Now UCI joins list as A##clowns!!!

Before anyone objects, let me point out that until UCI leaked the drug control forms for Lance 1999 Tour de France, no one could go back and frame him with the faux urine tests.

Just FYI.

now...UCI reveals THEY leaked the info, or I should say a staffer who cooperated with L'Equipe, knowing it was to be a frame job.
Great!!!

Sh#tweasals!!


velonews.com:

Cycling's governing body the UCI has conceded that a leak by one of its own staff was the source of information that formed the basis of a newspaper article alleging that seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong was a drug cheat.

Last August French sports daily L'Equipe carried a front page story headlined "Armstrong's Lie" suggesting the Texan had used the illegal blood booster EPO (Erythropoietin) during his first Tour win in 1999.

The L'Equipe story charged that traces of banned blood booster EPO had been found on six different occasions in Armstrong's 1999 urine samples by France's national doping testing laboratory of Chatenay-Malabry near Paris. Such a revelation is of interest largely because the '99 Tour was the last in which there was no use or threat of use of a specific test for the presence of EPO.

Now in an embarrassing admission the Union Cycliste Internationale says one of its employees was responsible for giving L'Equipe those confidential testing forms that linked the heretofore anonymous results to Armstrong.

Originally the sport's governing body had said that it had allowed a member of staff to hand over one dope test sheet because Armstrong had agreed to it.

However now the UCI has conceded that the employee in fact handed over 15 examples and knew that the angle of the article on Armstrong was to show that the Texan had never received prior permission to take medications, including the corticosteroid, which appeared in small amounts in an early drug test in the 1999 Tour. Results of the test showed only trace amounts of the steroid, well below the level needed to trigger a positive. Nonetheless, Armstrong subsequently produced a prescription for the drug, which he said was part of a topical ointment used to treat a saddle sore.

The UCI's admission was triggered by information it had received from **** Pound, president of the World Anti-Doping Agency. Following receipt of the information, the UCI held its own internal inquiry.

Armstrong has repeatedly denied the allegations outlined in the L'Equipe article.

__________________
Driven by whaz inside

yawn, I thought everybody had figured out that the leak could only come from the UCI.

Though what is interesting is that the UCI are not denying that these forms match Armstrong's samples - including the 6 positive ones...

This is true. The UCI have stated the following, which in effect is an admission that Armstrong is guilty of doping during the 1999 Tour De France:

The internal investigation of the UCI has indeed resulted in the fact that the staff member concerned has now admitted that he must have given to (journalist) Mr. Ressiot a copy of all 15 forms, instead of just one," the UCI statement said.
"It is to be emphasised that this was done in the absolute conviction that Mr. Ressiot was indeed doing his inquiry for the purpose of writing an article proving that Mr. Armstrong never asked for an authorisation to use any drugs after he successfully fought his cancer."

"For its part UCI has immediately taken the appropriate internal measures."

So we have admitted liars (the folks at UCI) giving documents to an admitted liar (Ressiot)...

...and you wonder why people don't believe L'Equipe?

__________________
"No nation is drunken where wine is cheap..." -- Thomas Jefferson

You blokes were pumping the tyres of the UCI when they were defending Armstrong... now we find out the UCI handed across legal documents they are are all of sudden lairs...... L’Equipe just printed the (legal) facts.

what is the working theory assuming the test sheets were really Lance's in 99, and they all did test positive for epo? Lance used epo in 99 knowing they didn't test for it, just for the hematocrit which he carefully kept below 50??? After 99, he changed methods, as testing changed???

The one question I have, if that is the theory, is why would he repeatedly dare people to save his samples for years and go back to test them years later? That is just leading them to the obvious conclusion. In other words, if he was peeing epo in 99, why the heck would he keep inviting them to do retro tests? Hubris? Stupidity?

OK, so back to the so called A## clowns. IF, the UCI has evidence that Lance won in 99 with six positive epo pees that they can prove. Why are they not coming out with that officially instead of this bullsh!t leaking to French newspapers. Print the names of those who cheated, rip their results, and let the chips fall where they may. I would rather not have it be true that Lance is the boldest of all of the liars and cheats but what I can't stand is being duped by the liars and cheats. Print the damn list of everyone that did it in 99, negate their results and give the title to whoever is the first non cheater. Vino was 35th. Maybe he was the top placing clean rider and actually has already won the tour de france. That would wreak havoc on our long discussions about whether he has what it takes. Maybe he already won?

I can think of one excellent reason why the UCI would want the 1999 Tour de France to appear as 'clean' as possible - the 1998 Festina scandal (in which, incidentally, Bruyneel's recent team ONCE were storngly implicated).

The Tour - and the UCI (Verbruggen was dragged through the mud in 98) - needed the whole Armstrong myth, needed the 'miracle' for their 'Tour of Renewal'

Arrogance ? However Armstrong has never touted retro testing so null and void point.

We've been over this ground ad nauseum - we told you at the time that the UCI leaked the news to L'Equipe.

(Remember when you and the rest of the LA fans were frothing at the mouth over this last year - we all told you that the only possible source was the UCI.
If I recall correctly you were throwing round false allegations about **** Pound, C-M lab, L'Equipe : you, that other waster House, and some other waster who were expending huge amounts of time posting various "conspiracy scenario's).

Maybe the UCI were repaying Armstrong for the bribe - sorry donation -
of money to buy, err, dope testing equipment.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

The UCI should publish all the names of Les Dopeurs.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Armstrong several times encouraged people to freeze his samples for retro testing as a way to tout his denial of doping.

This makes tons of sense in 1999 but I am not talking about 1999, I am talking about 2006, years from the Festina scandal. Do they want to admit Lance cheated in 1999? Probably not. I doubt anyone REALLY wants to go through all of that embarrassment but if they have proof, they need to get it out there. Like Lim said, publish the names. Maybe there is only one guy in the race who was clean and he could get all of the jerseys now as the only legit finisher.

I doubt any of us really want a dope free Tour de France. Look at the history of the sport. If we were to eliminate the dopers in the last 35 years we would end up with someone like Andy Hampsted being a top rider. We would need to eliminate Merckx, Delgado , Fignon, Knetemann, Kuiper, Anquetil, Kelley, Hinault{never convicted, but it was pointed at by many riders}, Armstrong, Virenque, Pantani Riis, Miller, Heras.. And on and on. Lack of dope may put the "professionals" down at the level of the elite club racers.
The Tour de France is not about sportsmanship. That is a 3rd grade myth. Professional sports is about money. And drugs and cycling go hand in hand. Always has.... And save the concept of "What are we showing the kids." The same people that spout this brag to their children about their times at rock and roll concerts..... Double standards??? Our rockers are kings if they are dysfunctional dopers, but our athletes must be pure?????
I enjoyed the sport more when it basically was a 2 month suspension for those caught.
I am not trying to justify doping, but anyone who thinks of professional cycling as a clean sport has never been involved.

__________________
"Since we started [selling the Livestrong wristbands], we've sold 75 million of these bracelets," said Armstrong. "What's different this year, is that anybody who buys a bracelet during the Tour, all the money stays here. I think it's important for people to understand that the money they spend - 1 Euro - is not going to Texas or the United States, it stays in France."

I cannot recall who said what to whom, but yes, everyone around the world knew L'Equipe had gotten stuff from UCI.

BUT, there's a difference between
1.THE UCI Organization as an official act giving Lance's control sheets to someone with a duly signed release, which was the original story, and

2. some creep in the UCI illegally and maliciously with full knowledge that the purpose of the release was to harm Armstrong improperly releasing official and confidential UCI documents to a sh#tweasal journalist.

Right, even the most biased of you have to admit that this info changes the story a fair amount.