Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
musette said:
Reason based on other aspects!
Is joining a Jan Ullrich website and attempting to masquarade as a Jan Ullrich fan reasonable?
And on joining that site, is posting tracts and tracts of waffle about Armstrong, reasonable?
The forum would engage with you, if you were not as disingenuous as you have proven to be.
And spare us the gender invoking - you're a cretin.
I agree. People (i.e. FS and Lim) should be ashamed for the things said on this thread.Rolfrae said:
Sometimes I wonder if you're taking the ****, Limerickman. But then you could never be taking the **** as much as Sean Kelly, who apparently "borrowed" some of his mechanics **** in order to evade a dope control after Paris-Bruxelles in the mid 80's - only to discover that said mechanic had been taking "stuff" to stay awake during the wee small hours of the night.... Tragic irony.limerickman said:
Jesus Pat don't cave under the pressure. Should you really be making comment before all the facts come out ? and a case is submitted ? At this rate Stefan Scheuey will be riding the Paris-Roubaix...
swampy1970 said:
In addition to affirming that LA had a right to take a shower, McQuaid noted:
"McQuaid, president of the UCI, who told the BBC: "The French are not acting very professionally in this case.""
http://www.velonews.com/article/90433/uci-chief-pat-mcquaid-says-lance-armstrong-had-every-right
"McQuaid, president of the UCI, who told the BBC: "The French are not acting very professionally in this case.""
http://www.velonews.com/article/90433/uci-chief-pat-mcquaid-says-lance-armstrong-had-every-right
swampy1970 said:
Swampy, I wasn't taking the **** in this instance.
I make no apology for reminding the forum about the activities of Musette and her warped modus operandi.
swampy1970 said:
.........indeed.
Am I supposed to now make a retort about an english doper, swampy?
musette said:
Lance is taking the high road on this one(so much for posters that said he'd lawyer up). Now all thats left is for the scoundrels to do their dirty work.
"I have a passion for cycling still, but more importantly I have a passion for the global fight against cancer.
"I wanted to tell that story in France but if we can't do that we can't do that. It's their call, it's their country, their event, their rules so we have to play by those."
Bro Deal said:
The athlete is obliged to stay in attendance with the testing official at all times.
The obligations on the athlete - not the tester.
If the AFLD follow similar guidlines to WADA then this really should be an done deal for one party or the other as they're supposed to document, and provide signed copies of the following to both parties. It's not like any of the she said/she said stuff shouldn't be documented. At the end of the day it's going to come down pretty much to what's on this documentation, one would think...
... but then again, this wouldn't be the first time that French Labs have come up short in the documentation front.
7.4.4 The DCO shall provide the Athlete with the opportunity to document any concerns he/she may have about how the Sample Collection Session was conducted.
7.4.5 In conducting the Sample Collection Session the following information
shall be recorded as a minimum:
a) Date, time and type of notification (No Advance Notice, advance notice, In-Competition or Out-of-Competition);
b) Arrival time at Doping Control Station;
c) Date and time of Sample provision;
d) The name of the Athlete;
e) The date of birth of the Athlete;
f) The gender of the Athlete;
g) The Athlete's home address and telephone number;
h) The Athlete’s sport and discipline;
International Standard for Testing, January 2009 38 of 91
i) The name of the Athlete’s coach and doctor;
j) The Sample code number;
k) The name and signature of the witnessing DCO/Chaperone;
l) The name and signature of the Blood Collection Officer (where applicable);
m) Required laboratory information on the Sample;
n) Medications and supplements taken and recent blood transfusion details
(if applicable) within the timeframe specified by the laboratory, as declared by the Athlete;
o) Any irregularities in procedures;
p) Athlete comments or concerns regarding the conduct of the Sample Collection Session, if provided;
q) Athlete consent for the processing of test data in ADAMS;
r) Athlete consent or otherwise for the use of the Sample(s) for research
purposes;
s) The name and signature of the Athlete’s representative (if applicable), as
per Clause 7.4.6;
t) The name and signature of the Athlete; and
u) The name and signature of the DCO.
7.4.6 At the conclusion of the Sample Collection Session the Athlete and DCO shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session, including any concerns recorded by the Athlete. The Athlete’s representative (if any) and the Athlete shall both sign the documentation if the Athlete is a Minor. Other persons present who had a formal role during the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings.
7.4.7 The DCO shall provide the Athlete with a copy of the records of the
Sample Collection Session that have been signed by the Athlete.
... but then again, this wouldn't be the first time that French Labs have come up short in the documentation front.
7.4.4 The DCO shall provide the Athlete with the opportunity to document any concerns he/she may have about how the Sample Collection Session was conducted.
7.4.5 In conducting the Sample Collection Session the following information
shall be recorded as a minimum:
a) Date, time and type of notification (No Advance Notice, advance notice, In-Competition or Out-of-Competition);
b) Arrival time at Doping Control Station;
c) Date and time of Sample provision;
d) The name of the Athlete;
e) The date of birth of the Athlete;
f) The gender of the Athlete;
g) The Athlete's home address and telephone number;
h) The Athlete’s sport and discipline;
International Standard for Testing, January 2009 38 of 91
i) The name of the Athlete’s coach and doctor;
j) The Sample code number;
k) The name and signature of the witnessing DCO/Chaperone;
l) The name and signature of the Blood Collection Officer (where applicable);
m) Required laboratory information on the Sample;
n) Medications and supplements taken and recent blood transfusion details
(if applicable) within the timeframe specified by the laboratory, as declared by the Athlete;
o) Any irregularities in procedures;
p) Athlete comments or concerns regarding the conduct of the Sample Collection Session, if provided;
q) Athlete consent for the processing of test data in ADAMS;
r) Athlete consent or otherwise for the use of the Sample(s) for research
purposes;
s) The name and signature of the Athlete’s representative (if applicable), as
per Clause 7.4.6;
t) The name and signature of the Athlete; and
u) The name and signature of the DCO.
7.4.6 At the conclusion of the Sample Collection Session the Athlete and DCO shall sign appropriate documentation to indicate their satisfaction that the documentation accurately reflects the details of the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session, including any concerns recorded by the Athlete. The Athlete’s representative (if any) and the Athlete shall both sign the documentation if the Athlete is a Minor. Other persons present who had a formal role during the Athlete’s Sample Collection Session may sign the documentation as a witness of the proceedings.
7.4.7 The DCO shall provide the Athlete with a copy of the records of the
Sample Collection Session that have been signed by the Athlete.
5.4.1 obliges the athlete to remain insight of the tester after being notified by the tester that a sample is required.limerickman said:
5.4.2 obliges the tester to keep the athlete in sight.
limerickman said:
Here's the article I quoted from L-Man.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/7993738.stm
The high road, huh? The man hid from the dope testers. He left the sight of the tester for haf an hour, probably to mask dope use. What other reason did he have for knowlingly and intentionally violating the code
You seem to have me confused with someone who actually gives a damn. It's nothing but a big soap opera and I'm glad Lance has matured enough to see it for what it is. All thats left is for the scoundrels to do the dirty work and you and yours to go celebrate - hopefully fully credentialed this time.
Bike N Ski said:
Thanks for the link.
And no, I haven't got you confused with anyone else.
I asked you for the link, because I was interested in reading the comment attributed to Armstrong.
Nothing more.
I think Armstrongs arguement is simply that they didn't know that the tester was a real tester and until said tester had proven his identity the rules do not apply. Probably felt like screwing with the guy because he was AFLD, now AFLD are trying to screw with Armstrong. Playground arguement really, Armstrong should promise to grow up and then this can be binned and forgotten about.
Similar threads
- Kurgan Gringioni
- Road Cycling
- Ronde Champ
- Road Cycling
