Team Slipstream



nns1400 said:
I thought LA said that COFIDIS cut him loose while he was still sick (in his book).
They did. They sent a rep to his actual hospitol room with his walking papers.
 
wolfix said:
They did. They sent a rep to his actual hospitol room with his walking papers.
Cofidis, as per the contract with Armstrong, requested that he pass a physical. He refused and the team renegotiated his contract, lowering his salary from $1.2 million to about $800,000. He refused to sign the new contract and the team did not re-sign him. If I remember correctly (it;s in the Coyle book), Cofidis paid him some amount to terminate the contract.

Then Armstrong signed with USPS and received a base salary of about $400,000 with perfomance incentives on top.
 
earth_dweller said:
Cofidis, as per the contract with Armstrong, requested that he pass a physical. He refused and the team renegotiated his contract, lowering his salary from $1.2 million to about $800,000. He refused to sign the new contract and the team did not re-sign him. If I remember correctly (it;s in the Coyle book), Cofidis paid him some amount to terminate the contract.

Then Armstrong signed with USPS and received a base salary of about $400,000 with perfomance incentives on top.
Armstrong was requested to pass a physical. Problem?

He had to do it in France so he refused since he was undergoing chemotherapy in the U.S. and would fail it, obviously.

Cofidis sent a guy to the hospital room to see Lance and to cut a different deal since because he couldnt do the phsyical he could not get his full salary. Cofidis offered him a much much lower salary than what you quoted...otherwise Lance would have had no complaints.

The representative sent from France when Lance was in the throes of the worst phase of chemotherapy? Poor form to say the least...if they had waited a few months they would have had him back...but nooooooo...So the guy in the room sent the word back to headquarters that Lance was dying adn they offered I think a couple hundred thousand I think but to do so with the guy in the hospital bed. I dunno.

Anyway, the guy translating from French for Lance and his manager was....



none other than Paul SHerwen...and the deal is Lance was sooo sick that he probably only recalls what he was told later, but I cant divulge confidences on this subject.
 
As per the renegotiated contract he was suposed to ride in 4 races in 97. Armstrong did not, in fact, ride in four races as stipulated by the terms of his Cofidis agreement, so in August of 1997 the company decided to terminate the contract.
 
Bro Deal said:
You guys are so cynical. Slipstream has the best anti-doping program of any team. It's is way more comprehensive and intrusive than what the French teams have to ride under, and the French have not exactly been tearing up the ProTour races. It's a model for what the UCI should require.

Vaughters himself seems to be very ****** off that he was deceived by Armstrong and essentially tricked into doping. He appears determined to run his team so that riders are not pressured to dope. If he cannot succeed then no one can.
BD calling someone else cynical? Wow!
 
helmutRoole2 said:
This is what I've heard as well, and the union with Millar confirms it in my mind. Why doesn't Vaughters admit his past offenses?
I'm with wolfix and HR2. I could've given them the benefit of the doubt, but hiring Millar just doesn't bode well. Until Vaughters pulls a Riis, I don't trust the guy.
 
It's all my fault, i accidently mentioned LA, i really didnt mean to hijack the thread. Actually if you look back a couple of pages theres some pretty good discussion on slipstream, so how about we all forget about the last 2 pages, and get back to the point.
 
fscyclist said:
BD calling someone else cynical? Wow!
Okay, you got me there--usually.

I just think Slipstream's program is a model for what the UCI should have imposed years ago. It has a decent chance of eliminating the doping excesses we've seen since the start of the 90s.
 
fscyclist said:
I'm with wolfix and HR2. I could've given them the benefit of the doubt, but hiring Millar just doesn't bode well. Until Vaughters pulls a Riis, I don't trust the guy.
I've changed my mind now. I'm leery, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. After reading Bro's comments ref. their internal team testing and after reading Walsh's take on Vaughters, I'm willing to at least take a wait-and-see approach.

But if Millar starts winning mountain stages then all bets are off.
 
Slipstream will be as clean as:

USPO
Discovery
Festina
T-Mobile
Astana
Mapei
Robobank
AG2r
Liberty Seguros
Once
Banesto
PDM
Quick Step
Cofidis

Dirty! Vaughters is yet another Armstrong alumni fraud.

They have ZERO drug tests for 90% of the doping in use.
 
Doctor.House said:
Slipstream will be as clean as:

USPO
Discovery
Festina
T-Mobile
Astana
Mapei
Robobank
AG2r
Liberty Seguros
Once
Banesto
PDM
Quick Step
Cofidis

Dirty! Vaughters is yet another Armstrong alumni fraud.

They have ZERO drug tests for 90% of the doping in use.
Get a grip Doc. Slipstream as dirty as ONCE? Festina? Those teams rode in the days when there wasn't even an EPO test. Okay, say Slipstream isn't 100% clean for whatever reason, it still won't be doped to the gills like some of the teams you mention. It's Slipstream, not Slipknot. :rolleyes:
 
Rolfrae said:
Get a grip Doc. Slipstream as dirty as ONCE? Festina? Those teams rode in the days when there wasn't even an EPO test. Okay, say Slipstream isn't 100% clean for whatever reason, it still won't be doped to the gills like some of the teams you mention. It's Slipstream, not Slipknot. :rolleyes:
EPO test?????? What blood doping tests?

In 2007 EPO, RSR-13, C.E.R.A, human and cow blood are abused w/o any testing worries.

You have lost it.

THERE are NO drug tests for daily injections of micro dosed EPO. NONE.

Quit pandering to the Slipstream/UCI/WADA fraud theme.
 
Doctor.House said:
EPO test?????? What blood doping tests?

In 2007 EPO, RSR-13, C.E.R.A, human and cow blood are abused w/o any testing worries.

You have lost it.

THERE are NO drug tests for daily injections of micro dosed EPO. NONE.

Quit pandering to the Slipstream/UCI/WADA fraud theme.
Yes, you're right, no test for EPO micro dosing but for EPO macro dosing as ONCE et al used to do, there is a test.
 
Slipstream is a bad idea. If their riders have any success, the cynics (comprised of about 99% of people who follow cycling) will label them hypocrites. On the other hand, if they don't win anything, the lesson learned is that doping pays.

Either way, the entire premise strikes me as a load of grandstanding self-righteousness.
 
Rolfrae said:
Yes, you're right, no test for EPO micro dosing but for EPO macro dosing as ONCE et al used to do, there is a test.
True----but everyone injects on a daily basis now. And very few athletes are ever urine tested each day.

Only rare exceptions are caught now (Iban Mayo, Nina Kraft, Marion Jones)

Most EPO users are NEVER caught.

Slipstream will slip right through the doping controls, just as Once did.
 
IH8LANCE said:
Slipstream is a bad idea. If their riders have any success, the cynics (comprised of about 99% of people who follow cycling) will label them hypocrites. On the other hand, if they don't win anything, the lesson learned is that doping pays.

Either way, the entire premise strikes me as a load of grandstanding self-righteousness.
It's the only way to get invited to all the races, by proving in-team you are clean. Until the UCI isn't a sham and is a bona fide law-enforcing regulator teams will have to take the testing into their own hands.
 
Doctor.House said:
True----but everyone injects on a daily basis now. And very few athletes are ever urine tested each day.

Only rare exceptions are caught now (Iban Mayo, Nina Kraft, Marion Jones)

Most EPO users are NEVER caught.

Slipstream will slip right through the doping controls, just as Once did.

Holdup there, Doc:

Vaughters has stated that his teams testings will be carried out by an independent testing authority.
Testing of urine and testing of blood, will be carried out.
Riders will be tested throughout the 12 calendar months by the independent testing body.

Each riders physiological profile - information on their bio-markers - will be forwarded WADA/UCI.
Therefore the ultimate body for anti-doping will have a physiological profile of all Slipstram riders.

This is a 1000% improvement on the status quo that pertains throughout the sport.
I would have thought that someone who campaigned on the anti-doping issue, like you, would welcome this improvement?
 
What would you suggest they do? Really this negativism is reaching a non functional point.

I believe that the 90% cynical figure represents people on this forum, not cycling fans in general. A lot of them are like myself, a guarded optimism that this beautiful sport can regain it's character. One of the first steps in saving cycling is to stop turning it into a magnet for nihilists.

Now that they've picked up Magnus, Slipstream has a real shot at greatness. An American team that can have Disco success without Disco arrogance. Sounds good to me.


IH8LANCE said:
Slipstream is a bad idea. If their riders have any success, the cynics (comprised of about 99% of people who follow cycling) will label them hypocrites. On the other hand, if they don't win anything, the lesson learned is that doping pays.

Either way, the entire premise strikes me as a load of grandstanding self-righteousness.
 

Similar threads