UCI Announcement.... they will take no action...
- Thread starter whiteboytrash
- Start date
musette said:From UCI statement: "As for the article itself, the author claims to have been working on the story for four months, when in fact it seems that his 'investigation' was limited to receiving confidential information related to testing conducted by the laboratory and confidential doping control documents, including confidential documents which he was able to consult at the UCI after receiving, under false pretext, the authorization of Lance Armstrong."
This hints at malconduct on the part of the journalist. I wonder if he will be pursued by the French authorities.
........err, the UCI is a Swiss-based organisation.
France and Switzerland are separate countries.
Good to see that the UCI admit that it was they who leaked the documents to the journalist.
(although Verbruggen can't bring himself to admit that).
VeloFlash said:
While it was USADA and not CAS that imposed the sanctions, the rest of that statement appears to be correct. If attacks on Lance should adhere to commonly accepted rules of evidence, then the defence of Tyler should meet the same test.
Granted, the flow cytometry test used to nail Tyler was a bit, um, bleeding edge, it did catch two people on the same team, and the chain of evidence with the Vuelta test is a lot more solid than this mess with L'Equipe.
If Tyler can prove his case the way Beke did, he might get the decision overturned. So far, his defence team has done a pretty poor job, proposing theories without a great deal of evidence to back them up. Either prove the test is flawed, or show how you did generate a false positive.
limerickman said:........err, the UCI is a Swiss-based organisation.
France and Switzerland are separate countries.QUOTE]
Your focus on the UCI's organization doesn't take into account that the criminal prosecutors would not be bound by any cycling orgnazation even if the UCI were in France. Your assumption was interesting.
Don't want to put too fine a point on it, but I will for clarification.JohnO said:
USADA were the Claimant and Tyler Hamilton was the Respondent before the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel. The Panel comprised two Canadians and one American. The Hearing was conducted under American Arbitration Association rules which entitled the Respondent, Tyler Hamilton, to select one of the panelists. The American panelist was selected by the Respondent and dissented.
The CAS Panel made the finding and imposed the sanction.
I consider you would agree that it would not be seen to be justice if USADA sat in judgement of itself
Well at least he didn't totally make it up like the New York Times does here in the States. LOL.musette said:From UCI statement: "As for the article itself, the author claims to have been working on the story for four months, when in fact it seems that his 'investigation' was limited to receiving confidential information related to testing conducted by the laboratory and confidential doping control documents, including confidential documents which he was able to consult at the UCI after receiving, under false pretext, the authorization of Lance Armstrong."
This hints at malconduct on the part of the journalist. I wonder if he will be pursued by the French authorities.
limerickman said:
He didn't fail any dope test, which is why he won't be prosecuted. There's a protocal and a process that needs to be followed to establish a positive, and it wasn't followed in this case.
In all tests on LA where the protocol has been followed (hundreds of tests over many years), test results have been negative every time.
Okay, I stand corrected. I didn't want to believe that Tyler was guilty, but the evidence looks fairly solid, and his defence so far has been fairly weak.
VeloFlash said:Don't want to put too fine a point on it, but I will for clarification.
USADA were the Claimant and Tyler Hamilton was the Respondent before the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport Panel. The Panel comprised two Canadians and one American. The Hearing was conducted under American Arbitration Association rules which entitled the Respondent, Tyler Hamilton, to select one of the panelists. The American panelist was selected by the Respondent and dissented.
The CAS Panel made the finding and imposed the sanction.
I consider you would agree that it would not be seen to be justice if USADA sat in judgement of itself
azdroptop said:
Phew, that's OK then.
Interesting to see today's Equipe online (Saturday) in response to the UCI's statement. Their reporting is at best selective, and at worst misleading. The thrust of it is that the UCI criticises **** and his mates at the WADA. There's no mention of any implied or real criticism of L'Equipe on the part of the UCI.
I can't bring myself to buy the print version (I'm in Europe) to check, but can't imagine it's any more balanced.
bing181 said:
and why can't you bring yourself to purchase L'Equipe, pray tell ?
Can't be seen to be buying that publication, perchance ?
.........or maybe the plummeting dollar has restricted your Euro budget ?
(The cover price of €2.00 must be really exhorbitant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
LOL. I think it is the plummeting dollar. We are going broke over hear in the states. I had to eat out of a dumpster tonight.hombredesubaru said:
Me too. Man money is tight these days. Funny how Liney likes to not only Jab LA, but us Americans too. Of course he tries to hide his dislike behind a bit of humor....thebluetrain said:LOL. I think it is the plummeting dollar. We are going broke over hear in the states. I had to eat out of a dumpster tonight.
limerickman said:
That about sums up your contribution to the discussion.
You make assumptions about my nationality without any information to support those assumptions, you turn a discussion into a personal jibe/joke, and the one piece of factual information in your post (the price of L'Equipe) is incorrect. It's €.95 in France (for example).
thebluetrain said:LOL. I think it is the plummeting dollar. We are going broke over hear in the states. I had to eat out of a dumpster tonight.
it was meant as a joke.
prices dearer in ireland die to import costs, shops etc......bing181 said:
he made no assumption about your nationality,
it seems to me that from reading the posts on this forum that the majority of americans on here (Not all) are racist and xenophobic
bing181 said:
it was meant as a joke.
But hey, certain posters want to turn this discussion about Armstrong's six positives in to a France slagging match (mostly Stateside contributors, I might add).
For the record L'Equipe sells at €2.00 per copy here in Ireland.
It may well be only €0.95 in France, as you say.
Ullefan said:
Ummmm... yeah. I'm biased towards LA's innocence even though in the very post you're responding to I say (and I quote):
meehs said:
Despite the fact that I made that statement, according to you: "I'm biased towards Lance's innocence no matter how I dispute it."
All anyone with half a brain has to do is read through this thread to see who's being objective and who's letting thier feelings towards LA completely taint their opinions. It's very obvious.
If you (and others) want to go on living in your little fantasy world and believe that Ullrich and LA's otehr top competitors are clean and that LA has only won because of PED's, that's your prerogative. Ignorance is bliss!
For those having trouble believing that the UCI could be corrupt at the helm of Verbruggen or if they really are fighting the war of drugs; I came across this interesting chapter from a re-read of ***** Voet’s ‘Breaking the chain’… also made me think if Armstrong produced his medical certificate for cortisone before or after his positive in 1999 ? Its worth the read if you have the time....
(***** Voet was the soigneur for Festina from 1994-1998 and prepared the drugs and dosages for the riders)
________
Ten days after Laurent Brochard won the world championships at San Sebastian in 1997 the phone rang in my house. It was Patrick Cluzard, the French National trainer. I was out, my wife Sylvie gave him the number of my mobile. A little later, on the motorway in the South of France, I had a call from Charly Mottet, who was the National team manager that year.
‘Hi, ***** ? Come on, what the **** is going on ? What the hell were you pushing at the world’s ? Someone told me that Brochard is positive.’
I almost ran into the barriers. I had looked after three Festina riders in the French team, Brochard, Virenque and Herve, and they had nothing that could have a caused a positive test. So first of all, what was he positive for ?
’They found Lidocaine in his urine’
I knew this particular anti-inflammatory, but didn’t have any in my soigneur’s armoury. Either it had not come from me, or there has been a mistake, but I couldn’t give Charly an explaination. To get the heart of the problem, I headed straight for the team stores at Meyzieu. As I drove, I tried to work what could of happened. I had half an idea in my mind. Usually Brochard was in the care of another soigneur in the team. I knew that sometimes he gave particular drugs to the guys he was looking after to use at races when he wasn’t there. If this was the situation, Brochard took a small bag with him. The soigneur had been in San Sebastian off his own bat, not as part of the French team staff. This often happened at the French Championships or the world championships, where there are always guys hanging around the team hotels. The national teams can point the finger at them, but can’t formally stop them being there.
At Meyzieu, looking through the soigneur’s personal chemistry set, I came across some Inzitan, the Spanish equivalent of good old fashion French corticosteroids like Soludecadron. Reading the label, there was no room for doubt. The stuff definitely contained Lidocaine and it was Lidocaine which had screwed up everything. It made you want to bang your head against the wall. I called Bruno Roussell at once (Team Manager of Festina), against Charly Mottet’s will because he had fallen out with my team manger shortly before the world championships. The problem was that Mottet did not want to see anyone in the team hotel apart from the people who were officaly a members of the French team. Bruno could not believe his ears. We hung up, the he called me back to tell me that we had three days to put together a medical file, that is to say to come up with a therapeutic justification for the use of ant-inflammatory, as the UCI permits this in certain cases. I don’t know who he spoke to between the conversations.
Officially the medical certificate should have been presented when the rider took the drugs test, but it seems that the UCI didn’t care in the slightest if the prescription had been drawn up before or after the world championships. The important thing was to keep up appearances. They were kept up. Brochard had been having problems with his back for a long time; he had a hernia which he wanted to have operated on and which he preferred to treat with hydrotherapy. It was a godsend. So I suggested to Bruno that we put in a predated certificate drawn up by the team’s Spanish doctor, Fernando Jimenez.
The explanatory form, dated before the positive test and drawn up after it, didn’t cause the international bodies any qualms. It was unethical – but we abandoned ethics a long ago – and against their own rules. The UCI states loudly, through it president (Hein Verbruggen), that its fighting doping, but it turned a blind eye to an affair which was made all the more embarrassing by the fact that it is the organiser of the world championships. In my eyes, there was only one way out left for the president responsible at the time: resignation.
(***** Voet was the soigneur for Festina from 1994-1998 and prepared the drugs and dosages for the riders)
________
Ten days after Laurent Brochard won the world championships at San Sebastian in 1997 the phone rang in my house. It was Patrick Cluzard, the French National trainer. I was out, my wife Sylvie gave him the number of my mobile. A little later, on the motorway in the South of France, I had a call from Charly Mottet, who was the National team manager that year.
‘Hi, ***** ? Come on, what the **** is going on ? What the hell were you pushing at the world’s ? Someone told me that Brochard is positive.’
I almost ran into the barriers. I had looked after three Festina riders in the French team, Brochard, Virenque and Herve, and they had nothing that could have a caused a positive test. So first of all, what was he positive for ?
’They found Lidocaine in his urine’
I knew this particular anti-inflammatory, but didn’t have any in my soigneur’s armoury. Either it had not come from me, or there has been a mistake, but I couldn’t give Charly an explaination. To get the heart of the problem, I headed straight for the team stores at Meyzieu. As I drove, I tried to work what could of happened. I had half an idea in my mind. Usually Brochard was in the care of another soigneur in the team. I knew that sometimes he gave particular drugs to the guys he was looking after to use at races when he wasn’t there. If this was the situation, Brochard took a small bag with him. The soigneur had been in San Sebastian off his own bat, not as part of the French team staff. This often happened at the French Championships or the world championships, where there are always guys hanging around the team hotels. The national teams can point the finger at them, but can’t formally stop them being there.
At Meyzieu, looking through the soigneur’s personal chemistry set, I came across some Inzitan, the Spanish equivalent of good old fashion French corticosteroids like Soludecadron. Reading the label, there was no room for doubt. The stuff definitely contained Lidocaine and it was Lidocaine which had screwed up everything. It made you want to bang your head against the wall. I called Bruno Roussell at once (Team Manager of Festina), against Charly Mottet’s will because he had fallen out with my team manger shortly before the world championships. The problem was that Mottet did not want to see anyone in the team hotel apart from the people who were officaly a members of the French team. Bruno could not believe his ears. We hung up, the he called me back to tell me that we had three days to put together a medical file, that is to say to come up with a therapeutic justification for the use of ant-inflammatory, as the UCI permits this in certain cases. I don’t know who he spoke to between the conversations.
Officially the medical certificate should have been presented when the rider took the drugs test, but it seems that the UCI didn’t care in the slightest if the prescription had been drawn up before or after the world championships. The important thing was to keep up appearances. They were kept up. Brochard had been having problems with his back for a long time; he had a hernia which he wanted to have operated on and which he preferred to treat with hydrotherapy. It was a godsend. So I suggested to Bruno that we put in a predated certificate drawn up by the team’s Spanish doctor, Fernando Jimenez.
The explanatory form, dated before the positive test and drawn up after it, didn’t cause the international bodies any qualms. It was unethical – but we abandoned ethics a long ago – and against their own rules. The UCI states loudly, through it president (Hein Verbruggen), that its fighting doping, but it turned a blind eye to an affair which was made all the more embarrassing by the fact that it is the organiser of the world championships. In my eyes, there was only one way out left for the president responsible at the time: resignation.
It goes from bad to worse for Armstrong... dodgy financial dealings... oh dear...
Schenk criticises UCI over Armstrong case
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3
Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer and member of the UCI management committee, has criticized the handling of the latest doping charges against Lance Armstrong, saying that the UCI and its president Hein Verbruggen "are less interested in the resolution of the Armstrong doping case than they are in finding the leak."
In an interview with Sport1.de, she said that the UCI is apparently looking for whoever it was who helped L'Equipe put a name to the samples. "Verbruggen is making progress slower than expected," she said. "At first they thought it was someone in the French Ministry. But the informer can also have been someone who works for the UCI." Schenk has previously denied to Cyclingnews that it could be her.
Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market."
In addition, Schenk said that the German teams T-Mobile and Gerolsteiner had potential problems getting their Pro Tour licenses last year. The UCI's guidelines violate EC rules, she said, for example requiring the teams to hire all riders as salaried employees rather than as freelance workers. The two German teams wanted to protest that requirement, but, "The UCI threatened both teams with non-participation in the Pro Tour. And that would have upset the sponsors."
Schenk criticises UCI over Armstrong case
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep15news3
Sylvia Schenk, ex-President of the Bund Deutsche Radfahrer and member of the UCI management committee, has criticized the handling of the latest doping charges against Lance Armstrong, saying that the UCI and its president Hein Verbruggen "are less interested in the resolution of the Armstrong doping case than they are in finding the leak."
In an interview with Sport1.de, she said that the UCI is apparently looking for whoever it was who helped L'Equipe put a name to the samples. "Verbruggen is making progress slower than expected," she said. "At first they thought it was someone in the French Ministry. But the informer can also have been someone who works for the UCI." Schenk has previously denied to Cyclingnews that it could be her.
Schenk noted further that since 1998, much has been done to combat doping in cycling, "But everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong...There is obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong - as far as I know, $500,000. Now of course there is speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as to the American market."
In addition, Schenk said that the German teams T-Mobile and Gerolsteiner had potential problems getting their Pro Tour licenses last year. The UCI's guidelines violate EC rules, she said, for example requiring the teams to hire all riders as salaried employees rather than as freelance workers. The two German teams wanted to protest that requirement, but, "The UCI threatened both teams with non-participation in the Pro Tour. And that would have upset the sponsors."
Similar threads
