Where did Lance get the money to pay the money?

[Benotti69]

.....
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.

LA retired in 2005? and made his comeback in 2009, that makes it 4 years, No?

 

[Tubeless]

LA retired in 2005? and made his comeback in 2009, that makes it 4 years, No?

Technically, LA did not race in 2006, 2007 and 2008. So he was away 3 seasons. Last race was TdF in 2005, first race back was Tour down Under in 2009 - that's 3.5 years elapsed.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Technically, LA did not race in 2006, 2007 and 2008. So he was away 3 seasons. Last race was TdF in 2005, first race back was Tour down Under in 2009 - that's 3.5 years elapsed.

Oops, three years, not two years.
Three years counting "retirement" from August of 05 through announcement of return about August of 08.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

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.

Well, any advantage is not necessarily an unfair advantage. I don't see how an exclusive deal with Ferrari is an unfair advantage when many others could have tried and possibly succeeded in pulling off the same kind of deal. Point taken about others not getting great value if they had donated to the UCI, though it's possible that the only reason some of them got nailed was because the UCI was unable to keep it covered it up, just like it might turn out for Armstrong now.

The Vrijman report might easily have been done precisely to perpetuate the myth.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, any advantage is not necessarily an unfair advantage. I don't see how an exclusive deal with Ferrari is an unfair advantage when many others could have tried and possibly succeeded in pulling off the same kind of deal. Point taken about others not getting great value if they had donated to the UCI, though it's possible that the only reason some of them got nailed was because the UCI was unable to keep it covered it up, just like it might turn out for Armstrong now.

The Vrijman report might easily have been done precisely to perpetuate the myth.

You don't see how having a hematologist who takes a nice chunk of your salary as your 'coach' is an unfair advantage?

As for the Vrijman report - it was an investigation to see if Lance should be investigated for having EPO appear in samples from the 99 Tour - what other cyclist got that option?

* Also Vrijman was a friend of Verbruggen and McQuaid said LA's first donation was in May 2002, yet is strangely vague on when the $100,000 donation was received in 2005 -
He said it was after LA retired (July 2005)- is it because it would look bad for the UCI if was receiving donations during an investigation of a rider? (October 2005) from the "Armstrong Lie's" article in August 2005.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

You don't see how having a hematologist who takes a nice chunk of your salary as your 'coach' is an unfair advantage?

As for the Vrijman report - it was an investigation to see if Lance should be investigated for having EPO appear in samples from the 99 Tour - what other cyclist got that option?

* Also Vrijman was a friend of Verbruggen and McQuaid said LA's first donation was in May 2002, yet is strangely vague on when the $100,000 donation was received in 2005 -
He said it was after LA retired (July 2005)- is it because it would look bad for the UCI if was receiving donations during an investigation of a rider? (October 2005) from the "Armstrong Lie's" article in August 2005.

No, I don't see how "having a hematologist who takes a nice chunk of your salary as your 'coach'" is an unfair advantage, because others are not precluded from getting their own hematologist.

What other cyclist was in a situation where the tests done were not done to look for violations, and the chain of custody of the samples was in question?

I don't know if the evidence of bribing is solid. Hopefully we'll find out.

 

[velosopher54]

I don't follow the comparison.
He happened to stumble upon methods due to his cancer treatment.
But there was nothing preventing his competitors from obtaining this knowledge through other means.

He was unlucky to get cancer, and then he was lucky to learn the methods. Sounds like making lemonade out of lemons to me.

Maybe this has been addressed...Betsy and Frankie overheard Lance talking about PEDS to a doctor in the hospital during his cancer treatment=he was doping pre-cancer. He already knew 'how' to dope.

 

[Tubeless]

Also Vrijman was a friend of Verbruggen and McQuaid said LA's first donation was in May 2002, yet is strangely vague on when the $100,000 donation was received in 2005 -
He said it was after LA retired (July 2005)- is it because it would look bad for the UCI if was receiving donations during an investigation of a rider? (October 2005) from the "Armstrong Lie's" article in August 2005.

This may have been discussed elsewhere already, but the two separate "donations" and their timing are quite logical. First was to cover the 2001 Tour de Suisse positive, as reported by Landis - the second to pay off the legal fees incurred by UCI to defend Armstrong with the Vrijman report.

UCI agreed to accept the first donation in the interest of cycling - having a 2-time TdF winner test positive would have been too much too soon. EPO testing was in its infancy so better catch lesser riders first. It is fitting that LA paid for a blood-testing device to get off. First time traffic violators go to driving school.

The background for the second payment is probably more complicated. UCI screwed up in being tricked to give out LA's identification # for the French journalists and felt they had to right a wrong. LA was furious but offered to pay for the hiring of the lawyer so UCI would not need to worry about the cost. How UCI will be able to hide this fact if they're ever audited will be interesting. Their fate was tied together ever since the first payoff. LA knew stuff UCI knew they had to keep secret. This basic rule has continued to this date and helps explain the hapless comments by McQuaid in LA's defense every step of the way.

One hopes some of this would come out during the present investigation. But since half the players are out of reach of subpoena power, will LA tell the truth when questioned by the investigators / grand jury? Bribery, twice.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I don't see how "having a hematologist who takes a nice chunk of your salary as your 'coach'" is an unfair advantage, because others are not precluded from getting their own hematologist.

What other cyclist was in a situation where the tests done were not done to look for violations, and the chain of custody of the samples was in question?

I don't know if the evidence of bribing is solid. Hopefully we'll find out.

What part of the anti-doping rules are you not grasping?

Yes, others who wanted to violate the rules could have got a hemotologist - but again your original question (appeared to be) what advantages LA had - and having Ferrari as your coach is pretty big - and having the protection of the UCI is huge.

Other riders?
BASSO- his blood bag was found in a fridge in Spain - what 'chain of custody' had that?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Maybe this has been addressed...Betsy and Frankie overheard Lance talking about PEDS to a doctor in the hospital during his cancer treatment=he was doping pre-cancer. He already knew 'how' to dope.

Yes, but the more sophisticated methods which Floyd described are likely to have been learned during treatment.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What part of the anti-doping rules are you not grasping?

Yes, others who wanted to violate the rules could have got a hemotologist - but again your original question (appeared to be) what advantages LA had - and having Ferrari as your coach is pretty big - and having the protection of the UCI is huge.

I'm presuming most if not all of the peloton dopes, so violating the anti-doping rules is a given.
Again, I don't disagree that having Ferrari is a big advantage, I don't see why that advantage is unfair within the context of most if not all of the peloton doping.

Other riders?
BASSO- his blood bag was found in a fridge in Spain - what 'chain of custody' had that?

Doesn't matter, since DNA could (and did) prove it was his blood in that bag. That alone is evidence of rules violation, because there is no other explanation for why a bag of his blood would be there.

The urine samples are not nearly as cut and dried.

 

[Race Radio]

Doesn't matter, since DNA could (and did) prove it was his blood in that bag. That alone is evidence of rules violation, because there is no other explanation for why a bag of his blood would be there.

The urine samples are not nearly as cut and dried.

The Urine samples are even more "Cut and Dried" they were maintained in a WADA accredited lab, not some gynecologist refrigerator. Even Armstrong confirmed they were his and if he has since changed his mind a DNA test is still possible.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm presuming most if not all of the peloton dopes, so violating the anti-doping rules is a given.
Again, I don't disagree that having Ferrari is a big advantage, I don't see why that advantage is unfair within the context of most if not all of the peloton doping.


Doesn't matter, since DNA could (and did) prove it was his blood in that bag. That alone is evidence of rules violation, because there is no other explanation for why a bag of his blood would be there.

The urine samples are not nearly as cut and dried.

Sorry, Ninety, fairness has nothing to do with, it is an advantage.


As for Basso - no, he never gave a DNA sample - and it is in itself not an anti-doping violation to have blood stored in another country.
Regardless, why wasn't Armstrong asked for DNA, surely there is no other explaination for EPO appearing in a sample - of course it could have been spiked, just like Basso's blood bag.

 

[jimmypop]

No one's mentioned that Merckx may have introduced Armstrong to Ferrari?

 

[joe_papp]

If exclusive access to expensive doping expertise and expensive doping practices is what makes Lance's achievements unfair, where did he get the money to pay for this stuff. Since Ullrich and Pantani were already tdf winners and presumably willing dopers prior to '99, presumably they had the financial means to exploit the same advantages that Armstrong did. Were they not smart enough?

Where did Lance earn this unfair amount of money allowing him access that his rivals could not afford, thus making his achievements unfair (if that's the argument)?

I mentioned this previously in the original epic Landis thread, and if someone wants to search for the post, I'd be grateful, but I believe the answer to your question has to do with three things:

1) Firstly, Lance and his co-conspirators had the financial resources to ensure access to the most sophisticated doping practices available.

2) The combination of Bruyneel and Lance was one that was brilliant at planning and logistics in support of execution, and they used those skills to mitigate risk to the greatest controllable effect - to eliminate variables, if you will, in pursuit of TdF glory.

3) Those same skills applied to doping, with an insatiable appetite for risk (because in their minds, the risks were minimized, because while they were trying things no other team had the balls to try, they also had the resources and the knowledge and the network to pull it off), meant they were willing to push the boundaries of doping practice to a point that others had never likely conceived of. Paradoxically, while they were seeking to mitigate risk on the sporting side and control as many variables as possible to increase the likelihood of an LA TdF victory before the race even started, they used that same mindset in a brazen attempt to control the risk assoc'd with the most risky, logistically complex doping program in the history of cycling - and because of their talents, they succeeded - aid in no small way by #1, a nearly inexhaustible supply of funding and willing personnel to support the doping. And if something did go wrong, the hubris to bribe their way out of it - and the money to make it possible.

 

[Wheels Go Round and Round]

again, a wonderful post by the caught doper Joe Papp.......... you really are bitter aren't you?

you really need to get a life dude.

 

[NashbarShorts]

95:

I believe the agreement LA had w/ Ferrari was that Ferrari could not coach any of the other CONTENDERS. This would be a big coup for LA in terms of taking Ferrari "out of play". The Ullrichs & Co. could no longer dine at the best bistro in Dopeville. Although Fuentes might have been comparable, Ferrari was/is seen as the best in the business.

Also, the urine is cut and dried. Actually dried. Try reading the interview w/ Dr. Ashenden over at nyvelocity. It's what the Bush administration would call a "slam dunk".

Wheel Go Round, great job enforcing the forum omerta on Mr. Papp. Better hurry and take your Postal kit out of the dryer before it wrinkles.

 

[Oldman]

No one's mentioned that Merckx may have introduced Armstrong to Ferrari?

I think the moment Indurain passed LA in the Tour time trial he made the decision to check out whatever Mig was doing. That set him on the path to the best money could buy and I'm sure Weisel would be willing to help if Lance lacked the cash, which apparently wasn't an issue. Know by then that his cancer treatment doctors had performed some pretty serious magic to save his life and restore his ability to train. Armed with that knowledge he could find Ferrari for himself.

 

[ultimobici]

This may have been discussed elsewhere already, but the two separate "donations" and their timing are quite logical. First was to cover the 2001 Tour de Suisse positive, as reported by Landis - the second to pay off the legal fees incurred by UCI to defend Armstrong with the Vrijman report.

UCI agreed to accept the first donation in the interest of cycling - having a 2-time TdF winner test positive would have been too much too soon. EPO testing was in its infancy so better catch lesser riders first. It is fitting that LA paid for a blood-testing device to get off. First time traffic violators go to driving school.

The background for the second payment is probably more complicated. UCI screwed up in being tricked to give out LA's identification # for the French journalists and felt they had to right a wrong. LA was furious but offered to pay for the hiring of the lawyer so UCI would not need to worry about the cost. How UCI will be able to hide this fact if they're ever audited will be interesting. Their fate was tied together ever since the first payoff. LA knew stuff UCI knew they had to keep secret. This basic rule has continued to this date and helps explain the hapless comments by McQuaid in LA's defense every step of the way.

One hopes some of this would come out during the present investigation. But since half the players are out of reach of subpoena power, will LA tell the truth when questioned by the investigators / grand jury? Bribery, twice.

First off, I am not defending LA or the UCI. The $125,000 of donations are akin to a criminal making donations to the Police Benevolent Fund IMO. How anyone at the UCI couldn't see the massive conflict of interest is beyond me.

But your post doesn't make sense to me. The blood testing equipment cost $88,000 and was apparently purchased after 2005 from what I can deduce. Also there is not yet a date for the $25,000 donation that McQuaid forgot to mention. So to make the claims you made is a bit of a leap IMO.

Frankly, it is irrelevant what the UCI used the money for. Accepting funds from an athlete is a monumental conflict of interest and automatically undermines both LA and the UCI.

 

[Benotti69]

First off, I am not defending LA or the UCI. The $125,000 of donations are akin to a criminal making donations to the Police Benevolent Fund IMO. How anyone at the UCI couldn't see the massive conflict of interest is beyond me.

But your post doesn't make sense to me. The blood testing equipment cost $88,000 and was apparently purchased after 2005 from what I can deduce. Also there is not yet a date for the $25,000 donation that McQuaid forgot to mention. So to make the claims you made is a bit of a leap IMO.

Frankly, it is irrelevant what the UCI used the money for. Accepting funds from an athlete is a monumental conflict of interest and automatically undermines both LA and the UCI.

if at the time it was known only to Heiny V, there was no conflict of interest within the UCI. we have yet to see documentary evidence of how much money and where it was lodged and what is was used for?

but hopefully we will find out the truth. but i would not hold your breath. The one thing i take great comfort from in all this is that Heiny and Paddy are probably paying a lot Swiss francs out to keep people schtum at the moment to save their a$$es