Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Well, whatever McQuaid's lack of understanding, the two timelines don't tie up, do they?

What time line are you talking about? As I have pointed out, if you read what Landis actually wrote it is clear that when he talked of the bribe allegedly paid to Verbruggen, he was referring to Armstrong's ride in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI now understand this. It seems you don't, or are you referring to something else?

If you are referring to the money Armstrong paid to the UCI for 'drug testing equipment', that is another issue altogether. It has been reported that this money was paid in 2005. ('Coincidentally' just after the UCI commissioned that hatchet job on the LNDD when Armstrong's 'positives' for Epo from the 1999 Tour came to light). Are you confusing the two?

rapid_uphill

It doesnt matter what year armstrong paid the the bribe he still paid it.

DaveyL

I was referring to the fact that money promised in 2002 does not tally with an alleged positive test in 2001.

Anyway, as LA is/was supposedly the UCI's cash cow and was protected by them, I find it hard to understand why they would have to buy off a positive anyway? Why wouldn't the UCI just cover it up for free because it would be in their interests? And why would the team need warnings of when the testers were coming, if any subsequent positives would be covered up anyway?

Not defending them, just saying a lot of stuff doesn't add up.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

I was referring to the fact that money promised in 2002 does not tally with an alleged positive test in 2001.

So you are confused! The 'story' is that Armstrong tested positive for Epo in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. In 2001 he visited Verbruggen, allegedly paying him a bribe to cover up the positive. With it so far?

He also paid the UCI money in 2005, just after they had commissioned the Vrijman report which gave them a reason not to investigate his 'positives' for Epo from the 1999 Tour. (A report that WADA said was as “so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical"). This stuff about 'promises made in 2002' comes from McQuaid and is a new claim, perhaps designed to draw attention way from the 'interesting coincidences' surrounding the time the money was actually paid. Even here McQuaid is hedging his bets:

"My understanding, without having examined the full detail, is that during 2002 Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI headquarters in Aigle [Switzerland]. It had just opened in April 2002, it was some time after that. They got a guided tour of the centre. They were impressed by what they saw and Armstrong offered $100,000 to help the development of cycling.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... o-uci.html

All the signs are is that McQuaid has done a U-turn is is now frantically trying to cover his own back.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Anyway, as LA is/was supposedly the UCI's cash cow and was protected by them, I find it hard to understand why they would have to buy off a positive anyway? Why wouldn't the UCI just cover it up for free because it would be in their interests? And why would the team need warnings of when the testers were coming, if any subsequent positives would be covered up anyway?

Different countries? Different testers? It seems that the 'Spanish' side was covered by the relationship between Walter Viru, the owner of the Spanish lab used by the UCI, and Del Moral, the USP / Discovery team doctor. I doubt that this particular 'cosy relationship' would have done Armstrong much good when he was racing in Switzerland!

DaveyL

Yes, I follow all that - I just get the impression that some people are linking the money paid in 2005, and allegedly promised in 2002, to the alleged positive in 2001, and I am pointing out that the timelines there do not quite add up if you were to link them.

I still need the motives bit of my last post explained to me though. Maybe you can do it?

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

Yes, I follow all that - I just get the impression that some people are linking the money paid in 2005, and allegedly promised in 2002, to the alleged positive in 2001

Only the confused.

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Anyway, as LA is/was supposedly the UCI's cash cow and was protected by them, I find it hard to understand why they would have to buy off a positive anyway? Why wouldn't the UCI just cover it up for free because it would be in their interests? And why would the team need warnings of when the testers were coming, if any subsequent positives would be covered up anyway?

Different countries? Different testers? It seems that the 'Spanish' side was covered by the relationship between Walter Viru, the owner of the Spanish lab used by the UCI, and Del Moral, the USP / Discovery team doctor. I doubt that this particular 'cosy relationship' would have done Armstrong much good when he was racing in Switzerland!

But if the UCI had the power to "bury" the positive, my point is, why would they need to be paid to do so, given it is already in their interests to cover up for him if he is their cash cow?

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

Yes, I follow all that - I just get the impression that some people are linking the money paid in 2005, and allegedly promised in 2002, to the alleged positive in 2001

Only the confused.

Yes, well, if I am pointing it out it is not correct, that is not the same as claiming it is, is it?

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

But if the UCI had the power to "bury" the positive, my point is, why would they need to be paid to do so, given it is already in their interests to cover up for him if he is their cash cow?

What good is a 'cash cow' if you don't milk it from time to time?

Seriously though, I am not sure what you mean when you say that Armstrong was the UCI's 'cash cow'. He was certainly regarded as being the primary focus of Verbruggen / McQuaid's desire to undermine the power of the 'Mafia European nations' and 'globalise' cycling. This was probably the primary motivation for protecting him.

The issue of 'bribes' and 'donations', if the allegations prove to be true, probably relates more to individuals in the UCI taking advantage of the situation to benefit themselves personally, rather than protecting their model of what professional cycling should look like.

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

But if the UCI had the power to "bury" the positive, my point is, why would they need to be paid to do so, given it is already in their interests to cover up for him if he is their cash cow?

What good is a 'cash cow' if you don't milk it from time to time?

Seriously though, I am not sure what you mean when you say that Armstrong was the UCI's 'cash cow'. He was certainly regarded as being the primary focus of Verbruggen / McQuaid's desire to undermine the power of the 'Mafia European nations' and 'globalise' cycling. This was the primary motivation for protecting him.

The issue of 'bribes' and 'donations', if the allegations prove to be true, probably relates more to individuals in the UCI taking advantage of the situation to line their own pockets, rather than promote their model of what professional cycling should look like.

"Cash cow" as in "poster boy", "icon for global cycling", etc, y'know?

OK, so Verbruggen took a bung from them - I guess he didn't have to as it would have been in the UCI's interests to protect him and keep up the "good image" of the sport. So is it bribery on Armstrong's part or extortion on the UCI's part?

jimmythecuckoo

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

Quite. Hopefully for once there will be some proper due process by a law enforcement agency and we will actually find out what is true and what is not.

I wouldnt hold your breath!

I think this whole thing will be swept under the carpet unless a star witness mans up and comes forward.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

"Cash cow" as in "poster boy", "icon for global cycling", etc, y'know?

As I have pointed out, protecting Armstrong as an 'icon for global cycling' does not mean that there people won't also do a little to improve their personal bank balance, if they can get away with it. Similar corruption is hardly unknown in industry, after all, and often those involved see it as being little more than due payment for all the 'good' they are doing for the industry/ business.

BikingBernie

DaveyL wrote:

OK, so Verbruggen took a bung from them - I guess he didn't have to as it would have been in the UCI's interests to protect him and keep up the "good image" of the sport. So is it bribery on Armstrong's part or extortion on the UCI's part?

Probably just 'Mutual back scratching'.

DaveyL

BikingBernie wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

"Cash cow" as in "poster boy", "icon for global cycling", etc, y'know?

As I have pointed out, protecting Armstrong as an 'icon for global cycling' does not mean that there people won't also do a little to improve their personal bank balance, if they can get away with it. Similar corruption is hardly unknown in industry, after all, and often those involved see it as being little more than due payment for all the 'good' they are doing for the industry/ business.

Whilst that is true, the account Landis gives lends some sort of urgency to the way Armstrong and Bruyneel handled it, which would surely not be required if there was a "Hey, don't worry, I'm sure we can talk care of this, y'know?" type of understanding between them. It comes across more as "Damn, we'd better get over there and see if we can sort this out before they bust us." That doesn't make a lot of sense, if you look at it from the perspective of it being in the UCI's interest to protect him anyway.

blazing_saddles

Just think how the standard joke always was the "old brown envelope".
Bet Pat doesn't find it funny.
He looked very uncomfortable, even when the questioning was in Inglese Italiano speak.
The back tracking statement just adds to the bad Swiss cheese smell emanating from Hein and Pat's wallets.

blazing_saddles

DaveyL wrote:

Whilst that is true, the account Landis gives lends some sort of urgency to the way Armstrong and Bruyneel handled it, which would surely not be required if there was a "Hey, don't worry, I'm sure we can talk care of this, y'know?" type of understanding between them. It comes across more as "Damn, we'd better get over there and see if we can sort this out before they bust us." That doesn't make a lot of sense, if you look at it from the perspective of it being in the UCI's interest to protect him anyway.

Well, if we assume that this financial arragement does exisist, it must have come into being at some point.
2002 doesn't seem a snug fit into the whole scenario. Surely, 1999 and the back dated TUE would be the likely starting point.
So, I guess we agree, Davy.

paulcuthbert

why does floyd say "mr armstrong" when he uses everyone elses full name.

that's odd

58585

Landis makes a lot of the "statue of limitations" which he is claiming was a factor in coming forward. Does anyone know what this means in practice?? He has made some claims, is anyone legally obliged to look into these automatically or has he got the to make a formal complaint himself? And to whom?

iainf72

58585 wrote:

Landis makes a lot of the "statue of limitations" which he is claiming was a factor in coming forward. Does anyone know what this means in practice?? He has made some claims, is anyone legally obliged to look into these automatically or has he got the to make a formal complaint himself? And to whom?

There is an 8 year statute of limitations on doping offences. So after 8 years it's no longer a sanction-able offence.

But I don't believe that will apply to a criminal investigation

58585

[quote=There is an 8 year statute of limitations on doping offences. So after 8 years it's no longer a sanction-able offence.

But I don't believe that will apply to a criminal investigation[/quote]

So does that mean he has made a formal complaint to WADA or the UCI against those he has named? A lot of people have the opinion this is going to tail-off with no real outcome. Is anybody confirmed to actually be looking into any of his claims?

andyp

The US anti-doping agency, USADA, are investigating Landis' allegations.

micron

SI seem pretty clear whose investigating and what they're looking for
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/m ... armstrong/

andyp

I've yet to see official confirmation that the FDA are investigating Landis' allegations, but plenty of journalists seem to think they are.

ratsbeyfus

micron wrote:

SI seem pretty clear whose investigating and what they're looking for
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/m ... armstrong/

Thanks for the link. Here's an interesting quote from the SI article:

Landis's mention of Kristin Armstrong, who was divorced from Lance in 2004, raises the possibility that the feds will question her. But Kristin told SI in a text message, "I have not been contacted, nor am I in communication with Floyd or anyone else." As for Landis's claim that he received EPO in her presence, Kristin wrote, "I don't remember that."

Now, call me a cynic, but if Lance was never a doper and KA had no inclination that he was you would expect her to come out with something a bit stronger than "I don't remember that."

Hmmmm... get your coat Watson, I smell something fishy!

rapid_uphill

Its the safest thing too say. plead ignorance.

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Now, call me a cynic, but if Lance was never a doper and KA had no inclination that he was you would expect her to come out with something a bit stronger than "I don't remember that."

Hmmmm... get your coat Watson, I smell something fishy!

dennisn

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

ratsbeyfus

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Nah, read the article... Lance doesn't sue anymore, so you can say anything you like about him. For example - "Lance Armstrong doped through much of his career, may well have got cancer due to abusing doping products in the 90's and has got skiddy pants!"

All of the above is true you see because the leather-skinned old weasal hasn't sued me yet.

top_bhoy

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Financially they surely can't do much to Landis and his reputation is low anyway what more can they do to him - is jail a possibility for malicious rumour spreading, I'd hardly think so? Legal action of any kind will mean for sure a full and proper investigation - I'd have thought that was the last thing LA would want. LA will want this to blow over asap.

dennisn

ratsbeyfus wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Has there been any talk of what happens if none of these accusations pan out into anything? A distinct possibility. Poor Landis could get hung out to dry for, at the very least, slander.

Nah, read the article... Lance doesn't sue anymore, so you can say anything you like about him. For example - "Lance Armstrong doped through much of his career, may well have got cancer due to abusing doping products in the 90's and has got skiddy pants!"

All of the above is true you see because the leather-skinned old weasal hasn't sued me yet.

That's basically because you don't count. FL does and that's why he may be in for some unpleasant times.