Strock vs Wenzel trial

Shorter Wenzel: "Strock was 18. 18 is an adult. Adults take responsibility
for their own doping."

I would think would Carmichel settle so the brand he has built with CTS
would be protected to some degree.

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Chilling stuff from the Strock interview 6 years ago. But questions
come to mind. Why would Carmichel settle if he wasn't guilty?

Pople settle for all sorts of reasons such as avoiding litigation expense,
avoiding adverse publicity (hence confidentiality agreements as part o the
settlement), because they're guilty and want to minimize the damage.

Quoted message said:

Why
didn't USAC do the investigation?

Ask Dr. Wade Exum(sp?)

Quoted message said:

Why did Strock accept the settlement
if he isn't in it for the money? Intimidation?

One possible reason is to have Carmichael in the position of being called as
a defense witness by Wentzel and USAC or as a plaintif's witness if the case
actually went to trial. There are all sorts of reasons.

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

B. Lafferty said:

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9763.0.html
You have to wonder if this wasn't part of the reason for Gerard being
run out. The whole of the Old Guard is in this up to their armpits,
including Lisa the shill. Gerard on the other hand has integrity, and
that doesn't go real well with a massive cover-up.
This [censored] has been well documented in NFL teams, so it shouldn't be
any real shock that our NGB folks were doing whatever it takes to win,
and wouldn't be any shock to me now if they were still doing blood
doping, hgh, and other goodies into kids who are told "Shut up, don't
ask questions, or go home!".
Got plenty of stories from people I consider reliable that make Bobby
Knight look like Mother Theresa compared to the people behind the
Jrs/U-23 types. Seriously sick abusive [censored].
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9763.0.html
You have to wonder if this wasn't part of the reason for Gerard being
run out. The whole of the Old Guard is in this up to their armpits,
including Lisa the shill. Gerard on the other hand has integrity, and
that doesn't go real well with a massive cover-up.
This [censored] has been well documented in NFL teams, so it shouldn't be
any real shock that our NGB folks were doing whatever it takes to win,
and wouldn't be any shock to me now if they were still doing blood
doping, hgh, and other goodies into kids who are told "Shut up, don't
ask questions, or go home!".
Got plenty of stories from people I consider reliable that make Bobby
Knight look like Mother Theresa compared to the people behind the
Jrs/U-23 types. Seriously sick abusive [censored].
Bill C

Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be institutionalized.
The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports, too)
are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of the
big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven as a
team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy
and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes and/or
doping providers.

The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the drugs
are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
position to harm the athletes.

In article <1Ky1g.4873$ZW3.4358@dukeread04>,

Carl Sundquist said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Thanks
>
> Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
> a USAC investigation.
>
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9763.0.html
You have to wonder if this wasn't part of the reason for Gerard being
run out. The whole of the Old Guard is in this up to their armpits,
including Lisa the shill. Gerard on the other hand has integrity, and
that doesn't go real well with a massive cover-up.
This [censored] has been well documented in NFL teams, so it shouldn't be
any real shock that our NGB folks were doing whatever it takes to win,
and wouldn't be any shock to me now if they were still doing blood
doping, hgh, and other goodies into kids who are told "Shut up, don't
ask questions, or go home!".
Got plenty of stories from people I consider reliable that make Bobby
Knight look like Mother Theresa compared to the people behind the
Jrs/U-23 types. Seriously sick abusive [censored].
Bill C

Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be institutionalized.
The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports, too)
are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of the
big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven as a
team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy
and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes and/or
doping providers.

The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the drugs
are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
position to harm the athletes.

What is the up side to doping?

--
Michael Press

B. Lafferty said:

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

Note that this article says in part:
"Dr. Exum has been supported in his case by his predecessor, Dr. Robert
Voy, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the USOC from 1983 to 1989, who left
the USOC and reported doping abuses in his 1990 book Drugs, Sports, and
Politics. Dr. Voy submitted an affidavit for Dr. Exum's case that
stated, `Based on my experience and expertise, I believe that the USOC
and/or the various NGBs, have covered-up evidence of American Olympic
level athletes testing positive for banned PEDs (performance enhancing
drugs).'"

The interesting thing is that Dr. Voy directly supported one of the
cover-ups -- see http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm.

-Les Earnest

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be
institutionalized.
The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports,
too)
are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of the
big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven as
a
team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell"
philosophy
and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes
and/or
doping providers.

The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the drugs
are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
position to harm the athletes.

What is the up side to doping?

I didn't say there was an upside to doping. Just a downside to
institutionalized doping by having medically unqualified individuals
involved in the doping chain, rather than medical professionals.

Can you say Dario Frigo?

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:4dz1g.4875$ZW3.4592@dukeread04...

Quoted message said:

I didn't say there was an upside to doping. Just a downside to
institutionalized doping by having medically unqualified individuals
involved in the doping chain, rather than medical professionals.

Make that non-institutionalized doping.

Les Earnest said:

B. Lafferty said:

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks

Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story mentioned
a USAC investigation.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

Note that this article says in part:
"Dr. Exum has been supported in his case by his predecessor, Dr. Robert
Voy, M.D., Chief Medical Officer of the USOC from 1983 to 1989, who left
the USOC and reported doping abuses in his 1990 book Drugs, Sports, and
Politics. Dr. Voy submitted an affidavit for Dr. Exum's case that
stated, `Based on my experience and expertise, I believe that the USOC
and/or the various NGBs, have covered-up evidence of American Olympic
level athletes testing positive for banned PEDs (performance enhancing
drugs).'"

The interesting thing is that Dr. Voy directly supported one of the
cover-ups -- see http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm.

-Les Earnest

Take note of this passage:

A long-lived political cabal based in the New York-New Jersey area had
managed to control the USCF Presidency continuously from the time the
organization was founded in 1920 until 1982. There were a number of
explanations for their ongoing success, most of them crooked, but that
is another story.

The cabal had passed the presidency around among its own members for
all but 9 years out of the organization's 62 year history. Cooperative
directors from St. Louis and Milwaukee were permitted to fill those
brief periods. In 1982, President Mike Fraysse decided not to run for
office again, even though he had another year of eligibility. He
evidently realized that he couldn't stay in office through the next
Olympics anyway because of the constitutional maximum of four years in
office without a break.

Pick the person who is still seriously involved in Jrs., was recently
re-elected, has a history of "questionable" actions and it tells you
all you need to know.
I will say I think Fernando Cuevas and some others affiliated are
clean and do care about the kids, but there are innocent people around
Bush too. Unfortunately the options here, since Chris got shut down,
are just a different flavor of abusive.
Bill C

Carl Sundquist said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be
institutionalized.
The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports,
too)
are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of the
big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven as
a
team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell"
philosophy
and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes
and/or
doping providers.

The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the drugs
are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
position to harm the athletes.

What is the up side to doping?

I didn't say there was an upside to doping. Just a downside to
institutionalized doping by having medically unqualified individuals
involved in the doping chain, rather than medical professionals.

Can you say Dario Frigo?

Carl, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the doping
wasn't sanctioned, or at least approved at the highest levels in the
past. Today I see them taking the MLB route while McGwire, Sosa, Bonds,
etc... were juicing to the gills and it was ignored as long as it's
being done with things that aren't testable, or banned under the
current schedule like HGH and designer stuff.
Given how many people who are seriously tainted from the past, who are
in senior advisory/decision making roles today, and still spinning BS
big time I'm betting that Balco could move right in to "advise"
athletes and they would wink and nod.
Bill C

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>
> Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be
> institutionalized.
> The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports,
> too)
> are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of
> the
> big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven
> as
> a
> team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell"
> philosophy
> and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes
> and/or
> doping providers.
>
> The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the
> drugs
> are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
> position to harm the athletes.

What is the up side to doping?

I didn't say there was an upside to doping. Just a downside to
institutionalized doping by having medically unqualified individuals
involved in the doping chain, rather than medical professionals.

Can you say Dario Frigo?

Carl, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the doping
wasn't sanctioned, or at least approved at the highest levels in the
past. Today I see them taking the MLB route while McGwire, Sosa, Bonds,
etc... were juicing to the gills and it was ignored as long as it's
being done with things that aren't testable, or banned under the
current schedule like HGH and designer stuff.
Given how many people who are seriously tainted from the past, who are
in senior advisory/decision making roles today, and still spinning BS
big time I'm betting that Balco could move right in to "advise"
athletes and they would wink and nod.
Bill C

I'm treading in deep water on conjecture, but what the hell: Sanctioning is
not necessarily the same as having an active role. My original response
specifically did not include major league American sports, particularly
since they seemingly are defiant about applying the IOC drug standards. How
much of this is genuinely due to the strength of the players' unions I do
not know. How do you think cycling compares to NFL or MLB in terms of
performance doping? Not just the ones who get caught, but a WAG on the % of
athletes in MLB and Pro tour teams using illegal drugs.

Regardless, major league American sports' revenue does not come as directly
from corporate sponsors as does cycling's revenue, so I don't see the ML
sponsors as being as directly tainted as cycling sponsors. Thus ML teams do
not have as strong a need to distance themselves from a doper as cycling
teams do. For cycling, it is more important for the survival of the team,
most likely because cycling teams are not franchises with perpetuating value
like ML teams. What happened to Fassa Bortolo and Feretti? They're here one
year and gone the next (although not doping related).

All that said, in the past I could visualize cycling teams having
institutionalized doping, but as corporations spend more sponsorship dollars
and also spend dollars on image building, the instability that is endemic to
cycling teams due to transitory sponsorships means that as the teams fight
for survival from year to year, they themselves will not be the source or
benefactors of doping programs.

"Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <1Ky1g.4873$ZW3.4358@dukeread04>,

Carl Sundquist said:

"Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > Thanks
> >
> > Not sure about the Exum reference. Wasn't he USOC? The story

mentioned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > a USAC investigation.
> >
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr29news

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/9763.0.html
You have to wonder if this wasn't part of the reason for Gerard being
run out. The whole of the Old Guard is in this up to their armpits,
including Lisa the shill. Gerard on the other hand has integrity, and
that doesn't go real well with a massive cover-up.
This [censored] has been well documented in NFL teams, so it shouldn't be
any real shock that our NGB folks were doing whatever it takes to win,
and wouldn't be any shock to me now if they were still doing blood
doping, hgh, and other goodies into kids who are told "Shut up, don't
ask questions, or go home!".
Got plenty of stories from people I consider reliable that make Bobby
Knight look like Mother Theresa compared to the people behind the
Jrs/U-23 types. Seriously sick abusive [censored].
Bill C

Whatever doping that may be occurring is not going to be

institutionalized.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The NGBs and the teams (same probably goes for college and HS sports,

too)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are distancing themselves from the athletes in this regard because of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

big sponsorship dollars that would be lost if doping were to be proven

as a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

team activity. It's much safer to have a "don't ask, don't tell"

philosophy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and let the blame fall onto the shoulders of the individual athletes

and/or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doping providers.

The down side to this is that some of the individuals providing the

drugs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are not qualified to dispense pharmaceutical advice and thus are in a
position to harm the athletes.

What is the up side to doping?

--
Michael Press

Example:1984 US Olympic team, highly successful. Oh but Blood boosting was
"legal" but still doping in my book.

I haven't seen much evidence that ML doping is less or more than doping
in cycling. Seems like it's the same kind of culture.

And maybe that culture really does start at the top. I noticed how
silent Verbruggen has been on doping since Pound and allies in congress
went after the ML sports.

Granted he is no longer prez, but he came from the dubious background
of the Mars Flandria team with the likes of the De Vlaemincks (wasn't
Eric in an asylum after overdoing the juice?), Maertens, Polentier.
Was he ultimately the one who gave permission to doping? It's
interesting how fast McQuaid has been able to have positive meetings
with WADA.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/apr06/apr13news2

Re sponsor relationships I agree that sponsors might not tolerate
doping on a team, but for the MLs I think it may be just a lag time
while owners watch to see if fans stop coming. Season ticket holders
would take a while to drop off. It's a tradition to go the game. But
when they do, I bet the owners react.

As for Wenzel, he dissappeared pretty fast when word got out. Is it
possible that no-one knew before then? I doubt it. The link Lafferty
posted suggests there was institutionalized inertia regarding doping.
You can see why antidoping campaigners have gone the legal/police
route. It sure didn't work with sport policing itself. Sort of like
the Austrian ski fed absolving Mayer this week.

Les Earnest said:

Quoted message said:

The interesting thing is that Dr. Voy directly supported one of the
cover-ups -- see http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm.

-Les Earnest

His testimony was that the lab couldn't tell the difference between the
medication and the tea/ephedrine. Wasn't this true? Given that Grewal
admitted it before hand, isn't it the governing bodies call whether
Grewal's admission or the technology weakness was the more important
argument? The admission by Miller was enough to ban him. Why wasn't
the admission by Grewal enough for a suspension? Isn't really a matter
of organizational will, versus a 'cover up'?

By the way, Grewal apparently posted on this topic on a Canadian
discussion group. When asked about doping he said:

"amphetamines as a junior.....ephedrine six or seven times as an
amatuer and pro including the record on mt evans in 84 and on the final
stage at the pre- worlds stage race in crested butted in 86.....plus
loads of caffeine doses, including intradermal injections in the 82
coors classic

given a better doctor I would have done hormones and steriods but I did
not trust Rud Backer....the panasonic soigner...and never had good
enough contacts or reasons to after that

I saw guys on the testosterone and they sure improved and seemed to be
able to stay that way all season...

my guess is that doping has entered the genetic realm or other similar
highly scientific realm .....

AG"

http://forum.pedalmag.com/viewtopic.php?t=74&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=grewal&start=15

"mtb Dad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Les Earnest said:

Quoted message said:

The interesting thing is that Dr. Voy directly supported one of the
cover-ups -- see http://home.pacbell.net/learnest/cyclops/grewal.htm.

-Les Earnest

His testimony was that the lab couldn't tell the difference between the
medication and the tea/ephedrine. Wasn't this true? Given that Grewal
admitted it before hand, isn't it the governing bodies call whether
Grewal's admission or the technology weakness was the more important
argument? The admission by Miller was enough to ban him. Why wasn't
the admission by Grewal enough for a suspension? Isn't really a matter
of organizational will, versus a 'cover up'?

By the way, Grewal apparently posted on this topic on a Canadian
discussion group. When asked about doping he said:

"amphetamines as a junior.....ephedrine six or seven times as an
amatuer and pro including the record on mt evans in 84 and on the final
stage at the pre- worlds stage race in crested butted in 86.....plus
loads of caffeine doses, including intradermal injections in the 82
coors classic

given a better doctor I would have done hormones and steriods but I did
not trust Rud Backer....the panasonic soigner...and never had good
enough contacts or reasons to after that

I saw guys on the testosterone and they sure improved and seemed to be
able to stay that way all season...

my guess is that doping has entered the genetic realm or other similar
highly scientific realm .....

AG"

http://forum.pedalmag.com/viewtopic.php?t=74&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=grewal&start=15

Thanks for posting this obviously false information. We all know that US
riders don't dope. ;-)

Michael Press said:

What is the up side to doping?

Let me get back to you as soon as I finish my third cup of coffee.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...