A conspiracy?
Comments
-
Dave_1 wrote: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.
Apparently so.Kléber wrote:See here: http://www.cyclingnews.com/letters.php? ... 3letters#6
... 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?
0 -
Dave_1 I don't see where you join the dots from getting the barcodes from the WADA doctor and Armstrong himself to having a friend inside the lab who tampered with the samples?
I would trust ASO far more than I would trust the UCI - we know that people were bought off to let Discovery know when they would be tested, we know McQuaid is incompetent and Verbruggen is corrupt - he was the man responsible for backdating a TUE for Brochard when he was tested positive at the Mondiale. The UCI have been covering up for Armstrong and Bruyneel because they wanted this globalisation of the sport. It is they who are the cheats not the ASO as another superb Paris-Nice has shown. ASO are good at their job - it is a shame that the UCI cannot be as good at their own.0 -
andyp wrote:
Yawn. :roll:Dave_1 wrote:Shabby work...also dishing out barcodes to journos?
Are you going to persist in shooting the messenger? Any anger or bitterness you have over this is seriously misplaced if you think Ressiot is the villain.
My tactic is bore you into submission with old news debate Seriously though, I know I am speaking like one of Lance's entourage . Anyway, here is hoping for a clean 08 season. Would you buy a Musseuw bike? 0 -
A Museeuw bike? Does Ronnie Biggs make safes? It would be like buying an OJ Simpson knife, or book on ethics co-written by Bob Stapleton and Johan Bruyneel.
The bloke said one thing about his performances and it took the Belgian courts to drag the truth out. It doesn't fill me with confidence when it comes to the man's reputation, his business prospects or the warranty. I might be wrong but I think he's still due to face a criminal sentence, not just for doping but perjury too?0 -
micron wrote:Dave_1 I don't see where you join the dots from getting the barcodes from the WADA doctor and Armstrong himself to having a friend inside the lab who tampered with the samples?
I would trust ASO far more than I would trust the UCI - we know that people were bought off to let Discovery know when they would be tested, we know McQuaid is incompetent and Verbruggen is corrupt - he was the man responsible for backdating a TUE for Brochard when he was tested positive at the Mondiale. The UCI have been covering up for Armstrong and Bruyneel because they wanted this globalisation of the sport. It is they who are the cheats not the ASO as another superb Paris-Nice has shown. ASO are good at their job - it is a shame that the UCI cannot be as good at their own.
Resiot still had to get barcodes to match to the control forms he got from UCI...means someone close to the testing gave the barcodes. Doyou agree or disagree that someone at WADA-LNDD gave him barcodes?0 -
Kléber wrote:A Museeuw bike? Does Ronnie Biggs make safes? It would be like buying an OJ Simpson knife, or book on ethics co-written by Bob Stapleton and Johan Bruyneel.
The bloke said one thing about his performances and it took the Belgian courts to drag the truth out. It doesn't fill me with confidence when it comes to the man's reputation, his business prospects or the warranty. I might be wrong but I think he's still due to face a criminal sentence, not just for doping but perjury too?
Mussuew was still one of the greats...it's his era, you must see the riders in their era ..rife doping...he is only partly to blame, like Ullrich and others.. Mussuew was still brilliant on his best days0 -
How do you know he was brilliant, he could just have taken huge doses? He was a sprinter with ADR who became an all round classics rider when he joined an Italian team. When he had his crash in Paris-Roubaix's Arenberg section, allegedly his blood was so suspect doctors struggled to operate on him.
He may well have been great but like all cycling results from the 1990s, they're almost meaningless because you don't know if the winner had 1% more talent, luck or guts to win on the day, or 1% more EPO.0 -
Kléber wrote:How do you know he was brilliant, he could just have taken huge doses? He was a sprinter with ADR who became an all round classics rider when he joined an Italian team. When he had his crash in Paris-Roubaix's Arenberg section, allegedly his blood was so suspect doctors struggled to operate on him.
He may well have been great but like all cycling results from the 1990s, they're almost meaningless because you don't know if the winner had 1% more talent, luck or guts to win on the day, or 1% more EPO.
50% was equal sadly0 -
Do you mean the 50% health limit for haematocrit? It was notionally there to protect health, not to make racing fair.
Remember, riders only had to be below this magic number at the moment of testing, there were plenty of stories of the dope testers showing up at the same time every morning and then the team would send riders down one by one, with the "worst" riders first giving a sample, meaning the team leader had 20 mins' time to hook up to a drip and take on saline solution to temporarily dilute their blood for the test and then they'd p1ss out the water an hour later.
Besides, some riders had a natural count of 38%, others are on 45%. The ability to soup up your blood to a greater degree than others is inherently unfair.0
