Armstong dopes AGAIN

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by Chris_E, Aug 22, 2005.

  1. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Agreed. The silence is deafening.

    And that goes to the crux of this matter.
    Mr Armstrong knows that if he does try to challenge the result that this will lead to further exposure and further questions.
    The evidence is irrefutable - Mr Armstrong doped.

    The question remains as to how the UCI intend to deal with WADA going forward.
    That is the bigger issue.
    I find it appalling that the UCI try to devise every type of excuse to do nothing in the war on cheating in sport.
    Verbruggen is more interested in TV ratings than trying to clean up the sport.
    That is the real problem of cycling.
    We have had cheats exposed Millar, Armstrong, Virenque, Musseuw, Hamilton and still the UCI contends that it's doing all it can in the war on cheating.

    We're still in June 1998 and Festina - no progress has been made in the past
    7 years.
     


  2. MJtje

    MJtje New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because they can't........the dopers are clearly ahead of the testers!! There is no test for HGH, natural corticoids, dyn-epo etc.........

    The testing is pure there to catch the suckers (cyclists who don't have the money to pay witch doctors) and show the world cycling IS doing something. In reality they know perfect well that cyclists have always been FAR ahead of them and it's grown so widespread in the peloton that almost all riders are suspicious....right or wrong!

     
  3. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    [size=-1]McQuaid calls for Armstrong probe
    Pat McQuaid, the newly elected president of the UCI, said he's in favor of an independent probe into allegations that seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong used the banned blood-booster erythropoietin.[/size]


    [size=-1]McQuaid told the London daily The Guardian he would support an investigation limited to how the test results were leaked to the French sports daily L'Equipe in August.[/size]

    [size=-1]"We have no problem with a independent investigation. That would be our view as well: someone outside the UCI," McQuaid told the paper, adding the inquiry should be "as soon as possible."[/size]

    [size=-1]McQuaid said any probe should be limited to how the tests were conducted and how the results were leaked to the public, but not include wider questions of the allegations of the use of EPO.[/size]

    [size=-1]"If we expect athletes to follow ethical lines we all have to do the same," he said. "In this case the protocols were not followed so we cannot look at sanctions."[/size]

    [size=-1]UCI officials conducted an internal investigation following the initial reports, but said no sanctions could be issued since there was no second "control" sample to confirm or deny the results of the initial test.[/size]

    [size=-1]McQuaid, who succeed Hein Verbruggen as UCI president in a controversial election on Sept. 23, publicly backed a call for an independent probe that's also gained support from IOC president Jacque Rogge and World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound.[/size]

    [size=-1]French sports daily set off a controversy when it reported that 12 urine B-samples taken during the 1999 Tour had been found to contain traces of EPO, six of which reportedly came from Armstrong.[/size]

    [size=-1]The Texan has vehemently denied the allegations, calling them a witch-hunt and unfair. Armstrong has also strenuously denied he's used performance-enhancing products during his career.[/size]

    [size=-1]McQuaid also said the UCI does not have a conflict of interest despite the public acknowledgement by both the UCI and Armstrong that the Texan gave the cycling governing body money to help in the fight against doping.[/size]

    [size=-1]"I don't think there is any connection with it [the investigation]. If someone has provided assistance in the fight against doping, that doesn't prejudice the independence of the UCI in the anti-doping fight," McQuaid told The Guardian. "Certain people might perceive it as [a conflict of interest], but intelligent people wouldn't."[/size]

    http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/8991.0.html

    ''We can do another investigation to settle this thing, just don't tell everyone the results!'' :cool:
     
  4. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    You didn't expect McQuaid, hand picked successor to Verbruggen, to be anymore honest and transparent than his mentor, did you? A man who has been quite illegally on the payroll for several months.

    The UCI needs a total overhaul - it's riddled with corruption. But until that happens we will continue to see the smaller fish take the fall whilst the cash cows get all the protection they can buy (apologies for the mixed metaphor...)
     
  5. noonievut

    noonievut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ah...it's been a while since I've been on these forums as I've been out riding my bike and doing other things. After coming back and skipping over some of these threads, I can see why.

    See you in a few months, when I'm sure these threads will still be filled with some of the same crap :eek:
     
  6. rejobako

    rejobako New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Chain of custody of the alleged sample was never maintained, thus suggesting that Armstrong retain his own expert to test whatever's left of this one is an empty gesture. Perhaps Armstrong's silence of late is due to the fact that he has already emphatically denied the charges, and that it has already been determined that no action can or will be taken against him. Whether he doped or not, he has nothing to gain by continuing to get his name in the press in a controversy where everyone agrees he has no way of defending himself.

    I really admire Eddy Merckx more of late. He has reason, if he wanted to, to join in the Armstrong-bashing that has become so popular among certain circles of late, but like most even-handed people, he sees this situation for what it is -- a situation where an athlete is being asked to prove a negative to exonerate himself. It cannot be done, and Merckx has condemned those who have blindsided Armstrong with it.

    Seems to me the real detractors are those professionals who've been sucking Armstrong's dust in the TdF for the last seven years -- and their longsuffering fans. It's been fun to watch them all crawl over each other in their zeal on this issue.

    As for me, I have my doubts about Armstrong's veracity at this point. I'm not stupid enough, however, to go around proclaiming his guilt as irrefutable fact. But I'd expect nothing less from our pompous moderator.
     
  7. meehs

    meehs New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    So basically you resurrect a thread that's been dead for days to tell us all that you don't like it? Do us all a favor... Let it die instead! :eek:
     
  8. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    Great post dude!!
     
  9. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    There are so many mistakes in this psot above that it is hard to know where to start. So I won't. Ignorance, sheer ignorance.
     
  10. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    ditto ditto ditto
     
  11. VeloFlash

    VeloFlash New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Messages:
    704
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given that you are the most emotional and biased poster on this board I would suggest it be appropriate you provide some representative examples of the many mistakes to prove your statement.

    I cannot see any errors. The Beke case was unique.

    The gauntlet has been thrown down.
     
  12. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello ! I'm currently travelling through Spain and Holland and I managed to pick up the lÉquipe article with the interview with Pretence Steffen (spelling). I can't read French but a nice Belgium man on the train on the way to Zwolle in Holland translated it for me. I note a lot of the statements did not appear in the English version on cyclingnews.com.

    Steffen said that when he was doctor of US Postal in 1996 (when Armstrong was not there) that the doping was so bad in the team that he became disillusioned and left believing it was a European epidemic and not that of America. However he also said that if Hamilton gets off from his ban then there is "no hope" anymore.... he knew that Hamilton was doping since 1996 and had heard he was doping much earlier. He also said that he knew that Armstrong was doping prior to cancer and 1999 and suspected that he continued when he came back. He also went on to say that doping in 2005 is just as prevalent in 2005 as it was in 1998.

    I have noted that he retracted his statements this morning....
    no doubt the Armstrong heavies are on to him !
     
  13. Ullefan

    Ullefan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    0
    Watch what you say, the Armstrong propaganda police will edit you permanently. :(
     
  14. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    The retraction specifies that the doctor has no factual info re: LA, and was based only on rumors he heard.

    Also, the doctor's description of the way that people were beating the vampires (by injecting blood with EPO after their morning visits and withdrawing the blood before the cyclists slept for the evening) does not work for stage winners or people who are in jerseys at the TdF, because those people are tested after their completion of the stage and would not have the time to have the blood withrawn from them prior to being tested. The method described by the doctor simply would not have worked for LA, given how frequently LA was winning stages in certain years and how long he wore the yellow jersey.
     
  15. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    velonews originally had a story saying that Steffen had been pressured by Armstrong to retract and alleged that Bill Stapleton (his lawyer spokesman) had drafted the letter Steffen signed. About 30 minutes later this story had disappeared - guess you can have any version of the truth you like - as long as it's approved by Mr Armstrong...
     
  16. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    I posted the original Prentice statement here as published by Velo :

    http://www.cyclingforums.com/t291052-.html

    I have told Suburu before that annonymous phone calls were the modus operandi of people claiming to work on behalf of Armstrong.
     
  17. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    It sounds like the retraction was in part fueled by his current team's dissatisfaction with the team's linkage to statements made by Steffan and concerns the public would perceive that that current team is doping. Read the retraction and it will all be clear.

    If what Steffan originally indicated is true and can be subtantiated by Steffan and others, why would Steffan retract?
     
  18. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    Naw, it's the phonecalls.

    Standard practice of LA team.
    But don't only take my word for it.

    If the libel trial in France goes ahead, that's when the washing will be done in publique !
     
  19. micron

    micron New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let's see:

    1) Expensive and extremely costly court case - if you win it costs, if you lose it costs more.
    2) Omerta - I've heard stuff from pro riders that supports a lot of the doping stuff we are increasingly hearing. If I wanted them to back me up in court would they - would they heck as like.
     
  20. bobke

    bobke New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think it is spelled "anonymous."
    If he received calls from Lance, then those calls would not be anonymous.
    Anyhoo...
    I suspect that Dr. Steffen immediately was contacted by Armstrong's lawyers, since what he said was slanderous, untrue, and unprovable. Or maybe just his team because saying that Tyler and Lance doped...connect the dots. Well I'll do it for you.

    Oh yeah, he was implying that the whole USPS 1999 team was on dope, which would mean the directeur sportif Jonathan Vaughters of TIAACREFF, his boss and employer was on dope, and oh yeah, that the whole super clean image of TIAACREFF was getting tarnished by this trash talking idiot. So needless to say it is bad publicity for the spsonsor so I am sure the corporate moguls called Vaughters and put a gag order on.

    In his retraction, he confessed to everything except killing Nicole Simpson so obviously somebody was ready to go public with a lot of nasty stuff on Prentice Steffen, like he alluded to beating his drug problem etc etc earlier in life. Read between the lines.

    He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword, eh?

    Time to go back to being an ER doc, dude. You are so over.
     
Loading...
Loading...