But he knows how to keep the media coverage and that might bring some new advertisement contracts. Did anybody believe he would come back? I never did!Eldrack said:
Armstong dopes AGAIN
- Thread starter Chris_E
- Start date
whiteboytrash said:
Again not surprisingly, the above statement is inaccurate.
Case Study: Jan
Jan makes clear he is not going to make any hasty judgements based on "speculation". This is a statement in support because it clarifies that the L'Equipe allegations are speculation and it argues for a moderated, careful response. after facts become fully available. (Since Jan is not LA and is not on LA's team, he has no way of stating definitively whether LA took EPO or not. So this is about a strong a statement as a reasonable competing cyclist could be expected to make under the circumstances)
"But then this morning we heard ... that L’Equipe were reporting that Lance allegedly tested positive in 1999... The news ... was the big topic of conversation in the peloton during the day. Everybody heard something about it and we discussed it among each other. Right now, I, like everyone else, am not fully informed on the situation so I am not going to make any hasty judgements on what is just speculation."
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tm...rID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tm...rID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
Sorry but you have to realise that there is a difference between "standing by somebody" and "not wanting to make any hasty judgements"... English is not my first language and I am not very good with phrasal verbs but I think that "standing by"=supporting and there is nothing supportive in what Ulle said... Plus, I would be very interested in hearing what Ullrich has to say now...musette said:Again not surprisingly, the above statement is inaccurate.
Case Study: Jan
I am not going to make any hasty judgements on what is just speculation."
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tmoteam/en/archive/news/templateId=renderInternalPage/yearID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tmoteam/en/archive/news/templateId=renderInternalPage/yearID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
Hardly a vehement show of support ! He just is just making sure he won’t be sued by the L man..... can't find anywhere in Jan's text where he says that Lance is not a doper and all this is just lies... he is just saying that "I can’t comment publicly until a full investigation has taken place...." pissweak Musy...
If you could read German you would of read Andres Kloden telling Bild that; "We have always been suspicious of Lance and his training techniques..." - I guess he means Jan when he says 'we'..... keep trying....
If you could read German you would of read Andres Kloden telling Bild that; "We have always been suspicious of Lance and his training techniques..." - I guess he means Jan when he says 'we'..... keep trying....
musette said:Again not surprisingly, the above statement is inaccurate.
Case Study: Jan
Jan makes clear he is not going to make any hasty judgements based on "speculation". This is a statement in support because it clarifies that the L'Equipe allegations are speculation and it argues for a moderated, careful response. after facts become fully available. (Since Jan is not LA and is not on LA's team, he has no way of stating definitively whether LA took EPO or not. So this is about a strong a statement as a reasonable competing cyclist could be expected to make under the circumstances)
"But then this morning we heard ... that L’Equipe were reporting that Lance allegedly tested positive in 1999... The news ... was the big topic of conversation in the peloton during the day. Everybody heard something about it and we discussed it among each other. Right now, I, like everyone else, am not fully informed on the situation so I am not going to make any hasty judgements on what is just speculation."
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tmoteam/en/archive/news/templateId=renderInternalPage/yearID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
http://www.t-mobile-team.com/cms/tmoteam/en/archive/news/templateId=renderInternalPage/yearID=2005/monthID=7/itemID=71106/id=41212.html
Hardly a statement of decree from someone who us under suspicion himself ! Oh that’s right Lance said he can win the Tour next year..... LOL !musette said:No statements from Hincapie "in support" is your earlier assertion, which is clearly inaccurate (or, if you had read the Hincapie statements before your earlier post, at best intentionally misleading).
Because we cant agree on this point; Get me some statements from cyclists who aren’t in DC….. sorry but there isn't any who have backed him in the peleton……. which is in stark contrast to Ullrich amphetamine positive test for
ecstasy use… they stuck by him… want some quotes ?
I don't remember much peloton support for Ullrich in 2002 -- German technicians on the tour told me he must be dumb,
This firestorm of details leaves me with the impression the UCI is a dubious authority, that L'Equipe's reporter was very lucky and persistent.
And, to make a few sweeping generalizations I'm pretty sure about, just to clear the air, and focus the debate:
1. L'Equipe and Jean Marie must believe their information is solid, because this is a dreadful path for them, assaulting what they've worked for and created all their lives.
2. Armstrong's defense todate, the witch hunt by those devils the French, is classic scapegoating and playing to American ignorance ala Bush and Rove, and it's despicable. Let him and his speak to the facts, why these samples must be mistakenly diagnosed or how other evidence contradicts them.
3. Most of the press are on Team Armstrong and owe their gravy to the Texan -- they with a few notable exceptions -- like Velo News -- always leave the reader many coded chances to continue believing in the Armstrong dream.
4. "You can't handle the truth!" as Nicholson yelled. For the sake of argument, assume the most probable, that like Pantani and Hamilton, Armstrong used drugs. Given the reality of cycling, whatever that is, does this make him a devil or that much less extraordinary?
How many champions of the tour de france do we know for sure didn't use drugs?
This firestorm of details leaves me with the impression the UCI is a dubious authority, that L'Equipe's reporter was very lucky and persistent.
And, to make a few sweeping generalizations I'm pretty sure about, just to clear the air, and focus the debate:
1. L'Equipe and Jean Marie must believe their information is solid, because this is a dreadful path for them, assaulting what they've worked for and created all their lives.
2. Armstrong's defense todate, the witch hunt by those devils the French, is classic scapegoating and playing to American ignorance ala Bush and Rove, and it's despicable. Let him and his speak to the facts, why these samples must be mistakenly diagnosed or how other evidence contradicts them.
3. Most of the press are on Team Armstrong and owe their gravy to the Texan -- they with a few notable exceptions -- like Velo News -- always leave the reader many coded chances to continue believing in the Armstrong dream.
4. "You can't handle the truth!" as Nicholson yelled. For the sake of argument, assume the most probable, that like Pantani and Hamilton, Armstrong used drugs. Given the reality of cycling, whatever that is, does this make him a devil or that much less extraordinary?
How many champions of the tour de france do we know for sure didn't use drugs?
Hincapie also is under the wings of carmichael/ferrari.....look I don't wanna crush youre hopes or believes in these athletes......but very few are clean!! Ofcourse there is NO proof, cause only suckers are positive. LA was not positive in 99, but by retro testing they have shown that LA was indeed positive.....
And don't think he stopped suddenly in 2000-2005 onwards.....he improved 5% which is a lot!! (and what to think of the speed record this year in the TDF!!!!!!!!!! I thought they all stopped in 1998!)
There are just NO miracles....Benjo Maso (cyclinghistorian) wrote this on RBR today:
"I am really deploring the fact that doping exists and is used so
widely that in the last twenty years it has become almost impossible to
compete without using them, but I'm afraid it's a fact of life that we have
to accept."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/1e8c8554a2458f1d/f648babbf72064a9#f648babbf72064a9
Just accept it......
And don't think he stopped suddenly in 2000-2005 onwards.....he improved 5% which is a lot!! (and what to think of the speed record this year in the TDF!!!!!!!!!! I thought they all stopped in 1998!)
There are just NO miracles....Benjo Maso (cyclinghistorian) wrote this on RBR today:
"I am really deploring the fact that doping exists and is used so
widely that in the last twenty years it has become almost impossible to
compete without using them, but I'm afraid it's a fact of life that we have
to accept."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_thread/thread/1e8c8554a2458f1d/f648babbf72064a9#f648babbf72064a9
Just accept it......
A lot of you don’t know is that LeBlanc wrote an open letter to the UCI in 1996 pleading with them to crack down on drug usage (published in L’Equipe and several other French newspapers). He wanted them to bring in a test for EPO and begin blood testing. LeBlanc does not hate Armstrong he just wants to see clean racing. You should believe in the man when he says 'he knows', because 'he knows'. For the record the UCI did nothing and then the Festina scandal broke in 1998.gunn said:
gunn said:
Despicable? Show me anything regarding this mess that isn't despciable.
Pound accuses Armstrong of doping, based on the results of a test that he knew had reliability problems. His own people said so back in 2003, which is why, at least on the surface, WADA commissioned the experiment in the first place. And we don't need to repeat the judgment rendered in the Beke case, which Pound was well aware of.
The lab results of a potentially prejudicial and unrepeatable experiment were released to the press. That's despicable.
And let's leave international politics out of this. It's already messy, it doesn't need to become humorous.
Listen to this carefully. He states he has no doubt about the reliability of the test for EPO, or something to that effect. You're starting to sound like Verbruggen, more concerned about the leak and only the leak of results to the people, you, me. I for one, want to know that the greatest tour de france rider doped, if there's evidence, maybe you would rather not.JohnO said:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarti...ticleId=3115178
JohnO said:
It was L'Equipe that accused Armstrong of doping - not **** Pound.
JohnO said:
The test is reliable and was adopted as part of the WADA code in 2004.
We have been over this ground coutless times.
The test is reliable.
JohnO said:
2003 is not 2004.
I have already explained to you that the consultative process for the verification, testing and adoption of the EPO test went on for many months prior to the UCI's authorisation to allow WADA access to test, under the auspices of the WADA Code.
The UCI signed the Code, based in part, on being satisfied that all testing, all testing procedures, all testing chains of custody, had been verified and validated by the UCI prior to the UCI adopting the Code.
JohnO said:
The lab results are not legally prejudical.
The results were only carried out on the one remaining sample.
The UCI could not, even if it wanted to, impose sanctions on Armstrong under these conditions.
Armstrong must be a relieved that the UCI test in 1999 which giving him a false negative result was destroyed.
Verbruggen reacts to Pound statements
The president of the International Cycling Union, Hein Verbruggen has replied to what World Anti-Doping Agency Chairman **** Pound alleged in a press conference yesterday: that he himself provided the French journalist of L'Equipe with the necessary documents to reveal the claimed taking of EPO by Lance Armstrong in the 1999 Tour de France.
"The journalist came to the UCI wanting to write a positive story about Armstrong," Verbruggen told Dutch paper Telegraaf. "For this, he wanted insight in his medical dossier. Armstrong and the UCI agreed to this after long discussions. He couldn't find anything, as they were all blank. Armstrong never used any medications.
"The journalist then asked if he could have a copy for his story, and abused the code number on it. He was in possession of the other five already, but he didn't say anything about it, and L'Equipe appeared on the newsstands with six forms on it. That's how they draw their conclusions.
"I find it odd that these samples were used for a scientific purpose," Verbruggen added. "This can only be done with the agreement of the athlete, and it didn't happen."
The current president of the UCI also expressed his views on former German federation Sylvia Schenk's complaints over the legitimacy of Pat McQuaid's presidential candidacy.
"It's irritating that I have to use a lot of my energy in negative matters lately," Verbruggen continued. "Besides Pound, who loses his mind as soon as the press gets near, Schenk also spends her time accusing the UCI. Ironically, you can say that she cost the UCI more than Pat McQuaid, my designated successor, who gets paid for the work that he does for us. We have now hired a lawyer to go after Schenk as she went too far." Schenk's complaint argued that no member of the UCI Management Committee could at the same time be in a contractual situation with the UCI.
In an official declaration, the UCI today confirmed that Schenk is being sued by the UCI, its President and Pat McQuaid for defamation. Another complaint against Schenk was filed with the UCI Ethics Commission by eleven members of the Management Committee, on the grounds that she had breached the principle of confidentiality.
Meanwhile, the UCI Appeals Board has examined the complaint of Mr. Darshan Singh, one of the five candidates for presidency, who claimed that the changing of the electoral delegates of the Asian confederation was inadmissible. The candidates had been voted on in January 2005, and were about to be exchanged four months later, but a procedure mistake (the vote by correspondence does not comply with UCI statutes) has now made the second vote nigh. Therefore, the initial candidates will cast their votes in the UCI presidency elections in Madrid.
The president of the International Cycling Union, Hein Verbruggen has replied to what World Anti-Doping Agency Chairman **** Pound alleged in a press conference yesterday: that he himself provided the French journalist of L'Equipe with the necessary documents to reveal the claimed taking of EPO by Lance Armstrong in the 1999 Tour de France.
"The journalist came to the UCI wanting to write a positive story about Armstrong," Verbruggen told Dutch paper Telegraaf. "For this, he wanted insight in his medical dossier. Armstrong and the UCI agreed to this after long discussions. He couldn't find anything, as they were all blank. Armstrong never used any medications.
"The journalist then asked if he could have a copy for his story, and abused the code number on it. He was in possession of the other five already, but he didn't say anything about it, and L'Equipe appeared on the newsstands with six forms on it. That's how they draw their conclusions.
"I find it odd that these samples were used for a scientific purpose," Verbruggen added. "This can only be done with the agreement of the athlete, and it didn't happen."
The current president of the UCI also expressed his views on former German federation Sylvia Schenk's complaints over the legitimacy of Pat McQuaid's presidential candidacy.
"It's irritating that I have to use a lot of my energy in negative matters lately," Verbruggen continued. "Besides Pound, who loses his mind as soon as the press gets near, Schenk also spends her time accusing the UCI. Ironically, you can say that she cost the UCI more than Pat McQuaid, my designated successor, who gets paid for the work that he does for us. We have now hired a lawyer to go after Schenk as she went too far." Schenk's complaint argued that no member of the UCI Management Committee could at the same time be in a contractual situation with the UCI.
In an official declaration, the UCI today confirmed that Schenk is being sued by the UCI, its President and Pat McQuaid for defamation. Another complaint against Schenk was filed with the UCI Ethics Commission by eleven members of the Management Committee, on the grounds that she had breached the principle of confidentiality.
Meanwhile, the UCI Appeals Board has examined the complaint of Mr. Darshan Singh, one of the five candidates for presidency, who claimed that the changing of the electoral delegates of the Asian confederation was inadmissible. The candidates had been voted on in January 2005, and were about to be exchanged four months later, but a procedure mistake (the vote by correspondence does not comply with UCI statutes) has now made the second vote nigh. Therefore, the initial candidates will cast their votes in the UCI presidency elections in Madrid.
Verbruggen is part of the problem - he therefore cannot be part of the solution.
This statement that he made is a bottle of smoke.
Meaningless.
It doesn't explain who or why the UCI gave L'Equipe the 5 names to the five other test sample numbers (he admits that the UCI gave L'Equipe one name for one sample).
Nor does he acknowledge the fact that the issue here is not the leaking of names and numbers but how HIS ORG'S TESTS GAVE A RIDER (S) FALSE NEGATIVES FOR THE YEAR 1999 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hein it's time to get off the pot - yer useless !
This statement that he made is a bottle of smoke.
Meaningless.
It doesn't explain who or why the UCI gave L'Equipe the 5 names to the five other test sample numbers (he admits that the UCI gave L'Equipe one name for one sample).
Nor does he acknowledge the fact that the issue here is not the leaking of names and numbers but how HIS ORG'S TESTS GAVE A RIDER (S) FALSE NEGATIVES FOR THE YEAR 1999 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hein it's time to get off the pot - yer useless !
This is smelling more and more like a big cover-up by the UCI and LA. If the UCI knew that they gave L'equipe a doping sheet(s), one allegedly, then why didn't they say any of this last week????? Last week they stated, ''Why was the UCI not informed?'' Well, if the UCI was confronted by Ressiot that he wanted to write a story, then they obviously WERE informed, for their information. I smell BS.
Last week they stated, ''Why was the UCI not informed?'' Well, if the UCI was confronted by Ressiot that he wanted to write a story, then they obviously WERE informed, for their information. I smell BS.
One other point. Lance stated that:
Armstrong admitted for the first time Thursday that he gave L'Equipe the authority to view his confidential testing forms from the Tour de France, documents that eventually became the base for their story.
"We authorized the release for a particular purpose," Stapleton said.
"They were supposed to look at the forms to see if there was a medical exemption. We assumed they would go and look at the forms and not leave with them."
Asked why he permitted the newspaper access to the testing forms, Armstrong said, "I have nothing to hide."
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050916/3/dnsq.html
So if he's willing to give some reporter in France who writes for L'Equipe on doping stories, then why won't he release his medical records to the Texan insurance company? Just a thought. I thought he has ''nothing to hide''?
Armstrong admitted for the first time Thursday that he gave L'Equipe the authority to view his confidential testing forms from the Tour de France, documents that eventually became the base for their story.
"We authorized the release for a particular purpose," Stapleton said.
"They were supposed to look at the forms to see if there was a medical exemption. We assumed they would go and look at the forms and not leave with them."
Asked why he permitted the newspaper access to the testing forms, Armstrong said, "I have nothing to hide."
http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050916/3/dnsq.html
So if he's willing to give some reporter in France who writes for L'Equipe on doping stories, then why won't he release his medical records to the Texan insurance company? Just a thought. I thought he has ''nothing to hide''?
A good read is:"The Unknown Tour De France: The Curious Story of the World's Biggest Bicycle Race " by Les Woodland (if you haven't read it already)...scott0425 said:
Although he is not focusing on doping in this book, it is obvious that there hasn't been a TDF (with a few notable exceptions) winner that either:
1) Hasn't cheated
2) Hasn't been suspected of cheating but never caught...
Cheaters have used various methods from good old amphetamines to EPO and from taking shortcuts to taking the train...
To me is obvious that you can't win the TDF on Gatorade and anyone who thinks otherwise either don't know what they are talking about or are from the STates
Ullefan said:This is smelling more and more like a big cover-up by the UCI and LA. If the UCI knew that they gave L'equipe a doping sheet(s), one allegedly, then why didn't they say any of this last week?????
An excellent point, Ulle.
You'rs right.Last week it was righteous indignation on the part of the UCI.
This week it transpires that the UCI admit to actually talking to Ressiot.
So which story is right ?
I maintained from the outset that the UCI tipped off L'Equipe.
L'Equipe published UCI headed documents on 23th August identifying Armstrong.
The UCI have now admitted that they gave Ressiot one document at least.
I wager that the UCI gave all six positives to L'Equipe and they identified Armstrong to L'Equipe.
If they did it for one sample - they must have done it for the other five as well.
limerickman said:
I understand your desire not to have the lab or WADA implicated in this affair, but one of the main sticking points is the fact that labeled samples were shown in the initial story that broke. By WADA code any report coming from the lab on purely B samples has to remain anonymous and of a statistical nature only. The report should have said something like "we tested x number of samples and found y number to contain EPO". Instead they produced a report that had actual sample numbers in it. This is a clear violation of the WADA code. Someone at the lab is obviously in on this at the ground level and complicit through how many unknown others on the way to l'Equipe.
I know some of you don't care as to what means to an end has occured here, but the process is there for a reason. It is there to protect both the riders and the doping control officials from unfair persecution and to remain above reproach. It is rather sad to see that nailing one particular man would be worth throwing that process down the drain and reach the point where we have the lab, WADA and UCI all pointing fingers at each other the way they are now.
davidbod said:
Dave, I hear what you're saying.
But let's look at WADA, they tested samples and sent the results to the three
places, FFC, Ministry of Sport and the UCI.
WADA did not break a rule in doing this - they found results and they informed the appropriate authorities.
Separately, L'Equipe managed to get hold of the results and they managed to
match the results to Armstrong.
In printing it's story L'Equipe re-printed the UCI headed documents.
Not the FFC docs or the MOS docs - the UCI docs.
So there are two distinct issues. WADA and L'Equipe.
WADA's actions (in informing the appropriate authorities) may well be an issue
for those who deem that the failure to follow protocol was not adhered to.
I am not sure that there was any protocol to follow because the test's which were done could not be used to enforce sanctions (they only ever had one same).
So the protocols that people quote are probably only in effect if two samples
of the same specimen are examined, and not when one sample is examined.
The other issue of L'Equipe : it is now clear because the UCI itself tells us that they (UCI) had contact with L'Equipe. the UCI tipped L'Equipe in the case of at least one document.
It is evident that the docs re-printed in L'Equipe are UCI docs.
I think it is stretching it to suggest that WADA fed L'Equipe.
WADA fed the UCI, who in turn fed L'Equipe.
All of which is secondary to the fact that EPO was found in 6 separate samples.
If Armstrong isn't a doper how did EPO materialise in 6 of his samples ?
