A conspiracy?
See here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters.php? ... 3letters#6
It's clear from the cyclingnews.com letters than many Americans take a different view from the views expressed on here. In general, the posters here tend to see the UCI and McQuaid as bumbling, sloth-like fools. But the US fans on cyclingnews portray ASO as sinister plotters and the UCI are the good guys.
No doubt the truth is in between. But how can you get many indulging in weird conspiracy theories? Do people really think like this? Are American cycling fans so insecure they worry about malign plots against their compatriots? I just get baffled by the cyclingnews letters...
It's clear from the cyclingnews.com letters than many Americans take a different view from the views expressed on here. In general, the posters here tend to see the UCI and McQuaid as bumbling, sloth-like fools. But the US fans on cyclingnews portray ASO as sinister plotters and the UCI are the good guys.
No doubt the truth is in between. But how can you get many indulging in weird conspiracy theories? Do people really think like this? Are American cycling fans so insecure they worry about malign plots against their compatriots? I just get baffled by the cyclingnews letters...
0
Comments
-
I don't know - It's all a bit baffling. But then, look at the way Cycling Weekly wet their pants when RCS initially didn't invite High Horse to the Giro - Would they have given a monkeys if there were no British riders on that team? I suspect not.
But also, if you look at some of the opinions expressed on this forum there is some pretty blantant anti-Americanism.
The sooner people realise that countries are a 19'th century idea and move on the easier things will be.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I feel the answer is, for the most part, two-fold. Firstly over in the US France is often portrayed by the moguls who control the US media as being some sort of 'lefty', almost communistic state opposed to everything 'Uncle Sam' stands for. (Including the invasion of Iraq). Anti-French hate in the US is not just restricted to cycling forums. I have even seen sites selling merchandise such as T-Shirts printed with things such as "George Bush's to do list: 1) Bomb Iraq, 2) Bomb France" and "French Kryponite" alongside a bar of soap. From this arises the presupposition that anything which favours 'Frence interests' is intrinsically wrong. Hence in the ASO/UCI spat they automatically side against the ASO. (I have also seen evidence of similar prejudice from British commentators and Pat McQuaid himself, so it's not a purely an 'American' phenomenon).Kléber wrote:See here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters.php? ... 3letters#6
Do people really think like this? Are American cycling fans so insecure they worry about malign plots against their compatriots? I just get baffled by the cyclingnews letters...
Secondly, a certain American cyclist 'won' the Tour a number of times and given that the Tour is on French soil, and the dope testing procedures for the Tour naturally involve the French national anti-doping lab, and a certain French sports paper has not shied away from revealing the darks side of the "Armstrong Myth' many American cycling fans hate 'the French' for sullying the myth of 'his Holiness'. This hate was compounded when 'The French' caught another of their countrymen trying to dope his way to another 'American' Tour win.
I saw a revealing insight into the sort of psychology you refer to in an American cycling forum. In response to someone asking if people really were 'dumb' enough to believe that Landis was clean someone posted up a picture of American troops gloating over the body of a dead Iraqi saying "These guys say we can be as dumb as we like". A 'joke' maybe, but many Americans do seem to believe that, being the most powerful nation on earth, it is an affront that anyone should challenge 'The American way' and desire for 'Full-Spectrum dominance', even when that is expressed in the form of a fellow American dominating the Tour de France, and especially when that challenges comes from a bunch of 'Pinko, cheese-eating surrender monkeys'.0 -
Kléber wrote:Are American cycling fans so insecure they worry about malign plots against their compatriots? I just get baffled by the cyclingnews letters...
Perhaps they just suffer from a sort of collective guilt complex.
Political Science
by Randy Newman
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now0 -
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!! And I thought I was alone in this belief.iainf72 wrote:The sooner people realise that countries are a 19'th century idea and move on the easier things will be.0 -
It cuts both ways, look at the levels of rabid anti-americanism in the media in Europe.
Countries a 19th Century idea? I think you need to revisit your history books there.
As for things being easier without countries, care to tell us what you feel they should be replaced with? Religious differentiation, political, racial, language-based?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Really? I have certainly seen criticism of the US invasion of Iraq, the phoney 'war on terror', the refusal of the US to address issues such as climate change, sign up to chemical and biological warfare treaties and so on, but who (other than the likes of Donald Rumsfeld) would seriously argue that such criticism was 'rabid anti-Americanism' rather than simply valid criticism of US policy?OffTheBackAdam wrote:It cuts both ways, look at the levels of rabid anti-americanism in the media in Europe.
I certainly haven't seen an 'anti-American' French equivalent of those sites which propagate anti-French propaganda and sell anti-French hate merchandise in the US! For example...
http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff/1333790 -
For another take on this consider the lengths the UCI went to protect the reputation of Armstrong, a rider who they considered not just to be the ideal 'saviour' of the Tour after the Festina scandal but also just the sort of non- "mafia Western European nation" winner who perfectly fitted in with their concept of 'globalised cycling'.Kléber wrote:US fans on cyclingnews portray ASO as sinister plotters and the UCI are the good guys.
One of the most obvious examples of this was that 'hatchet job' on the LNDD orchestrated by Hein Verbruggen in the wake of Armstrong's retrospective 'positives' for Epo in the 1999 Tour. Verbruggen commissioned Dutch lawyer Emile Vrijman to write a scathing report on the LNDD, a report which led Dick Pound to say "The Vrijman Report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical." Armstrong's fans lapped it up of course.
Similarly, McQuaid has often gone out of his way to pander to the anti-French prejudices of a sizable sector of American fans. For example, McQuaid excused the early release of Landis' Tour positive by the UCI by saying "we know that the French laboratory has a close connection with L’Équipe, and we did not want this news to come through the press, because we are sure they would have leaked it."
When McQuaid made his comment about Landis he knew full well all the controversy which had been spun about the LNDD supposedly 'leaking' Armstrong's 'positives' for EPO from the 1999 Tour. In reality the journalist who put the story together about Armstrong's EPO positives got the information he needed through official channels, not least the UCI's own medical officer (and with the agreement of Armstrong's lawyer!). However despite this the myth was spun that LNDD 'leaked' the results, something which was all apart of the determined effort to discredit the LNDD (especially by Hein Verbruggen of the UCI, as is noted above) so as to ensure that no further action could be taken against Armstrong.
Given this background McQuaid's 'leak' comments were a deliberate attempt both to further the rewriting of history regarding Armstrong's positives and to undermine the credibility of the French national anti doping lab, a strange thing for a President of the UCI to do especially when the UCI is supposed to be committed to fighting doping. In turn his statement also gave indirect support to those who like to believe that Landis' positive was some sort of 'conspiracy' by 'the French' to stop Landis scoring another 'American' win in the Tour. (A crazy notion, especially given that the ASO needed the Landis doping scandal like a bullet in the head). McQuaid certainly cannot have been unaware of the controversial nature of what he said.
Again, just consider how McQuaid said that the refusal of the ASO to invite Astana was "a decision made in France by a French organisation purely for the French public". Again, he knew exactly who he was pandering to when saying this. That is those who seriously believe that the 'real' reason Astana have not been invited is so that Leipheimer cannot score another 'American' Tour win. As if 'The French' for the most part give two hoots about who wins the Tour anymore!
All in all the UCI/Verbruggen/McQuaid have 'protected the interests' of certain American riders very well in recent years and so it is no wonder that many American cycling fans are now saying 'thanks' by siding with the UCI in their war on the ASO.0 -
A L'equipe journo quite possibly had his mate testing Armstrong samples, unless WADA breached privacy...that's never been answered re AUgust 2005...if anyone did a number on someone , it was L'equipeASO-WADA on LA0
-
No one 'did a number' on Armstrong. Damien Ressiot got the data he needed to 'blow the gaff' on Armstrong through official channels, in particular the UCI's medical director. True enough he didn't let on what he was looking for, getting the required doping control forms on the premise that he wanted to prove, though Armstrong's Therapeutic Exemption Certificates (or rather lack of them), that Armstrong was demonstrably 'clean'. The ASO's Tour organisers played no part in this, the required doping control forms (which gave both the rider details and rider codes) came from Mario Zorzoli, the UCI's medical director and the test results (with just the code numbers) were published officially by the lab and WADA.Dave_1 wrote:A L'equipe journo quite possibly had his mate testing Armstrong samples, unless WADA breached privacy...that's never been answered re AUgust 2005...if anyone did a number on someone , it was L'equipeASO-WADA on LA
So what if Ressiot was not fully open about what he was up to, or was acting on 'rumours' he had heard? That's what good investigative journalism is all about. What has never been properly answered is why Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples showed evidence of Epo use, even if the lack of 'B' samples and so on meant that Armstrong could not be officially investigated for this. I would say that the one person 'doing a number' in all this was Armstrong himself!0 -
aurelio wrote:
No one 'did a number' on Armstrong. Damien Ressiot got the data he needed to 'blow the gaff' on Armstrong through official channels, in particular the UCI's medical director. True enough he didn't let on what he was looking for, getting the required doping control forms on the premise that he wanted to prove, though Armstrong's Therapeutic Exemption Certificates (or rather lack of them), that Armstrong was demonstrably 'clean'. The ASO's Tour organisers played no part in this, the required doping control forms (which gave both the rider details and rider codes) came from Mario Zorzoli, the UCI's medical director and the test results (with just the code numbers) were published officially by the lab and WADA.Dave_1 wrote:A L'equipe journo quite possibly had his mate testing Armstrong samples, unless WADA breached privacy...that's never been answered re AUgust 2005...if anyone did a number on someone , it was L'equipeASO-WADA on LA
So what if Ressiot was not fully open about what he was up to, or was acting on 'rumours' he had heard? That's what good investigative journalism is all about. What has never been properly answered is why Armstrong's 1999 Tour samples showed evidence of Epo use, even if the lack of 'B' samples and so on meant that Armstrong could not be officially investigated for this. I would say that the one person 'doing a number' in all this was Armstrong himself!
Resiot had to have the results given to him either by WADA or by the LNDD lab testers. Yes or No? How else could he have that data to complete the picture? And what dioes that say about the integriity of LNDD?0 -
The point of the testing of the 1999 samples was that it was an experimental new test for EPO which the lab wanted to try on some samples which pre-dated the original test and thereford would not have any masking agent added.
Whether it was positive or not is impossible to tell, since it was an experimental test which at that point had not be independently checked.
The real story, which no one seems to get around to telling, is that the lab in it's cross-eyed anger to find an Armstrong positive had wrecked the only chance of actually finding one by wasting the remaining 1999 samples on an experimental test which would never stand up in any court anywhere in the world. If they had not been so fixated on catching him they could have perfected the test on someone else's samples - there must be thousands of Pantini's in there for a start - then gone back and tested Armstrong's.
Conspiracy or not, it's clear in this case that the French lab let personal convictions that Lance was hiding something to override sensible scientific and criminal processes.0 -
Yes, the results were made available by both the LNDD and WADA, but this was done perfectly legitimately and in line with WADA disclosures on research projects.Dave_1 wrote:Resiot had to have the results given to him either by WADA or by the LNDD lab testers. Yes or No? How else could he have that data to complete the picture? And what dioes that say about the integriity of LNDD?
The bottom line is that Armstrong used Epo in the 1999 Tour and it almost certainly later moved on to the use of autogenous blood transfusions (as in the re-injection of "800 ml of packed cells) once it was known that Epo could be detected. It's not the integrity of the LNDD that is the real issue, it's the integrity of Armstrong!
Those who claim that there is some sort of 'unhealthy relationship' between the LNDD, l'Equipe and so on might well benefit from pondering on the sort of relationships which exist/existed between Armstrong's 'team' and certain official bodies in American cycling. For example:
Tour de Farce
Lance Armstrong, Thom Weisel, and questions about anti-doping efforts in American cycling
By Matt Smith
Published: September 7, 2005
While lounging on Taylor Street this past Sunday watching America's biggest bike race make its way around North Beach, you might have allowed your mind to wander to the recent doping scandal involving Lance Armstrong. After all, the story -- published in the French sports daily L'Equipe last month -- was pretty shocking. It detailed laboratory reports showing that the seven-time Tour de France winner used banned performance-enhancing drugs to aid him in his first Tour victory in 1999. The allegations dominated international sporting headlines for a couple of weeks.
… A few days later, the chief operating officer of USA Cycling, the governing body responsible for punishing bike-racing drug cheaters in this country, was quoted in more than 100 newspapers dismissing the L'Equipe piece as the scandalmongering of a French tabloid newspaper, adding, in a remarkable echo of Armstrong's public position, that the positive drug results were unfair because they had been exposed by a news reporter, rather than through formal drug-policing protocols.
… There happens to be more to USA Cycling's pooh-poohing of the charges against Armstrong than the news headlines suggested, however. This isn't merely an instance of U.S. doping cops repelling spurious French charges against an American superhero.
Johnson, the widely quoted USA Cycling official, appears to suffer from a serious conflict of interest between his organization's role as a doping cop and his personal, institutional, and financial ties to the diversified business world surrounding Lance Armstrong. Financier Weisel is Armstrong's longtime patron, employer, investment manager, and friend. Weisel is also Johnson's longtime patron and friend and the founder of a nonprofit entity that employs him.
And then there's this little fact: Johnson essentially works for Armstrong. In addition to serving as chief operating officer of USA Cycling, Johnson is executive director of the USA Cycling Development Foundation, an affiliated nonprofit organization founded by Weisel, who serves as president of the board of directors, according to the foundation's most recently available IRS returns, filed in 2003. According to the foundation's current Web site, the board of directors now includes Lance Armstrong.
"This whole thing isn't a big deal for Americans," Reuters quoted Johnson as saying of Armstrong's doping troubles last week.
That may or may not be true. It's safe to say, however, that it's a very big deal for Johnson's bosses.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce0 -
What a load of tosh! The LNDD would have been quite aware of the fact that, unless full WADA protocols were followed, there was no way any research-related testing they did could ever lead to any rider, let alone Armstrong, being officially 'busted'.OllyBianchi wrote:The real story, which no one seems to get around to telling, is that the lab in it's cross-eyed anger to find an Armstrong positive had wrecked the only chance of actually finding one by wasting the remaining 1999 samples on an experimental test which would never stand up in any court anywhere in the world. If they had not been so fixated on catching him they could have perfected the test on someone else's samples - there must be thousands of Pantini's in there for a start - then gone back and tested Armstrong's .
The most likely situation was that the lab didn't even know whose samples they were testing as they were labelled only with codes. Only the UCI had the doping control forms needed to match those codes to a rider - which is exactly why Ressiot had to get those forms from the UCI's Medical Director.
Even if they did suspect whose samples they might be testing, the fact that they still used 'his samples' and by doing so wilfully wrecked the 'only chance' there was of finding him positive can only show that they simply had no intention of trying to 'bust' him in the first place! His were not the only samples tested either.
What you say constitutes an extraordinary allegation against the LNDD. Can you supply the sort of extraordinary evidence needed to back your allegations up? (Or indeed any evidence at all…).0 -
Of course I've got no evidence... evidence, while discussing something on an internet, what a strange concept....
I just don't trust anyone involved. I don't trust L'Equipe - as a hack myself I don't trust their stories - I don't trust the lab and I don't trust Armstrong. It's all too easy to construct a good story when you've got bent journalists talking to a bent lab about a bent test on some bent samples.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Yes, the results were made available by both the LNDD and WADA, but this was done perfectly legitimately and in line with WADA disclosures on research projects.Dave_1 wrote:Resiot had to have the results given to him either by WADA or by the LNDD lab testers. Yes or No? How else could he have that data to complete the picture? And what dioes that say about the integriity of LNDD?
The bottom line is that Armstrong used Epo in the 1999 Tour and it almost certainly later moved on to the use of autogenous blood transfusions (as in the re-injection of "800 ml of packed cells) once it was known that Epo could be detected. It's not the integrity of the LNDD that is the real issue, it's the integrity of Armstrong!
Those who claim that there is some sort of 'unhealthy relationship' between the LNDD, l'Equipe and so on might well benefit from pondering on the sort of relationships which exist/existed between Armstrong's 'team' and certain official bodies in American cycling. For example:
Tour de Farce
Lance Armstrong, Thom Weisel, and questions about anti-doping efforts in American cycling
By Matt Smith
Published: September 7, 2005
While lounging on Taylor Street this past Sunday watching America's biggest bike race make its way around North Beach, you might have allowed your mind to wander to the recent doping scandal involving Lance Armstrong. After all, the story -- published in the French sports daily L'Equipe last month -- was pretty shocking. It detailed laboratory reports showing that the seven-time Tour de France winner used banned performance-enhancing drugs to aid him in his first Tour victory in 1999. The allegations dominated international sporting headlines for a couple of weeks.
… A few days later, the chief operating officer of USA Cycling, the governing body responsible for punishing bike-racing drug cheaters in this country, was quoted in more than 100 newspapers dismissing the L'Equipe piece as the scandalmongering of a French tabloid newspaper, adding, in a remarkable echo of Armstrong's public position, that the positive drug results were unfair because they had been exposed by a news reporter, rather than through formal drug-policing protocols.
… There happens to be more to USA Cycling's pooh-poohing of the charges against Armstrong than the news headlines suggested, however. This isn't merely an instance of U.S. doping cops repelling spurious French charges against an American superhero.
Johnson, the widely quoted USA Cycling official, appears to suffer from a serious conflict of interest between his organization's role as a doping cop and his personal, institutional, and financial ties to the diversified business world surrounding Lance Armstrong. Financier Weisel is Armstrong's longtime patron, employer, investment manager, and friend. Weisel is also Johnson's longtime patron and friend and the founder of a nonprofit entity that employs him.
And then there's this little fact: Johnson essentially works for Armstrong. In addition to serving as chief operating officer of USA Cycling, Johnson is executive director of the USA Cycling Development Foundation, an affiliated nonprofit organization founded by Weisel, who serves as president of the board of directors, according to the foundation's most recently available IRS returns, filed in 2003. According to the foundation's current Web site, the board of directors now includes Lance Armstrong.
"This whole thing isn't a big deal for Americans," Reuters quoted Johnson as saying of Armstrong's doping troubles last week.
That may or may not be true. It's safe to say, however, that it's a very big deal for Johnson's bosses.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce
Confidentiality was breached...rules are clea. The intent of WADA and LNDD is what to suspect as well.. not only LA0 -
The biggest 'breach of confidentiality' was done by the UCI's Medical director who was subsequently suspended. In any case if Armstrong hadn't been such a doper there would have been nothing incriminating to 'leak'! What do you think papers like L'Equipe should have done? Keep silent about what they knew in order to protect the name of someone who was undermining the credibility of the Tour by doping his way to multiple 'victories'?Dave_1 wrote:Confidentiality was breached...rules are clea.0 -
Care to provide examples/ illustrations/ references to back up your allegations of "bent journalists", "a bent lab", "a bent test" and "bent samples"? (Preferably not drawn from a Lance Armstrong press release!). Or are we supposed to accept these claims as a matter of faith, as you appear to?OllyBianchi wrote:It's all too easy to construct a good story when you've got bent journalists talking to a bent lab about a bent test on some bent samples. 0 -
aurelio wrote:
The biggest 'breach of confidentiality' was done by the UCI's Medical director who was subsequently suspended. In any case if Armstrong hadn't been such a doper there would have been nothing incriminating to 'leak'! What do you think papers like L'Equipe should have done? Keep silent about what they knew in order to protect the name of someone who was undermining the credibility of the Tour by doping his way to multiple 'victories'?Dave_1 wrote:Confidentiality was breached...rules are clea.
Are WADA-LNDD allowed to give out barcode numbers on old B samples to journos? If that is allowed, I am surprised. But you are saying this is allowed.0 -
Bent journalist? Maybe.
Bent lab? Definitely not.
Bent test? No, but it is a test that is much more open to interpretation than others.
Bent sample? Quite possibly. How well documented is the effect of sample storage for 6 years on the epo test?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Ara racing cyclists allowed to take "growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone", not to mention to re-inject "800 ml of packed cells" in order to 'win' races?Dave_1 wrote:Are WADA-LNDD allowed to give out barcode numbers on old B samples to journos?
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=21
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251
http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007 ... r-the.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blog ... ley-davis/
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/322007.shtml0 -
aurelio wrote:
Ara racing cyclists allowed to take "growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone", not to mention to re-inject "800 ml of packed cells" in order to 'win' races?Dave_1 wrote:Are WADA-LNDD allowed to give out barcode numbers on old B samples to journos?
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151
http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=21
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251
http://boulderreport.bicycling.com/2007 ... r-the.html
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blog ... ley-davis/
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/322007.shtml
SO , I take it you know WADA-LNDD broke the rules like the riders...what does that solve?0 -
VAUGHTERS: Anyhow, I can never quite figure out why I don't just play along with the Lance crowd. I mean sh-it it would make my life easier, Eh? It's not like I never played with hotsauce. Eh? ...
VAUGHTERS: Once I went to CA and saw that now not all the teams get 25 injections every day, I felt really guilty. Hell, CA was ZERO.
ANDREAU: You mean all the riders?
VAUGHTERS: Credit Agricole
ANDREAU; It's crazy
VAUGHTERS: So, I realised Lance was full of sh-it when he'd said everyone was doing it.
ANDREAU: You may read stuff I say to radio or press, praising the Tour and Lance but it's just playing the game.
VAUGHTERS; Believe me, as crazy as it sounds- Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
"VAUGHTERS: yeah, it's very complex how [to] avoid all the controls now, but it's not a new dr-ug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull off a well devised plan. It's why they all got dropped on stage 9- no refill yet-then on the rest day-boom 800ml of packed cells.
ANDREAU: They have it mastered. Good point.
VAUGHTERS: They draw the blood right after the Dauphine.
ANDREAU: How do they sneak it in, or keep in until needed. I'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig.
VAUGHTERS; Motorcycle- refrigerated panniers on the rest day. Floyd has a photo of the thing.
ANDREAU: Crazy, it just keeps going to new levels.
VAUGHTERS: Yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it."
VAUGHTERS: Anyhow- I just feel sorry for Floyd and some of the other guys. Why would lance keep doing the sh-it when he clearly has nothing to prove- it's weird.
ANDREAU: I know. Me too. They all get ripped into for no reason. He's done now, thank god, but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest.
VAUGHTERS: And then Lance says 'this guy and that guy are pussies."
ANDREAU: They wont stop. I agree.
VAUGHTERS: Then I've got tiger as one of my sponsors, and he loves to pick my mind… what do you say?
ANDREAU: You play dumb. You can't talk with them about this stuff. I think they would freak.
VAUGHTERS: Yeah, that's tough- I do, but it's tough, maybe they should freak…0 -
aurelio wrote:VAUGHTERS: Anyhow, I can never quite figure out why I don't just play along with the Lance crowd. I mean sh-it it would make my life easier, Eh? It's not like I never played with hotsauce. Eh? ...
VAUGHTERS: Once I went to CA and saw that now not all the teams get 25 injections every day, I felt really guilty. Hell, CA was ZERO.
ANDREAU: You mean all the riders?
VAUGHTERS: Credit Agricole
ANDREAU; It's crazy
VAUGHTERS: So, I realised Lance was full of sh-it when he'd said everyone was doing it.
ANDREAU: You may read stuff I say to radio or press, praising the Tour and Lance but it's just playing the game.
VAUGHTERS; Believe me, as crazy as it sounds- Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%
"VAUGHTERS: yeah, it's very complex how [to] avoid all the controls now, but it's not a new dr-ug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull off a well devised plan. It's why they all got dropped on stage 9- no refill yet-then on the rest day-boom 800ml of packed cells.
ANDREAU: They have it mastered. Good point.
VAUGHTERS: They draw the blood right after the Dauphine.
ANDREAU: How do they sneak it in, or keep in until needed. I'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig.
VAUGHTERS; Motorcycle- refrigerated panniers on the rest day. Floyd has a photo of the thing.
ANDREAU: Crazy, it just keeps going to new levels.
VAUGHTERS: Yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it."
VAUGHTERS: Anyhow- I just feel sorry for Floyd and some of the other guys. Why would lance keep doing the sh-it when he clearly has nothing to prove- it's weird.
ANDREAU: I know. Me too. They all get ripped into for no reason. He's done now, thank god, but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest.
VAUGHTERS: And then Lance says 'this guy and that guy are pussies."
ANDREAU: They wont stop. I agree.
VAUGHTERS: Then I've got tiger as one of my sponsors, and he loves to pick my mind… what do you say?
ANDREAU: You play dumb. You can't talk with them about this stuff. I think they would freak.
VAUGHTERS: Yeah, that's tough- I do, but it's tough, maybe they should freak…
The court in TEXAS would allow it as evidence..0 -
Can't say that I do know that WADA- LNDD 'broke the rules'. However, please feel free to provide the evidence.Dave_1 wrote:SO , I take it you know WADA-LNDD broke the rules like the riders...what does that solve?
I am, however, certain that Armstrong doped, and given the magnitude of the con-job that is 'The Armstrong myth' who really cares if a journalist proved himself to be just a little clever than the dopers and their lawyers? (For once!). Anyhow, what's the bigger 'crime' disclosing a few dope test code numbers or doping one's way to 7 Tour 'wins'? 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Can't say that I do know that WADA- LNDD 'broke the rules'. However, please feel free to provide the evidence.Dave_1 wrote:SO , I take it you know WADA-LNDD broke the rules like the riders...what does that solve?
I am, however, certain that Armstrong doped, and given the magnitude of the con-job that is 'The Armstrong myth' who really cares if a journalist proved himself to be just a little clever than the dopers and their lawyers? (For once!). Anyhow, what's the bigger 'crime' disclosing a few dope test code numbers or doping one's way to 7 Tour 'wins'?
I struggle to trust L'equipe , or LNDD, but also LA... 0 -
How many conspiracy theories are proved right in the end ? Very few I'll wager.0
-
aurelio wrote:
Care to provide examples/ illustrations/ references to back up your allegations of "bent journalists", "a bent lab", "a bent test" and "bent samples"? (Preferably not drawn from a Lance Armstrong press release!). Or are we supposed to accept these claims as a matter of faith, as you appear to?OllyBianchi wrote:It's all too easy to construct a good story when you've got bent journalists talking to a bent lab about a bent test on some bent samples.
Was Resiot friends with the LNDD lab scientist he was helped by to match barcodes to the controls forms? I reckon a good investigative journalist like Resiot will have had contacts inside the lab like any good journalist...friends...who also tested LA's so called samples. LA did not test positive for EPO...we don't even know if they were his samples quite frankly or tampered with by Resiot's mates.
0 -
aurelio wrote:
Can't say that I do know that WADA- LNDD 'broke the rules'. However, please feel free to provide the evidence.Dave_1 wrote:SO , I take it you know WADA-LNDD broke the rules like the riders...what does that solve?
Not in the Armstrong case, but LNDD's sometimes lax attitude towards protocols (rules by another name) is a cause for concern.
Landaluze escaped sanction for a perfectly good testosterone positive because LNDD didn't follow protocols.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:aurelio wrote:
Can't say that I do know that WADA- LNDD 'broke the rules'. However, please feel free to provide the evidence.Dave_1 wrote:SO , I take it you know WADA-LNDD broke the rules like the riders...what does that solve?
Not in the Armstrong case, but LNDD's sometimes lax attitude towards protocols (rules by another name) is a cause for concern.
Landaluze escaped sanction for a perfectly good testosterone positive because LNDD didn't follow protocols.
Shabby work...also dishing out barcodes to journos?0
