UCI statement on L'Equipe allegations

[Paul Turner]

There is an interesting statement now online from the UCI about the
allegations against Lance Armstrong. It can be found at
www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep09news3



It is harshly critical of L'Equipe and of the president of the World
Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It says the UCI has not yet been given any
information officially by anyone involved, even though it has asked and WADA
agrees that the UCI has jurisdiction over the case. One paragraph of the
statement suggests that the UCI believes the author of the article lied
about the investigation on which he claimed the article was based, committed
some kind of fraud to get the documents that link the suspect test to
Armstrong, and was looking for evidence only against Armstrong, not about
doping generally:



"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. His
subsequent public statements tend to confirm that he was targeting a
particular athlete and that the newspaper was only given doping control
forms relating to this athlete."



--

Paul Turner

 

[Bill]

Paul Turner wrote:
> There is an interesting statement now online from the UCI about the
> allegations against Lance Armstrong. It can be found at
> www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep09news3
>
>
>
> It is harshly critical of L'Equipe and of the president of the World
> Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It says the UCI has not yet been given any
> information officially by anyone involved, even though it has asked and WADA
> agrees that the UCI has jurisdiction over the case. One paragraph of the
> statement suggests that the UCI believes the author of the article lied
> about the investigation on which he claimed the article was based, committed
> some kind of fraud to get the documents that link the suspect test to
> Armstrong, and was looking for evidence only against Armstrong, not about
> doping generally:
>
>
>
> "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. His
> subsequent public statements tend to confirm that he was targeting a
> particular athlete and that the newspaper was only given doping control
> forms relating to this athlete."
>
>
>
> --
>
> Paul Turner
>
>
Just face it, the French are **** poor losers, just because it is their
race.
Bill Baka

 

[me]

**** poor loosers of is this a publicity stunt to get back the man who has
made the Tour a true International event not just a European Event. Anglo
dollars are worth more than Frog dollers

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Paul Turner wrote:
>> There is an interesting statement now online from the UCI about the
>> allegations against Lance Armstrong. It can be found at
>> www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep09news3
>>
>>
>>
>> It is harshly critical of L'Equipe and of the president of the World
>> Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It says the UCI has not yet been given any
>> information officially by anyone involved, even though it has asked and
>> WADA agrees that the UCI has jurisdiction over the case. One paragraph of
>> the statement suggests that the UCI believes the author of the article
>> lied about the investigation on which he claimed the article was based,
>> committed some kind of fraud to get the documents that link the suspect
>> test to Armstrong, and was looking for evidence only against Armstrong,
>> not about doping generally:
>>
>>
>>
>> "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. His subsequent public statements tend to confirm that he was
>> targeting a particular athlete and that the newspaper was only given
>> doping control forms relating to this athlete."
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Paul Turner
>>
>>
> Just face it, the French are **** poor losers, just because it is their
> race.
> Bill Baka

 

[me]

Man my spelling is poor I should stop drinking this Aussie Charonnay
"me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> **** poor loosers of is this a publicity stunt to get back the man who has
> made the Tour a true International event not just a European Event. Anglo
> dollars are worth more than Frog dollers
>
> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Paul Turner wrote:
>>> There is an interesting statement now online from the UCI about the
>>> allegations against Lance Armstrong. It can be found at
>>> www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/sep05/sep09news3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is harshly critical of L'Equipe and of the president of the World
>>> Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). It says the UCI has not yet been given any
>>> information officially by anyone involved, even though it has asked and
>>> WADA agrees that the UCI has jurisdiction over the case. One paragraph
>>> of the statement suggests that the UCI believes the author of the
>>> article lied about the investigation on which he claimed the article was
>>> based, committed some kind of fraud to get the documents that link the
>>> suspect test to Armstrong, and was looking for evidence only against
>>> Armstrong, not about doping generally:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "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. His subsequent public statements tend
>>> to confirm that he was targeting a particular athlete and that the
>>> newspaper was only given doping control forms relating to this athlete."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Paul Turner
>>>
>>>
>> Just face it, the French are **** poor losers, just because it is their
>> race.
>> Bill Baka
>
>