish an exclusive relationship with him. Ferrari is not obligated to help anyone, and if he chooses to enter an exclusive relationship with one of them, well, so what?

Dr. Maserati said:
You offered these names - Hincapie, Van de Velde, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov, Petacchi, Cav- none of these had 6 samples with EPO in them, or a TUE that appeared after a positive, none of them have made payments to the UCI.
Do we know that Ullrich and others did not also pay off the UCI? And not all of the EPO samples from '99 were Armstrong's.

Dr. Maserati said:
** Pettachi was caught before, but for an inhaler, his present difficulties are being investigated.
Pantani never failed a doping test.
Okay, so the unfairness is not that he doped and was still allowed to ride, it was that he doped, and was caught, and was still allowed to ride.

Ever wonder about why his "retirement" was exactly two years long? Does two years ring any bells? Are you sure he was allowed to ride during those two years, but chose to retire and stay retired? Or was he penalized two years like everyone else, the only difference being that it was not publicized as a penalty but as a "retirement" for the good of the image of the sport? Hmm.
 
Jul 28, 2010
10
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
the help of the UCI - who have yet to release any documentation on the 2001 positives, donations or purchase of the Sysmex machine.

I like the way he matter of factly states 'the 2001 positives' as if they actually occurred.

Actually McQuaid did hold a press conference where he released documentation from 2001 showing there was no positives. The Tour de Swiss did the same. Cycling news also recently witnessed the receipt for the Sysmex system.

But I know that Cycling news is not very popular in the Cycling news forums these days.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
On the money issue - obviously LA could afford a PED programme that not every Pro was making, let alone afford.
Obviously the like of Ullrich, Basso, Pantani and other top names would have been able to afford the same programme.

What Lance had that was different to the latter group was the special attention of Dr. Ferrari and the help of the UCI - who have yet to release any documentation on the 2001 positives, donations or purchase of the Sysmex machine.


You offered these names - Hincapie, Van de Velde, Contador, Schleck, Evans, Menchov, Petacchi, Cav- none of these had 6 samples with EPO in them, or a TUE that appeared after a positive, none of them have made payments to the UCI.

** Pettachi was caught before, but for an inhaler, his present difficulties are being investigated.
Pantani never failed a doping test.

Ferrari doped loads of riders and pretty much everyone had their own doping doc it seems

And as far as UCI donations go (or other federations for that matter) - well I don't think any of them were particularly choosey about who their benefactors were ;) - stories about various testing agencies turning a blind eye or falling over themselves to be helpful to all sorts of riders are not exactly rare
 
Jul 6, 2010
99
0
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Ever wonder about why his "retirement" was exactly two years long? Does two years ring any bells? Are you sure he was allowed to ride during those two years, but chose to retire and stay retired? Or was he penalized two years like everyone else, the only difference being that it was not publicized as a penalty but as a "retirement" for the good of the image of the sport? Hmm.
Then what was his speech to the 'cynics and the skeptics' on the Champs-Elysées?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Factual Correctness updatet said:
I like the way he matter of factly states 'the 2001 positives' as if they actually occurred.

Actually McQuaid did hold a press conference where he released documentation from 2001 showing there was no positives. The Tour de Swiss did the same. Cycling news also recently witnessed the receipt for the Sysmex system.

But I know that Cycling news is not very popular in the Cycling news forums these days.

Pay attention BPC - I was on about the 8 positives in 2001, that McQuaid admitted to and said he would show on the UCI website.

McQuaid held a press conference and did his best Nevil Chamberlain impression (I have in my hand a piece of paper) - no-one at the press conference got to see any of that documentation.

CN say a copy of a photocopy of a receipt - but were not allowed photograph it and no details to when the machine was purchased and for how much were released.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
CN say a copy of a photocopy of a receipt - but were not allowed photograph it and no details to when the machine was purchased and for how much were released.

Might I add that there was also no receipt of the contribution itself, but only of the machine, without any indication of where the money came from
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Ninety5rpm said:
Okay, so that's unfair relative to all other pros, but it's no more unfair than the advantage these other guys also had.


But prior to having the special attention of Dr. Ferrari, all those others were free to establish an exclusive relationship with him. Ferrari is not obligated to help anyone, and if he chooses to enter an exclusive relationship with one of them, well, so what?


Do we know that Ullrich and others did not also pay off the UCI? And not all of the EPO samples from '99 were Armstrong's.


Okay, so the unfairness is not that he doped and was still allowed to ride, it was that he doped, and was caught, and was still allowed to ride.

Ever wonder about why his "retirement" was exactly two years long? Does two years ring any bells? Are you sure he was allowed to ride during those two years, but chose to retire and stay retired? Or was he penalized two years like everyone else, the only difference being that it was not publicized as a penalty but as a "retirement" for the good of the image of the sport? Hmm.
You asked - "and if he chooses to enter an exclusive relationship with one of them, well, so what?"
Aren't you trying to find out what advantages LA had over others? The "what" is that Lance got that deal, no-one else, which gave him a distinct advantage.

If Ullrich, Basso, Pantani etc made donations to the UCI they didn't get great value for money, did they?

As for your 2 years argument - then why did the UCI put up a fight and do the Vrijman report. Quite simply, no.