Who benefits?

[Chuffy]

One thing struck me from the Landis interview: his insistence that the 06 testosterone positive was dodgy. The clear implication was that the UCI wanted rid of him. You could also say that Rasmussen's expulsion and even Contador's positive come under the heading of 'suspicious'.

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.

 

[euanli]

Why there have to be a beneficiary. Revenge is something that can be instant or dealt after a long time. And who says even it was the UCI who were to benefit. We know how much of an Old Boys Club it is.

 

[Siriuscat]

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:

Floyd - A disloyal former team mate and American who wouldn't make the same payoffs to the UCI
Contador - Until August, the most likely candidate to break the magic 7 wins and who wouldn't pay up and a "teammate" who denied Uniballer his eighth title.
Heras/Hamilton - Disloyal ex teammates of the Uniballer who gained their own success

To me there are a good few reasons why there are a number of not hugely clear positives. Floyd, the testosterone numbers taht don't add up, Contador, an impossibly small trace of Clenbuterol, they point to manipulation, whether these guys are dopers or not!

 

[Anonymous]

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:

Floyd - A disloyal former team mate and American who wouldn't make the same payoffs to the UCI
Contador - Until August, the most likely candidate to break the magic 7 wins and who wouldn't pay up and a "teammate" who denied Uniballer his eighth title.
Heras/Hamilton - Disloyal ex teammates of the Uniballer who gained their own success

To me there are a good few reasons why there are a number of not hugely clear positives. Floyd, the testosterone numbers taht don't add up, Contador, an impossibly small trace of Clenbuterol, they point to manipulation, whether these guys are dopers or not!

My thoughts exactly. It all benefits McQuaid and Armstrong, and now we get to look forward to the next cycling dynasty of McQuaid and Schleck. Joy.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

One thing struck me from the Landis interview: his insistence that the 06 testosterone positive was dodgy. The clear implication was that the UCI wanted rid of him. You could also say that Rasmussen's expulsion and even Contador's positive come under the heading of 'suspicious'.

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.

I don't think the UCI "wanted rid of him" or that was even implied by FL in the interview.

But what he did say was when he was busted he was abandoned immediately - he was told on the Wednesday and it was public almost straight away.

The UCI were in 'damage control' mode - they didn't care about Landis.

 

[Chuffy]

My thoughts exactly. It all benefits McQuaid and Armstrong, and now we get to look forward to the next cycling dynasty of McQuaid and Schleck. Joy.

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.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Contador has always been suspect in many people's mind -- think of the his rivalry with the Chicken. whereas the Schlecklett has somehow remained lily white.

having such a milquetoast win makes the sport look clean again.

bah!

 

[L'arriviste]

One thing struck me from the Landis interview: his insistence that the 06 testosterone positive was dodgy. The clear implication was that the UCI wanted rid of him. You could also say that Rasmussen's expulsion and even Contador's positive come under the heading of 'suspicious'.

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.

As for Rasmussen, I'm pretty sure he had four warnings. These are as follows:

24/03/2006 Rasmussen whereabouts #1
06/04/2007 Rasmussen missed test #1
21/06/2007 Rasmussen missed test #2
29/06/2007 Rasmussen whereabouts #2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rasmussen quits Tour 26/07/2007

So if I'm right here (and if not, please do correct me), he was ripe for sanctioning. What's key is how things moved after that, the manner in which he went down. That's where the ugliness comes in.

 

[Chuffy]

Contador has always been suspect in many people's mind -- think of the his rivalry with the Chicken. whereas the Schlecklett has somehow remained lily white.

having such a milquetoast win makes the sport look clean again.
bah!

Not sure about that either!! The people (fans) who know enough about Bertie to think he smells also know enough to be suspicious of Schlecklette. If you're looking wider, at more casual fans and non-fans who the sport would like to attract, all you do by discrediting Bertie is throw a big old bucket of mud over the Tour and by extension pro-cycling as a whole. Which benefits no-one.

DrM - "At the time, the way I took it ((McQuaid's) advice) was: “Floyd, you’re the fall guy, this is rigged, deal with it.”" was the quote I was thinking of and I'm sure I've seen plenty of comments to the effect that Floyd was stitched up, in addition to his vehement disputation that he was wasn't using testosterone at the time.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

But to perpetuate the myth of 100% clean you have to catch the odd high profile scapegoat just to show that you are doing your job. Maybe AC wasnt willing to play ball like Lance did.

Would you beleive the police force if they said there was no crime because they hadnt arrested anybody?

 

[Chuffy]

So if I'm right here (and if not, please do correct me), he was ripe for sanctioning. What's key is how things moved after that, the manner in which he went down. That's where the ugliness comes in.

Oh sure, I wouldn't even try to defend him. But the inference seems to be that the powers that be were certain he was dodgy and did what they could to shunt him off to one side. Same could be said of Landis and Bertie - UCI know they smell bad and uses unscrupulous means to ensure they get sidelined. It's a theory which makes sense superficially but doesn't answer the question of why do it in such a high profile manner, to the detriment of the Tour's credibility?

Bear with me folks, I'm thinking all this through as I type!

 

[flyor64]

I never really got the feeling that it was as cut and dry as "rig it and get rid of him" from the outset.

It felt more like a jumping of the gun/shoot from the hip/gut reaction from the UCI, that got out to the public...and then it just snow balled into something bigger and bigger.

And at some point it became, "FL you're going down (sorry?), but you won't win so just take it".

Only a theory, mind you, but I felt like once it was out of control, the UCI wasn't going to back down, and at all costs, they weren't going to lose to a rider. Imagine the precedence that sets...

I also get a feeling that whole mess is one of the reasons that Contador's positive (and delayed announcement) played out the way it did.

 

[Chuffy]

But to perpetuate the myth of 100% clean you have to catch the odd high profile scapegoat just to show that you are doing your job. Maybe AC wasnt willing to play ball like Lance did.

Would you beleive the police force if they said there was no crime because they hadnt arrested anybody?

There's high profile and there's the chap who'd just won his third Tour....
No, but nor would I believe it if they told me they'd caught the one bad apple.

To reiterate - I'm not trying to disprove the idea that there is corruption and shennanigans going on behind the scenes. I just want to know what it's supposed to achieve.

 

[L'arriviste]

Oh sure, I wouldn't even try to defend him. But the inference seems to be that the powers that be were certain he was dodgy and did what they could to shunt him off to one side. Same could be said of Landis and Bertie - UCI know they smell bad and uses unscrupulous means to ensure they get sidelined. It's a theory which makes sense superficially but doesn't answer the question of why do it in such a high profile manner, to the detriment of the Tour's credibility?

Bear with me folks, I'm thinking all this through as I type!

I did some research on the Rasmussen case a while back. What with all the letters and the journos seeing him in the mountains and the visits to Mexico, it's quite a saga of modern living.

I think from what I could gather, the Doc has it right earlier in this thread when he calls it "damage control". I recall Rabo knew what was going on but they decided to put him in the Tour anyway.

Then the press stink started and El Pollo was doing a bit too well and eventually, it was a case of cauterising the septic wound that this edition of the Tour was threatening to become.

This is often how things seem to work out. Who benefits, I think, is whoever will keep the cycling world turning rather than churning. The UCI is like an elephant: a big, heavy and fairly slow old thing, ostensibly even obsolete. But it also has a lot of patience, can sense bad weather and never, ever forgets.

 

[Siriuscat]

So .... hypothetically .... berto's test comes back with a trace of Clen in it, Fat Pat phones him up and says it'll cost you X Euros to make it disappear....

... or ....

..Fat Pat knows how disgruntled his Texan Paymaster was in 09 when number 8 disappeared as fast as Berto jumped at Verbier so Berto doesn't get offered a deal.

....or...

The Uniballer sees what happens in 2006 and KNOWS Floyd's general programme, makes sure that Fat Pat knows what to tell the labs. He may or may not have had sky high Testo/Epitesto ratios but the minute they looked for the synthetic stuff he was bolloxed because they already knew he used it. Revenge is a fun thing!!

Who benefits in all this is Fat Pat/Hein Verbruggen and the Texan Paymaster as it's been since 1999. They control cycling and what happens within, they control the money and what goes to line their pockets. It a vein of corruption that needs to be burst for the long term good of cycling.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure about that either!! The people (fans) who know enough about Bertie to think he smells also know enough to be suspicious of Schlecklette. If you're looking wider, at more casual fans and non-fans who the sport would like to attract, all you do by discrediting Bertie is throw a big old bucket of mud over the Tour and by extension pro-cycling as a whole. Which benefits no-one.

i live with a non-cycling fan. he could give a sh*t about the whole thing but knows he's lost for me July if he doesn't join in.

he'll barely give a toss that AC is out! but he was kind of cheering for the Schlecklett last year and, i imagine, will do so again this year...

casual fans and non-fans don't really care about who got booted or why. they want someone to root for -- be it hero or underdog.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not sure about that either!! The people (fans) who know enough about Bertie to think he smells also know enough to be suspicious of Schlecklette. If you're looking wider, at more casual fans and non-fans who the sport would like to attract, all you do by discrediting Bertie is throw a big old bucket of mud over the Tour and by extension pro-cycling as a whole. Which benefits no-one.

DrM - "At the time, the way I took it ((McQuaid's) advice) was: “Floyd, you’re the fall guy, this is rigged, deal with it.”" was the quote I was thinking of and I'm sure I've seen plenty of comments to the effect that Floyd was stitched up, in addition to his vehement disputation that he was wasn't using testosterone at the time.

To expand what 'flyor64' stated.

I took that 'quote' of McQuaids as that it was too late to do anything. The geni was out of the bottle as the story had broke.I took it more as "sorry, you're on your own, take the hit and you can come back".

My view is that everything changed in 2004 - from then, all positives would get sent to WADA, so the UCI has little ability to hide something. However they can push the rules to the limit as they did with Contador.

The Rasmussen story was similar to Landis - the UCI did nothing even though it flouted their own rules - but once the media cried foul they jumped in and forced Rabo to 'fry the chicken'.

 

[Benotti69]

why would McQuiad shaft Landis?

well madness is one and McQuaid is not playing with a full deck if you ask me.

Would he do it if Armstrong asked? possibly. Remember Armstrong wanted to buy TdF and after that, who knows??? McQuaid would love a piece of that action.

Nothing is provable, but these people's actions lead me to believe it is not impossible.

Contador was unlucky that a new test came out in time for his samples.

 

[Ferminal]

I think Bertie and Chicken are a bit different to Landis.

Ras was only forced out once the media storm got too much - the UCI didn't lay the heat on any earlier.

Bertie was protected by the UCI up until the positive test leaked, a few days later the UCI shifted their position to one of "due process".

Landis, as he describes it seems like at no stage were the UCI looking after him. So whilst I'm not convinced that the testosterone was a false positive, I do think that he received zero protection in the following days.

Why, I'm not sure? Ex-USPS, Phonak were very dodgy already, his solo win made a lot of people watching instantly suspicious.

When was there first heat on the UCI about taking donations from Armstrong? Maybe they wanted to be seen as fair and honest and that they do catch those "few bad apples" when they fall.

 

[Chuffy]

Would he do it if Armstrong asked? possibly. Remember Armstrong wanted to buy TdF and after that, who knows??? McQuaid would love a piece of that action.

Was that actually real or just a rumour?

 

[Maxiton]

I think, apropos the OP, "Who benefits?" is always the right question to begin with. (Even if it isn't always the right one to finish with.)

In another thread just now we read the following:

<snip>

This was one of the most revealing aspects of the Kimmage/Landis interview. Lance is as happy with his own success as when he can deprive others of success. I remember Lance taunting Landis on the climb up Brasstown Bald in the Tour of Georgia (maybe 2006?) when Lance's teammate won the race. Sure, they were on opposite teams that year, but Lance seems happiest when proverbially spiking the football in someone's face after a touchdown.

This characteristic alone could warrant asking the OP's question again.

 

[veganrob]

So .... hypothetically .... berto's test comes back with a trace of Clen in it, Fat Pat phones him up and says it'll cost you X Euros to make it disappear....

... or ....

..Fat Pat knows how disgruntled his Texan Paymaster was in 09 when number 8 disappeared as fast as Berto jumped at Verbier so Berto doesn't get offered a deal.

....or...

The Uniballer sees what happens in 2006 and KNOWS Floyd's general programme, makes sure that Fat Pat knows what to tell the labs. He may or may not have had sky high Testo/Epitesto ratios but the minute they looked for the synthetic stuff he was bolloxed because they already knew he used it. Revenge is a fun thing!!

Who benefits in all this is Fat Pat/Hein Verbruggen and the Texan Paymaster as it's been since 1999. They control cycling and what happens within, they control the money and what goes to line their pockets. It a vein of corruption that needs to be burst for the long term good of cycling.

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.

 

[Granville57]

Did Lance really want to buy the TdF?

Was that actually real or just a rumour?

Well, we had this from the Wall Street Journal. It seemed like more than just rumor but of course LA has said it was blown out of proportion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811112300753043.html

 

[Chuffy]

Well, we had this from the Wall Street Journal. It seemed like more than just rumor but of course LA has said it was blown out of proportion.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811112300753043.html

Thanks for that....I think.
I'd heard the story but didn't follow it up at the time.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks for that....I think.
I'd heard the story but didn't follow it up at the time.

Scary isn't it. Pharmastrong running pro cycling