Whose performance will plunge?

[Hugh Januss]

There has to be a receipt, how else is Lance going to file an expense report? really the logic is obvious, on this we can certainly agree.

Hah, Chris is not BPC but he is walking the walk in this thread isn't he?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Whatever.

This great coverup has all the bases covered since 1999. I see you would rather insult than explain how all of this happens. I thought we were beyond that.

You looking for some oceanfront property in Montana?

What is alleged here is under the table payments for special treatment, there are no invoices or receipts. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence including statements from people within the organization that allegedly received the bribe. That is all there is, you can choose to believe it or not, but to continue to ask for a road map to the whole thing is only gonna get us involved in a flame off.

 

[Oncearunner8]

What is alleged here is under the table payments for special treatment, there are no invoices or receipts. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence including statements from people within the organization that allegedly received the bribe. That is all there is, you can choose to believe it or not, but to continue to ask for a road map to the whole thing is only gonna get us involved in a flame off.

Yeah but that is the point is it not? Seriously there should be something to add to this besides the R.Radio's info. I do not doubt his info but lets get something else. Ya know what I am sayyyying? Hey this misspelling stuff has gotten me into some hot water so I bUTAR watch out.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yeah but that is the point is it not? Seriously there should be something to add to this besides the R.Radio's info. I do not doubt his info but lets get something else. Ya know what I am sayyyying? Hey this misspelling stuff has gotten me into some hot water so I bUTAR watch out.

It is next to impossible to catch 2 guys in the middle of nowhere handing off a fat envelope. What we can do is observe that a few well fixed teams have the strongest riders and they never have a guy get busted, until they go to another team.

 

[SpartacusRox]

It is next to impossible to catch 2 guys in the middle of nowhere handing off a fat envelope. What we can do is observe that a few well fixed teams have the strongest riders and they never have a guy get busted, until they go to another team.

I feel an Oliver Stone movie just waiting in the wings. R. Radio should write him a script!

 

[SpartacusRox]

And is anyone other than Chris stupid enough to think that he would leave any kind of a clear paper trail for his bribes that we could spoon feed to an inquiring dolt.

Some of the arguments are not too logical on this matter and the only point of fact is the actual donation. Everything else is pure speculation.

RR infers that LA is smart and uses that as a strawman to support the inference that 'being smart' somehow automatically means that you cannot donate money without expecting something in return...a pretty fail inference.

Hugh predetermines his stance immediately by declaring the 'donation' to be 'bribes'. Almost exclusively the nature of a bribe is that it is given under a cloak of secrecy. In this case the money was given quite openly and freely.

The inference therfore becomes one of it having strings attached. The claims of that seem to me to be purely speculative and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of some.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Some of the arguments are not too logical on this matter and the only point of fact is the actual donation. Everything else is pure speculation.

RR infers that LA is smart and uses that as a strawman to support the inference that 'being smart' somehow automatically means that you cannot donate money without expecting something in return...a pretty fail inference.

Hugh predetermines his stance immediately by declaring the 'donation' to be 'bribes'. Almost exclusively the nature of a bribe is that it is given under a cloak of secrecy. In this case the money was given quite openly and freely.

The inference therfore becomes one of it having strings attached. The claims of that seem to me to be purely speculative and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of some.

OK you might need to go back and read over some of the discussions on this subject over the past year. It took several years for the "open and free" 'donation' to become public knowledge. Even then when the timeline was traced back it turned out that Lance had 'donated' for a blood testing machine that was not invented until several years after he 'donated' for it. He's good, but he's not that good.

 

[ChrisE]

OK you might need to go back and read over some of the discussions on this subject over the past year. It took several years for the "open and free" 'donation' to become public knowledge. Even then when the timeline was traced back it turned out that Lance had 'donated' for a blood testing machine that was not invented until several years after he 'donated' for it. He's good, but he's not that good.

Again, I'm just asking a simple question nobody wants (can) answer.

Where does the info come from that says the $ was a gift for the TUE?

The other simple question is how 9 years of pis/blood tests and results can be squashed, with nobody blabbing?

Can you guys stop being trolls and shyt or get off the pot?

 

[Animal]

People have "blabbed".

Results have been made public.

Saint Lance did not win 7 tours against a whole peloton of dope fiends (a conclusion I have only come to unwillingly after years of having illusions shattered on a regular basis) on nothing but Chris Comical's coaching!

 

[Roland Rat]

Looking at the whole donation/LA thing from another angle, is the following plausible:?

In 1999 the UCI need the Tour of restoration to be a success. When LA tested positive it gave them a major headache and so when LA offered to "donate" £500,000/$/e (whatever it was) then they took a view and decided that it was a worthwhile one-off deal, especially if they were short of funds after the Festina affair. At this point they could not have known what kind of a monster LA would become, that they were making a Faustian pact, they maybe thought he would be a flash in the pan, who would go back to Fighting Cancer after winning his Tour.

Since then, LA has had the UCI over a barrel, as if it came out they took a bribe that would be the end of the UCI. We all know how LA operates, and he would certainly use this to his maximum benefit. In "retaliation", the UCI decided to turn a blind eye to doping by other riders in the hope that they could beat LA in the Tour and bring an end to the monster that they had helped create.

When LA retires in 2005, the UCI are no longer in LA's pocket, and so they start to tighten the doping noose again. Unfortunately for them, LA makes a comeback a couple of years later and so they are right back to square 1.

Maybe this could explain why Pat McQuaid often hints that his public comments often differ from his private views/comments as a matter of necessity.

Or maybe I'm talking garbage and giving the UCI far too much credit, when they just simply like to see an American champion in the hope it will bring more US dollars to the sport.

 

[ChrisE]

People have "blabbed".

Results have been made public.

The only thing you can come up with is results of tests conducted years after the sample was taken, whose results are not sanctionable??? I guess the only blabbing is about things he cannot be punished for anyway. How convenient to the argument, and diversionary.

 

[Animal]

The only thing you can come up with is results of tests conducted years after the sample was taken, whose results are not sanctionable??? I guess the only blabbing is about things he cannot be punished for anyway. How convenient to the argument, and diversionary.

So you are stating that Saint Lance won 7 straight Tours against a peloton of dope fiends.

I used to have this view too. I went to France in 2000 and 2003 and watched from the roadside. I yelled "GO LANCE" as he flew by. I dismissed the French spectators who didn't appear to share this enthusiasm.

Years of revelations, case after case after case after case after case have shown me that cycling is riven with doping. It's endemic. It's built into teams, into the whole structure of the sport.

Yet Saint Lance whupped their sorry asses.

I'll leave you to your happy-clappy, rosy pink world.

 

[craig1985]

Michael Ashenden actually talked about in a Pro Cycling Magazine interview a few months ago, on corruption in cycling, and he said that it was a clear conflict of interest for the UCI to accept money from Armstrong. I can't give you the date or the page of the interview as I don't think I still have the magazine. But he said it, and it is best not to question my long term memory. And if you watched the 2005 TdF opening Time Trial (you know, the one Zabriskie won and Lance passed Ullrich), Phil and Paul actually mentioned that on air that Armstrong donates some of his money to combat doping. Bearing in mind those two sit very much in the pro Lance camp, so they can spin it however much they like. They could tell you the sky is green and the clouds are red if you wanted to.

And while I'm at it, I'm in no way telling the mods how do their job, but could they please merge all the posts about Armstrong and the donation to the UCI, to a seperate thread, so we can stay on the original topic. On another forum I visit (not cycling), they actually do this.

 

[frenchfry]

Again, I'm just asking a simple question nobody wants (can) answer.

Where does the info come from that says the $ was a gift for the TUE?

The other simple question is how 9 years of pis/blood tests and results can be squashed, with nobody blabbing?

Can you guys stop being trolls and shyt or get off the pot?

Whatever the motivation behind the donation, clearly money going from an individual rider to the sport's controlling organisition is, at best, suspect. Especially when this organisation is in charge of doping controls. Keep in mind also that the sport has a history of teams/riders being informed in advance of doping controls.

Consider also that the individual in question is known for not sharing prize money with teammates, why such generosity with the UCI?

Then the backdated TUE, followed by the Vrijman report - it is only normal that tough questions are asked.

According to you Chris, what could have motivated the donation other than protection?

 

[ChrisE]

So you are stating that Saint Lance won 7 straight Tours against a peloton of dope fiends.

I used to have this view too. I went to France in 2000 and 2003 and watched from the roadside. I yelled "GO LANCE" as he flew by. I dismissed the French spectators who didn't appear to share this enthusiasm.

Years of revelations, case after case after case after case after case have shown me that cycling is riven with doping. It's endemic. It's built into teams, into the whole structure of the sport.

Yet Saint Lance whupped their sorry asses.

I'll leave you to your happy-clappy, rosy pink world.

Go back to sleep.

 

[ChrisE]

Whatever the motivation behind the donation, clearly money going from an individual rider to the sport's controlling organisition is, at best, suspect. Especially when this organisation is in charge of doping controls. Keep in mind also that the sport has a history of teams/riders being informed in advance of doping controls.

Consider also that the individual in question is known for not sharing prize money with teammates, why such generosity with the UCI?

Then the backdated TUE, followed by the Vrijman report - it is only normal that tough questions are asked.

According to you Chris, what could have motivated the donation other than protection?

Whenever this has been discussed before, I have never defended this, and I am not now. I agree with Ashendon and everybody else that says this is suspect.

My question was only about proof behind the TUE bribery claim, which I had never heard before. The backdated TUE happened real time, in the 99 tour. *crickets*.

Your prize sharing statement is from the mid 90's. There is no evidence he did not share prize money after his return. If so I'm open to hear about it, obviously. But, just because one doesn't spend $ on something, doesn't preclude him/her from spending it on something else. I think your logic here is suspect.

Anyway, have we settled on bribery (protection), or could it have been extortion? I know the thought of UCI extorting LA in return to squash AAF's is just not feasible to some because it would paint LA in a sympathetic light. We can't have that.

I guess it is all "protection", but has the judge/jury/executioner panel in CN forums ruled out extortion?

 

[Animal]

Go back to sleep.

The fuck is that supposed to mean eh?

 

[frenchfry]

Whenever this has been discussed before, I have never defended this, and I am not now. I agree with Ashendon and everybody else that says this is suspect.

My question was only about proof behind the TUE bribery claim, which I had never heard before. The backdated TUE happened real time, in the 99 tour. *crickets*.

Your prize sharing statement is from the mid 90's. There is no evidence he did not share prize money after his return. If so I'm open to hear about it, obviously. But, just because one doesn't spend $ on something, doesn't preclude him/her from spending it on something else. I think your logic here is suspect.

Anyway, have we settled on bribery (protection), or could it have been extortion? I know the thought of UCI extorting LA in return to squash AAF's is just not feasible to some because it would paint LA in a sympathetic light. We can't have that.

I guess it is all "protection", but has the judge/jury/executioner panel in CN forums ruled out extortion?

I am not saying bribery is the definitive answer, just an extremely realistic possibility given the circumstances. One thing is sure - Lance didn't donate to purchase testing equipment.

Can you see anyone extorting Lance? Of course 1999 was a long time ago and he wasn't as powerful as he is now, but I don't see him as a victim. When you come right down to it, extortion and bribery are the same thing when both parties are willing, just a matter of who initiates the proceedings (not that I have personal experience with such matters).

I seem to recall that Vasseur didn't get his share of the take because he wasn't going back to USPS the next year. Wasn't the same true for Landis as well when he left? I might be wrong on this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[poupou]

The "donation" of Lance was taken as an exemple of corruption at the 2009 international conference "Play the Game" : you can see the reference to the $500.000 on the slides

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/presentations.html

 

[ChrisE]

The fuck is that supposed to mean eh?

That means if you have been paying any sort of attention to any posts I have made over the years, then to say I think LA is clean means you are on crack. I doubt if you pay much attention to my posts so that is understandable.

But, to say I think he is clean just because of the questions I have recently asked in this thread also means you are on crack.

So, I take back the "go back to sleep" remark. I wish to replace it with "lay off the crack". Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Escarabajo]

The "donation" of Lance was taken as an exemple of corruption at the 2009 international conference "Play the Game" : you can see the reference to the $500.000 on the slides

http://www.playthegame.org/conferences/play-the-game-2009/presentations.html

Thanks. It is a nice compilation of the information.

Back to Topic. What about if the performance of the whole Liquigas teams go down? what can we make of that?

 

[ChrisE]

I am not saying bribery is the definitive answer, just an extremely realistic possibility given the circumstances. One thing is sure - Lance didn't donate to purchase testing equipment.

For sure, his explanation doesn't pass the smell test by a long shot.

Can you see anyone extorting Lance? Of course 1999 was a long time ago and he wasn't as powerful as he is now, but I don't see him as a victim.

Did he approach the UCI and say "Hey, if I give you $ will you squash any AAF's" or did they approach him and say "Donate or we won't squash AAF's"?

How would he defend against that? If he gave them the finger he would be AAF. He would have no power in that situation. Actually, if the UCI is corrupt then why do they get the pass in this hypothesis of who instigated what? Do we know they are taking money from other riders for the same reasons? How can so many riders, after outstanding performances, pass tests? Yes, the tests can be beaten but the consistency should make us go hmmmm.

I'm not sure which one I find more likely. I'm sure forum opinion is LA instigated the payments because blackmailing LA would create sympathy, which would be unheard of. Either situation is whack, but I think either would be hard to keep under wraps since 1999 which was the basis of my original question. It makes no sense to me, and defies probability IMO.

When you come right down to it, extortion and bribery are the same thing when both parties are willing, just a matter of who initiates the proceedings (not that I have personal experience with such matters).

Agreed, but one situation would paint him in a better light as I said above. The fact that there would be an AAF doesn't change of course.

I seem to recall that Vasseur didn't get his share of the take because he wasn't going back to USPS the next year. Wasn't the same true for Landis as well when he left? I might be wrong on this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

I haven't heard this, but with all the guys leaving USPS over the years it seems like it would have come out this was his MO. Maybe he did this perdiodically, who knows. The only time I heard this was after winning the 3 races in the US in 95 I think, and I can't remember the source or if it was just hearsay.

I'm glad you are posting, and I hope you are doing well. Take care.

 

[frenchfry]

I'm glad you are posting, and I hope you are doing well. Take care.

I will PM you one of these days.

Strange how you get all rational when replying to my posts, somewhat out of character!

"Donations" to the governing body, Notorious doping "doctor" as a close family friend.

These 2 facts are not proof, yet are totally contrary to the myth. I don't like lying hypocrits. I could forgive the doping, the rest I can't.

 

[ChrisE]

I will PM you one of these days.

Strange how you get all rational when replying to my posts, somewhat out of character!

"Donations" to the governing body, Notorious doping "doctor" as a close family friend.

These 2 facts are not proof, yet are totally contrary to the myth. I don't like lying hypocrits. I could forgive the doping, the rest I can't.

Hey, I'm only an a$$hole to those that deserve it. I can hold an intelligent conversation, I think.

Aren't they all lying hypocrites? Basso? JU? Valverde? LA is singled out because of his fame, and because he is brash. He is doing nothing more than the others in terms of doping. In Europe I'm sure it doesn't help his image that he is American, in light of electing a *** redneck as president from his state 2000-2008 during his wins.

LA is getting over, and we have discussed this before but he has more to "protect" and commercialize than many others in the sport. I understand his position; he is not gonna pull a Kohl, for example, for obvious reasons even if he personally wanted to. He's in too deep with the LA brand, both financially and to the cancer community. He knows at the end of the day what none of us on this forum think or bytch about matters to his bottom line and to others in his target audience. So, why should he come clean? Very few others have and they had much less at stake IMO.