Who benefits?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
Well, on the vindictive side, we have Lemond not wanting other Americans who won to be seen as clean; we have Armstrong not wanting any other American to win while anyone remembers his name; and Landis who is ****ed at everyone and says "fsck you all, a$$hats!"

There's not a purely honorable attitude in the bunch, but for hornery, unprovoked, meanness, one stands apart.

-dB
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
Chuffy said:
My question is, why would the UCI want to rig test results in such a high profile way? What would be the point? If they wanted rid of Rider X for any reason, why not do it in a less high profile race or even in an OoC test?

I hear these conspiracies being spoken of as if they were obvious, but I'd like someone to explain the logic. :confused:
Siriuscat said:
I think the logic is simple, the sport is being manipulated by certain individuals for their own benefit, conspiracy theory prehaps. Armstrong and the UCI are the prime candidates:
Chuffy said:
Sorry folks, I just don't buy that.

Surely what benefits McQuaid most is an illusion of cycling as 100% clean? A Bertie/Schleck rivalry would make the sport easier to sell, which in turn equates to more interest and more money for everyone.
This is something that goes through my mind all the time--both sides of the debate. I agree whole-heartedley with Siriuscat's assesment. I would never underestimate the length to which manipulative, power-hungry, psychopathic people will go to retain "control" over...something, anything.

But Chuffy's "devil's advocate" stance is valid and rational as well. Why harm the very thing that could only make you more wealthy and more powerful? It doesn't make sense! And yes, the important question to ask in these situations is always, Who benefits?

But the answers aren't always obvious or what they appear to be. The only way I can reconcile my tinfoil-hat perspective on these things is to look at what we do know. Corrupt organizations--be it business, politics, whatever--have proven time and time again that they actually will go down in flames (sometimes quite literally) if they don't get to have things exactly their way.

Let's take some examples:
Enron. Those jackwads were making tons of money. The company had huge and far-reaching tentacles. But what happened? The entire thing collapsed and two of the top guys ended up dead, while some others went to prison. Was any of that in "their best interest"? Of course not. But they just couldn't help themselves. Profiling of these guys demonstrates just how evil some of them really were.

Religious cult leaders. Time and again we've seen mass "suicides" and the like from groups when their "leaders" no longer have the type of control they so desperately crave. They would then literally die rather than lose control.

Political and military leaders. (Damn Godwin's law!) How many times have we seen dictators, who could've remained in power and held unimaginable wealth, end up dead because, in the end, they had no true accountability. It certainly wasn't "in their best interest" to decimate their own countries and end up committing suicide or dying at the hands of others. And yet...

I suppose my point is, you can't apply normal logic to morally corrupt individuals. Petty grievances can become more important than the main objective. History has proven that.

Are those the type of people that control pro cycling? I have no reason to believe otherwise. :(
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
veganrob said:
All that you propose is not just possible, but even probable. Scary. What gets me though is that what made Lance so powerful in '99 to be able to dictate things. Had to be some very powerful people behind him to make things happen.
Hope it all comes out.
What made him so powerful? I'd say complicity. I doubt with all the potential cash on the line, that the UCI and its stakeholders would willfully burst the bubble of hope - even if it wasn't real. So, out of that comes the iffy TUE for cortisone.

After that, I'd suspect there were battles to see who would be top and who would be bottom. I view the hushed-up positive, the six-figure donation, and the public comments of such possible signs of an on going battle.

Just a theory.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
0
0
Chuffy said:
Sorry folks, I just don't buy that.

Surely what benefits McQuaid most is an illusion of cycling as 100% clean? A Bertie/Schleck rivalry would make the sport easier to sell, which in turn equates to more interest and more money for everyone. Busting the Tour winner achieves the exact opposite, it just doesn't make sense. As for revenge, why not do it in a smaller race? Why push the reputation of cycling even further down the toilet just so that Tex can get revenge on a rival?

I'm not trying to defend anyone btw, I'm just trying to figure out what the point of rigging high profile tests would be.
Well, how about this then. The UCI benefits.

Armstrong has just won seven in a row, and there has been a lingering spattering of lower-placed positives. Some grumbling that they never take down the real top dogs.

Enter 2006. Lance is retired, so what better time than to pull out the stops and make a huge show of "anti-doping commitment".

First, you get the real big stars (Basso, Ullrich, Vino, Mancebo) out of the way before the Tour even begins with the Operation Puerto leak. No positives necessary and you avoid the bigger scandal of a major player positive: "See, we are fighting doping. We won't let Basso or Ullrich or Vinokourov race the Tour this year". Out of the way while avoiding actually having to pop any of their poster boys.

Then, once you have the door open for a second-tier rider (no offense to Floyd meant, but he just wasn't a "star") to win, someone you can more safely pop without the repercussions of an Armstrong/Ullrich/Basso positive, you can actually pop the winner of the Tour and have your "coup de grace" for doping: "See, we actually caught the winner of the Tour, not some domestique mind you, but the WINNER! What more can you ask of us than our willingness to catch and sanction the winner of the biggest event in the sport"?

And all the while, the real big boys go about their thing without ever actually getting caught doping.

Of course, the OP investigation took turns beyond the UCI's control, but you still never had a real positive from the "big guns" of the time.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
dbrower said:
Well, on the vindictive side, we have Lemond not wanting other Americans who won to be seen as clean; we have Armstrong not wanting any other American to win while anyone remembers his name; and Landis who is ****ed at everyone and says "fsck you all, a$$hats!"

There's not a purely honorable attitude in the bunch, but for hornery, unprovoked, meanness, one stands apart.

-dB
The above sounds like it pretty much corresponds with reality. But as for why the UCI would be complicit, if it was, in taking down Landis: who knows? Maybe someone has something on them, some sort of powerful leverage. Who could that someone be? Armstrong, of course. But why would retired champion want to take down an American who stood little chance of repeating his single victory? No clue. Maybe because he could? I don't know.

I think we are lacking sufficient information to make an informed judgment about possible influences. Until more info comes to light it seems the only rational stance is a provisional one: Landis doped and got caught, because the UCI (and ASO) refused to intervene or because they could not.

And if it's true that Floyd had long been known in the peloton as "Roid" Landis, then his drug bust for TE ratio would not be surprising.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
In 2006 the UCI and the three GTs were at war over the ProTour. The ASO was the ring leader. As the largest, most important race organizer, there was no way for the ProTour to succeed without the ASO. Perhaps it was merely coincidence that FLandis tested positive during the race, but it sure was convenient for the UCI.

The following year, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour. The ASO accused the UCI of intentionally trying to damage the Tour de France. The director claimed that after a collection of insiders at the UCI and Armstrong attempted to buy the TdF and were rejected that the UCI caused the Rasmussen scandal to drive down the value of the TdF. The ASO was so convinced that the UCI had purposely damaged the Tour that they refused to work with the UCI in 2008. That is why the AFLD was given the responsibility of dope testing the 2008 Tour.

So if the ASO was convinced that the UCI intentionally damaged them with the Rasmussen affair, is it a stretch to suspect that the UCI might have done the same with Landis a year before?

At the end of 2008, the ASO and UCI kissed and made up. Armstrong negotiated with the ASO and UCI to return to the sport. The ASO fired its top management. And after a "clean" 2009 Tour, McQuaid publicly said that there would not be a positive at the Tour for years to come.
 
Feb 14, 2010
245
0
0
Just an off-the-wall thought. Opinions have all had to do with internal power struggles and issues of dope control. But there's another possibility, maybe: betting.

My guess is that the lads who control (ie benefit most from) the betting sideshow have managed to have some say in what has been going on. Someone with better computer skills and more inclination than me might be able to analyse the odds and volumes of the past few years; whether or not that might indicate any support for this thought I don't know, though.

Here's my reasoning, such as it is (and no, I don't gamble on sports results):
Contador: too much of a sure thing just now, no one can make any money betting for him. Besides, he needs to be punished for blowing up 2 LA comebacks which probably would have made a heap of money if someone's bets had come in. And Contador's first TdeF win was not supposed to happen then either; I think that one was meant to have been either Leipheimer or Evans (hence Rasmussen had to be dealt with) and Contador snuck in and ruined someone's payday then too. Likewise, Landis wasn't supposed to win either, although I'm not going to hazard a guess who was. Before that, each passing year of LA wins probably came with bigger and bigger odds?

If you look at the gambling side of things, there is possibly just to much money at stake for the UCI and LA factors to be the major players...

Hey!, it's a theory. Have at it. Have some fun trashing it; or, see where it takes you. (if it's been covered by another thread, my oops)
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
BroDeal said:
In 2006 the UCI and the three GTs were at war over the ProTour. The ASO was the ring leader. As the largest, most important race organizer, there was no way for the ProTour to succeed without the ASO. Perhaps it was merely coincidence that FLandis tested positive during the race, but it sure was convenient for the UCI.

The following year, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour. The ASO accused the UCI of intentionally trying to damage the Tour de France. The director claimed that after a collection of insiders at the UCI and Armstrong attempted to buy the TdF and were rejected that the UCI caused the Rasmussen scandal to drive down the value of the TdF. The ASO was so convinced that the UCI had purposely damaged the Tour that they refused to work with the UCI in 2008. That is why the AFLD was given the responsibility of dope testing the 2008 Tour.

So if the ASO was convinced that the UCI intentionally damaged them with the Rasmussen affair, is it a stretch to suspect that the UCI might have done the same with Landis a year before?
Interesting how ASO accuse UCI of damaging them, then turns dope control over to AFLD who by actually testing and not covering up test results caught how many in 2008? Was it 7or 8? That seems more damaging, no?

At the end of 2008, the ASO and UCI kissed and made up. Armstrong negotiated with the ASO and UCI to return to the sport. The ASO fired its top management. And after a "clean" 2009 Tour, McQuaid publicly said that there would not be a positive at the Tour for years to come.
And there probably wouldn't have been if UCI had been able to figure things out without some busy body reporter leaking the info.;)
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
BroDeal said:
In 2006 the UCI and the three GTs were at war over the ProTour. The ASO was the ring leader. As the largest, most important race organizer, there was no way for the ProTour to succeed without the ASO. Perhaps it was merely coincidence that FLandis tested positive during the race, but it sure was convenient for the UCI.

The following year, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour. The ASO accused the UCI of intentionally trying to damage the Tour de France. The director claimed that after a collection of insiders at the UCI and Armstrong attempted to buy the TdF and were rejected that the UCI caused the Rasmussen scandal to drive down the value of the TdF. The ASO was so convinced that the UCI had purposely damaged the Tour that they refused to work with the UCI in 2008. That is why the AFLD was given the responsibility of dope testing the 2008 Tour.

So if the ASO was convinced that the UCI intentionally damaged them with the Rasmussen affair, is it a stretch to suspect that the UCI might have done the same with Landis a year before?
OMG, my man, you are onto it here. I'd totally forgotten about all this. It was a rivalry between ASO and the UCI, combined with an attempt to weaken ASO politically and financially. Drive down the value of the Tour itself and thereby make it financially compelling for ASO to sell its biggest asset. Armstrong, Ochowicz, Weisel and others were in it up to their necks. Now that is truly malignant. Not to mention malevolent.

Armstrong negotiated with the ASO and UCI to return to the sport. The ASO fired its top management. And after a "clean" 2009 Tour, McQuaid publicly said that there would not be a positive at the Tour for years to come.
Right. So when for whatever reason the purchase fell through, Armstrong's fallback included a rollback of the decidedly anti-doping direction pro cycling was taking. His return would drive the value of the Tour back up (in theory; after the negative publicity, in practice things might not have been as sweet as promised), but the price for this, or part of the price, would be the elimination of management that sincerely was anti-doping, and the re-assertion of control by a corrupt UCI.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
Maxiton said:
OMG, my man, you are onto it with this. I'd totally forgotten about all this. It was a rivalry between ASO and the UCI, combined with an attempt to weaken ASO politically and financially. Drive down the value of the Tour itself and thereby make it financially compelling for ASO to sell its biggest asset. Armstrong, Ochowicz, Weisel and others were in it up to their necks. Now that is truly malignant. Not to mention malevolent.
Brodeal = evil genius... or genius of evil.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
BroDeal said:
In 2006 the UCI and the three GTs were at war over the ProTour. The ASO was the ring leader. As the largest, most important race organizer, there was no way for the ProTour to succeed without the ASO. Perhaps it was merely coincidence that FLandis tested positive during the race, but it sure was convenient for the UCI.

The following year, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour. The ASO accused the UCI of intentionally trying to damage the Tour de France. The director claimed that after a collection of insiders at the UCI and Armstrong attempted to buy the TdF and were rejected that the UCI caused the Rasmussen scandal to drive down the value of the TdF. The ASO was so convinced that the UCI had purposely damaged the Tour that they refused to work with the UCI in 2008. That is why the AFLD was given the responsibility of dope testing the 2008 Tour.

So if the ASO was convinced that the UCI intentionally damaged them with the Rasmussen affair, is it a stretch to suspect that the UCI might have done the same with Landis a year before?

At the end of 2008, the ASO and UCI kissed and made up. Armstrong negotiated with the ASO and UCI to return to the sport. The ASO fired its top management. And after a "clean" 2009 Tour, McQuaid publicly said that there would not be a positive at the Tour for years to come.
The rules were clear, any rider missing an OOC in the 6 weeks prior to a GT could not start that GT. Rass missed 4. The UCI did nothing until the eve of the Tour start in order to cause maximum damage.

Prudhomme said at the time

There can only be one answer, either they are incompetent or they are trying to damage the Tour de France
and

“Verbruggen wanted to buy the Tour, but we said ‘No thanks,’ so now he wants to get the price down,”
the UCI then spent the next few years embarrassing itself in a sad, artificial, fight with the Tour.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Sanitiser said:
That conspiracy theory makes sense.
The entire run of seven consecutive Tour wins is a conspiracy, if you insist on that word. As for the theory, I guess we'll leave that up to Novitsky to develop, since he will anyway, and his jury to convict on. If they even need to reach that far to arrive at conviction.

Bag_O_Wallet said:
Brodeal = evil genius... or genius of evil.
Brodeal is pointing to the facts as they stand. It is the facts themselves that point, clearly, to collusion; i.e., conspiracy (aka racketeering). Remember the OP's question: who benefits?
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
0
0
I'm liking these conspiracy theories! Many resemble parts of what I had been contemplating long ago.

I still think the ASO should take their races and create their own league/division apart from the UCI and see how much more money they would/could bring in.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
Interesting how ASO accuse UCI of damaging them, then turns dope control over to AFLD who by actually testing and not covering up test results caught how many in 2008? Was it 7or 8? That seems more damaging, no?
So ASO faces the unpalatable dillemma of chosing to go with the UCI's possibly political, possibly corrupt fingering of users, or the AFLD's attempts to be serious, and seems to have decided the lesser of the Devils was the UCI!

That should be a shudder-inducing thought.

-dB
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
Maxiton said:
But why would retired champion want to take down an American who stood little chance of repeating his single victory? No clue. Maybe because he could? I don't know.

I think we are lacking sufficient information to make an informed judgment about possible influences. Until more info comes to light it seems the only rational stance is a provisional one: Landis doped and got caught, because the UCI (and ASO) refused to intervene or because they could not.

And if it's true that Floyd had long been known in the peloton as "Roid" Landis, then his drug bust for TE ratio would not be surprising.
(a) How keen is Armstrong on having any other American win a Tour, and possibly supplant his name as "The Great American Hero?" That could be reason enough, then add a sense of personal betrayal...

(b) Possible, and that's the adjudicated conclusion. And if Landis was taking T at the times in question, he was an idiot for fighting it.

(c) If this is true (and I've never heard a source for this except Pound's "hearsay"), than a T-positive might be the sort of result one might imagine engineering on his behalf. How it could be done -- by lab adjustment or by a passing brush of Androgel on a sweaty body -- is something we'd have a hard time determining.

-dB
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
dbrower said:
So ASO faces the unpalatable dillemma of chosing to go with the UCI's possibly political, possibly corrupt fingering of users, or the AFLD's attempts to be serious, and seems to have decided the lesser of the Devils was the UCI!

That should be a shudder-inducing thought.

-dB
Perhaps the UCI was the lesser of two devils only when the race itself, or ASO's continued ownership of it, was on the line. Perhaps someone made ASO an offer it couldn't refuse.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
dbrower said:
(a) How keen is Armstrong on having any other American win a Tour, and possibly supplant his name as "The Great American Hero?" That could be reason enough, then add a sense of personal betrayal...

(b) Possible, and that's the adjudicated conclusion. And if Landis was taking T at the times in question, he was an idiot for fighting it.

(c) If this is true (and I've never heard a source for this except Pound's "hearsay"), than a T-positive might be the sort of result one might imagine engineering on his behalf. How it could be done -- by lab adjustment or by a passing brush of Androgel on a sweaty body -- is something we'd have a hard time determining.

-dB
Thanks to Brodeal, I think we've moved on. Read the postings subsequent to the one of mine that you quoted. This is getting into something that in my view is substantive and serious.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
dbrower said:
So ASO faces the unpalatable dillemma of chosing to go with the UCI's possibly political, possibly corrupt fingering of users, or the AFLD's attempts to be serious, and seems to have decided the lesser of the Devils was the UCI!

That should be a shudder-inducing thought.

-dB
Because they know the S-storm that unfiltered testing might unleash?
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
Maxiton said:
Thanks to Brodeal, I think we've moved on. Read the postings subsequent to the one of mine that you quoted. This is getting into something that in my view is substantive and serious.
Yes, I saw that, but wanted to back up. We should beware of the single-cause-fallacy. There can be overlap and multiple reasons. In the "why couldn't the UCI have wanted to mess up ASO in 2006 too?" category, you sould mix in some previous antipathy to Landis over the Mercury stuff, and some "put Americans in their place", and some hitting the next guy once the big one has left and claiming victory.

All could easily have come into play. I'm disinclined to think the UCI orchestrated anything with the test proper, but I'm very willing to believe McQuaid's "worst case" pronouncment was motivated by some or all of the above. It certainly wasn't justified by the rules, or done the same way with Contador.

-dB
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Thanks chaps, I'd forgotten about the ASO/UCI bustup - I can see how rider +tives could be used as part of that. That feels like a more logical fit than Rider X being targeted because his face didn't fit or for revenge. It's still only a theory though, let's not forget that.
 
Aug 19, 2009
612
0
0
BroDeal said:
In 2006 the UCI and the three GTs were at war over the ProTour. The ASO was the ring leader. As the largest, most important race organizer, there was no way for the ProTour to succeed without the ASO. Perhaps it was merely coincidence that FLandis tested positive during the race, but it sure was convenient for the UCI.

The following year, Rasmussen was kicked out of the Tour. The ASO accused the UCI of intentionally trying to damage the Tour de France. The director claimed that after a collection of insiders at the UCI and Armstrong attempted to buy the TdF and were rejected that the UCI caused the Rasmussen scandal to drive down the value of the TdF. The ASO was so convinced that the UCI had purposely damaged the Tour that they refused to work with the UCI in 2008. That is why the AFLD was given the responsibility of dope testing the 2008 Tour.

So if the ASO was convinced that the UCI intentionally damaged them with the Rasmussen affair, is it a stretch to suspect that the UCI might have done the same with Landis a year before?

At the end of 2008, the ASO and UCI kissed and made up. Armstrong negotiated with the ASO and UCI to return to the sport. The ASO fired its top management. And after a "clean" 2009 Tour, McQuaid publicly said that there would not be a positive at the Tour for years to come.
I'm trying to wrapped my dopey head around how Contador fits into this equation...

With all of the craziness surrounding the Tour between 2006-2008, I got the feeling that keeping Contador/Astana out of the Tour was a good move by ASO to move some eggs out of the Tour basket.

ASO acquired a 49% stake in Unipublic in 2008. It was announced in June, of 2008, but perhaps they felt they could virtually guarantee Contador's participation in the Vuelta, by keeping him and his team out of the Tour - and used that in negotiations.

I have no idea of how the current Contador situation plays into Brodeal's theory... perhaps the UCI are trying to horn in again.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
1
0
Bag_O_Wallet said:
I'm trying to wrapped my dopey head around how Contador fits into this equation...

With all of the craziness surrounding the Tour between 2006-2008, I got the feeling that keeping Contador/Astana out of the Tour was a good move by ASO to move some eggs out of the Tour basket.

ASO acquired a 49% stake in Unipublic in 2008. It was announced in June, of 2008, but perhaps they felt they could virtually guarantee Contador's participation in the Vuelta, by keeping him and his team out of the Tour - and used that in negotiations.

I have no idea of how the current Contador situation plays into Brodeal's theory... perhaps the UCI are trying to horn in again.
The management of the ASO at the time Astana was excluded believed in fighting doping. Whether it was because they genuinely did not like doping or because they saw doping as a long term danger to the TdF I don't know. It could be as simple as the extra health controls for French riders had made them uncompetitive and the ASO feared that a lack of French results would cause a loss of interest in the home country, ultimately presenting problems staging the race. There were Tours where it was questionable whether a single stage would be won by a French rider.

At the end of 2008 when the Amaury family changed the ASO's management they also changed policy at L'Equipe. The order was given that newspaper would no longer seek out doping stories. There can still be reporting on doping scandals that other media are reporting on, but the type of investigative journalism that exposed Amrstrong's EPO positives was stopped.

As far as Contador's current problems, the UCI hid the results initially. McQuaid publicly lied about the situation just days before the German press exposed the positive. Once that happened McQuaid's hands were largely tied. The UCI cannot afford to appear to be helping Contador, especially not with all the Armstrong/Landis stuff being exposed.

It is interesting that in a couple instances in the Landis-Kimmage interview that Landis almost expresses the possibility that he was set up. He quickly pulls back and is unwilling to fully form an allegation. Judging by what he said and his thought processes displayed in the interview, I think that he suspects or even believes that he was set up but knows that it would be damaging to talk about it because he has no proof.

I would be very interested to hear what Hamilton has to say about what happened to him. There were many strange things about his case, including a man who attempted to blackmail Hamilton with the results of his test. That man was later convicted but it has never been explored by the cycling media.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
Chuffy said:
My question is, why would the UCI want to rig test results in such a high profile way? What would be the point? If they wanted rid of Rider X for any reason, why not do it in a less high profile race or even in an OoC test?
Simple. It's possible that they're deliberately targeting the high-profile event itself. And the riders that tested positive.

See the UCI conspiracy thread.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS