Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
Term1te wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:So, any Swiss based posters want to take McQuaid up on his open invitation?"$100,000 is the figure and the receipt is available for anyone to see at the UCI headquarters in Aigle,"
I'd love to just drop by and take a peek at this piece of paper, check the date etc....
Far end of the country to me. Pity, I was down there for a race two weeks ago. Do you really think anyone would get past the front door?
I hear David Walsh is currently surfing to rail-europe.co.uk to sort travel arrangements___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
I didn't actually say it also provides further evidence ....BikingBernie wrote:
Thanks for the lead. ... As you said, it also provides further evidence that Armstrong paid the UCI $500,000,knedlicky wrote:
I know the name DeVries from an article in L’Equipe maybe 4 years back...BikingBernie wrote:Back on topic, does anyone know more about what Julien DeVries, formerly a mechanic at USP, is claimed to have said in the past about doping by Armstrong and co? His name is a new one to me.
In fact I forgot to mention that DeVries stated part of the arrangement between LA and UCI included money. DeVries never said how much and I really doubt it was so much as your figure, for what was perhaps the first 'instance'.0 -
LA has already beat you to suggesting that, but you know LA’s always one step ahead!mrushton wrote:perhaps the spotlight could be shifted to other sports to at least give a balanced view.
Last year in Adelaide, at the start of his comeback, he said tennis and football ought to be talked about as much as cycling. LA probably had Agassi and American football in mind, but with the World Cup right upon us, who knows what goes on in (real) football.
There have been a couple of relatively-recent highly-publicized cases, like that at Juventus in 2002, but doping in football isn't new. As long ago as 1937 footballers at (then) top clubs Portsmouth and Wolverhampton were apparently injected with animal hormones, without objection by the FA. Similarly, when in 1957 a British journalist asked top clubs whether they gave their players anything to enhance their performance, nearly all First Division clubs freely admitted that they regularly gave their players amphetamines, without objection by the FA.
Some players who took part in the World Cups of the 50s-60s say they were given amphetamines - in 1954, Germany’s winning team supposedly were given the stimulant Pervitin at half-time, enabling them to turn around a 0-2 deficit to a 4-2 victory against Puskas, Hideguti and co.
During the 70s and 80s, the favoured stimulant was Captagon while doping with testosterone and steroids was introduced at some clubs. (I suspect several current and well-known footballers are into steroids, although they’ll have to skip them during the World Cup to avoid detection). Although the number of footballers caught taking testosterone is low compared to the number of athletes caught taking it, when also considering the number of tests performed on the two groups, the proportion of footballers taking it appears to be actually higher than the proportion of athletes. Well they say football is a real man’s sport!
The use of amphetamines in football in the 50s-60s parallels what was being done then in cycling, but there are more links:
- riders interviewed during the trial after the 1998 Festina scandal stated that they knew sportsmen in other sports took the same doping as they did, and in particular pointed the finger at footballers.
- Just like Verbruggen, McQuaid, etc, seem to try and make the discovery of doping in cycling difficult, so FIFA has behaved the same from time to time, especially under Havelange and during the 1998 World Cup in France.
In 1998, the French authorities made all teams taking part declare which medicaments they were bringing into the country. The final list had 128 different substances on it, including Trinitrin (nitroglycerine), Actovegin (see LA), Esafosfina and Nandrolon (two of the doping substances in the Juventus affair). The French authorities then wanted to do unannounced training controls to see if these substances were being taken by players, but FIFA rejected this and also arranged for the tests at matches to be done by their own team, rather than use the team of the French authorities. This hinted at cover-up and not unsurprisingly, FIFA found no doping occurred during the tournament. One wonders what happened to all the substances brought in by the various teams.
- In the Fuentes affair, there were supposedly the names of about 100 footballers on his books, and Arsene Wenger has stated that some of his imports have remarkably high haemocrit levels when they’ve joined Arsenal. The chairman of the FIFA medical board said FIFA tests in the 1998 World Cup did not look for EPO but that he suspected EPO was definitely used by some players/teams. He probably came to this conclusion after the Juventus investigation not only found high use of the steroid Nandrolon, but also that some players had haemocrit levels of 51% when 12 months previously their values had only been 39-40%.
- Sudden deaths of young men due to heart failure occur not only in cycling; there have been almost 50 such cases in professional football since 1998, most in Brazil, then Spain, then the UK and Germany. By contrast, in the decade 1988-1998 there were only 12 instances, and between 1968-1988 only 4 recorded.0 -
knedlicky wrote:- Sudden deaths of young men due to heart failure occur not only in cycling; there have been almost 50 such cases in professional football since 1998, most in Brazil, then Spain, then the UK and Germany. By contrast, in the decade 1988-1998 there were only 12 instances, and between 1968-1988 only 4 recorded.
Some things may not be quite as unexplained at first glance. Reporting methods and the wider dissemination of information to a global audience perhaps accounting for the apparent jump? Not that you have but I think for anyone to do a straight comparison without knowing how the data was collected, the data source, etc is being unfair and possibly come to an erroneous conclusion.0 -
Richrd2205 wrote:
That's pretty much what I thought. He's supposed to be president of the UCI & that would imply some sort of leadership somewhere.andyp wrote:iainf72 wrote:
My heart sank as I read that. He's really out of his depth isn't he? On one hand he's saying Landis is a liar and can't be trusted, then on the other he says that the sport has cleaned up considerably since 2006.
As for the Armstrong donation and the paperwork, someone should point him to the document Pierre found. At least that exists.
That interview stinks of fear & doing the rehearsed PR lines badly under adrenaline.... I know that (according to Pat) that the UCI don't have much money, but a half day's media training shouldn't cost too much, surely.
& describing claims as "bullsh*t," really wins the logical battle for me, Pat, I'm convinced now.
No leadership at all & lots of fear. As andyp said, out of his depth....
Part of me feels sorry for him, poor wee thing. But then I realise that I'd happily f*ck things up for far less money than he earns & feel OK again.
+1 to that.
outside of the doping allegations, the UCI have demonstrated an astounding level of incompetence for an organisation that creates rules and regulations and stands in judgement of others who infringe those rules. They therefore should be transparent in their operation and act impartially. Accepting funding from a competing athlete or even entering into negotiation about funding with a competing athlete, whoever they are, is a clear cut conflict of interests. This isn't a simple mistake as its being claimed, this is a huge integrity issue. The fact that any money offered from LA has been negotiated, let alone accepted, is inexcusable. I hope they don't escape some form of punishment for this.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:mididoctors wrote:one day this doping story is going to end
It might do, but I dodn't think this thread will.... Did I ever tell you about the time when I was chasing Brando up a big climb in Northern Ireland, while all the while he was quoting Derrida and popping amphetamines?
Classic.0 -
I was referring to the part below. As I said, I think Lemond is confused here about what services the alleged $500,000 'bung' was for. What we really need is the original article from L'Equipe...knedlicky wrote:
I didn't actually say it also provides further evidence .... In fact I forgot to mention that DeVries stated part of the arrangement between LA and UCI included money. DeVries never said how much and I really doubt it was so much as your figure, for what was perhaps the first 'instance'.BikingBernie wrote:
Thanks for the lead. ... As you said, it also provides further evidence that Armstrong paid the UCI $500,000,knedlicky wrote:
I know the name DeVries from an article in L’Equipe maybe 4 years back...BikingBernie wrote:Back on topic, does anyone know more about what Julien DeVries, formerly a mechanic at USP, is claimed to have said in the past about doping by Armstrong and co? His name is a new one to me.
Seven days later, confirmed these facts Lemond, also under oath, "Julien told my wife that Armstrong had tested positive for cortisone. He had a medical prescription with the wrong date, but reached a settlement with the ICU for about 500,000 euros" .
Siete días después, Lemond confirmó esos hechos, también bajo juramento: "Julien contó a mi mujer que Armstrong había dado positivo con cortisona. Él tenía una prescripción médica con fecha falsa, pero llegó a un arreglo con la UCI por alrededor de 500.000 euros".
http://www.as.com/mas-deporte/articulo/ ... imas_6/Tes[/i]0 -
BikingBernie wrote:What we really need is the original article from L'Equipe...
If you ask politely I'll dig it up on LexisNexis for you The most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
I understand that, so the figures aren't absolute. But the same is true of cycling with its similar data, so one could try and compare crossways between the two sports within the same era/decade.Top_Bhoy wrote:
Some things may not be quite as unexplained at first glance. Reporting methods and the wider dissemination of information to a global audience perhaps accounting for the apparent jump? Not that you have but I think for anyone to do a straight comparison without knowing how the data was collected, the data source, etc is being unfair and possibly come to an erroneous conclusion.knedlicky wrote:- Sudden deaths of young men due to heart failure occur not only in cycling; there have been almost 50 such cases in professional football since 1998, most in Brazil, then Spain, then the UK and Germany. By contrast, in the decade 1988-1998 there were only 12 instances, and between 1968-1988 only 4 recorded.
I haven't seen identical time periods for profi cyclists, just 1949-1969, 14 sudden deaths, and 2007-Oct 2009, 9 sudden deaths in less than 3 years. The pre-1968/1969 figures are clearly lower for footballers than cyclists, but in more recent years the annual average for football is 4+ per year and for cycling 3+ per year. Of course the flaw here, is that there are far more professional footballers around the world than there are professional cyclists, but it's still clear football is catching up.0 -
Not sure why but this forum subject sort of reminds me of a couple of quotes. Or maybe
I'm just bored and thought I'd throw these in.
"Fame is a fleeting thing, but obscurity is forever." Napoleon B (not D)
"Discourse is fleeting, but junk mail is forever." Joe Bob Briggs
I can't help but think of the fleeting fame that a lot of today's cyclist's seem to have. Or any athelete for that matter. Or maybe it isn't so fleeting, what with "scandal" all around them. From famous good guy to famous bad guy and maybe even back again.0 -
Returning to the 'donation' made by Armstrong to the UCI (according to McQuaid paid just after the UCI produced its hatchet job on the LNDD, so justifying it not doing anything about his multiple 'positives' for Epo from the 1999 Tour), I feel it should not be forgotten that the UCI had other reasons for feeling that they were beholding to Armstrong. Not least, it was the UCI who 'dropped Armstrong in it' by giving Damien Ressiot his doping control forms, so allowing Ressiot to show that the positive samples tested by the LNDD were Armstrong's...
Official Statement
27.02.2006
When they met at the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, WADA’s Chairman Dick Pound told UCI’s Vice-President Hein Verbruggen that WADA had in its possession copies of the 15 doping control forms signed by Lance Armstrong during the 1999 Tour de France and that those copies originated from the UCI.
The UCI has immediately carried out an internal investigation and found to its disappointment that this information appears to be correct. The UCI had previously made public statements that only a photocopy of one form had been given to Mr. Ressiot from L’Equipe based upon the assurances of the staff member concerned.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... alList=628%30 -
BikingBernie wrote:Returning to the 'donation' made by Armstrong to the UCI (according to McQuaid paid just after the UCI produced it's hatchet job on the LNDD, so justifying it not doing anything about his multiple 'positives' for Epo from the 1999 Tour), I feel it should not be forgotten that the UCI had other reasons for feeling that they were beholding to Armstrong. Not least, it was the UCI who 'dropped Armstrong in it' by giving Damien Ressiot his doping control forms, so allowing Ressiot to show that the positive samples tested by the LNDD were Armstrong's...
Official Statement
27.02.2006
When they met at the Olympic Winter Games in Torino, WADA’s Chairman Dick Pound told UCI’s Vice-President Hein Verbruggen that WADA had in its possession copies of the 15 doping control forms signed by Lance Armstrong during the 1999 Tour de France and that those copies originated from the UCI.
The UCI has immediately carried out an internal investigation and found to its disappointment that this information appears to be correct. The UCI had previously made public statements that only a photocopy of one form had been given to Mr. Ressiot from L’Equipe based upon the assurances of the staff member concerned.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... alList=628%3
were the tests on the B samples carried out before or after the journo got the bar codes?0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
were the tests on the B samples carried out before or after the journo got the bar codes?
Before.
fair enough, where do we read or get that info Iain. I'm playing devils advocate and don't think he was clean but he has a fair defence if the timeline is the opposite of what you claim0 -
Dave_1 wrote:fair enough, where do we read or get that info Iain. I'm playing devils advocate and don't think he was clean but he has a fair defence if the timeline is the opposite of what you claim
Does he need to defend himself against this? I'd say the 99 samples being positive are merely an interesting sidebar.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:fair enough, where do we read or get that info Iain. I'm playing devils advocate and don't think he was clean but he has a fair defence if the timeline is the opposite of what you claim
Does he need to defend himself against this? I'd say the 99 samples being positive are merely an interesting sidebar.
i think it would be relevant to know if the lab had prior knowledge of barcodes...you say they didn't but i've never seen proof they tested the samples before the barcode numbers became known to Ressiot. Maybe will be part of any court case I guess where LA's character is called into question and he can say they knew in advance whose samples to pull out the freezer. I've seen contardictory evidence about whether samples can or cannot be spiked as well. LA legal team will use it.0 -
Oh dear, it's tinfoil hat time! :roll:0
-
0
-
I see that the UCI has released that receipt for Armstrong's 'donation'.rdt wrote:
http://twitpic.com/1vs2dc0 -
rdt wrote:
I've only listened in the past 2 months but really enjoyed that website, aside from also enjoying bikeradar too. Spent 3 weeks in May laid low with dengue fever-live in subtropics and couldn't really get out...listening to them guys was great medicine, had me laughing0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
I see that the UCI has released that receipt for Armstrong's 'donation'.rdt wrote:
http://twitpic.com/1vs2dc
That's clearly fake
http://cyclingreport.tumblr.com/post/67 ... g-documentFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I think it is fair to say that one is about as genuine as the one the UCI will eventually produce.iainf72 wrote: 0 -
Apologies if this has been posted already:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4488/Federal-prosecutor-to-boost-investigation-into-Landis-doping-claims.aspx
I say get Magnum P.I. on the case.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
I knew it was wishful thinking. These people will never take down the sport they earn huge money from. So easy to lie when you know nobody can prove otherwise.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:iainf72 wrote:
I knew it was wishful thinking. These people will never take down the sport they earn huge money from. So easy to lie when you know nobody can prove otherwise.
Surely that's exactly why the Landis claims are so important, and why really do need to see something happen in this case? We know the testing is only ever going to catch the lazy, stupid or negligent (and I doubt there are many that have claimed LA is any of those things, nor Indurain for that matter ;-) ), if we want to see real progress we need to see omerta broken, which is what Floyd has done. That's why many of us are thinking in terms of long term gain, rather than trying to avoid the short term pain.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
You have probably realised by now that business is bigger than sport.
If it does transpire that Armstrong and others cheated, then what? Do people honestly believe that the sport will recover? I doubt it. Businesses that have invested in the sport so far will have got their fingers burnt very badly - the risks of re-investment will be so great that the chances of new (you can forget existing sponsors) coming forwards will be small - and sponsors in this financial climate can't be too easy to come by. It's one thing a cyclist few outside of cycling have heard of getting caught compared to Armstrong going down.
At best, cycling could emerge from this at a much reduced level. Some might say this is worth it to have a 'clean' sport again, maybe...
The idea that you can break the sport and re-build it to a similar level again is unrealistic with the current level of business investment. The responses from the UCI to the Landis allegations could be read as backing this up.
All this talk of 'evidence' and how it can get people busted is the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking what are the consequences for the sport as a whole if this thing blows up - and - is this something we are prepared to accept?Mens agitat molem0 -
For one there is little or no real question of 'if' about whether 'Armstrong and others cheated'.bazbadger wrote:If it does transpire that Armstrong and others cheated, then what? Do people honestly believe that the sport will recover? I doubt it.
Secondly, the constant doping scandals don't seem to have put investors in the sport off and even the Festina scandal had little impact, so there is no reason to think that the full truth coming out about Armstrong will be any different.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
For one there is little or no real question of 'if' about whether 'Armstrong and others cheated'.bazbadger wrote:If it does transpire that Armstrong and others cheated, then what? Do people honestly believe that the sport will recover? I doubt it.
Secondly, the constant doping scandals don't seem to have put investors in the sport off and even the Festina scandal had little impact, so there is no reason to think that the full truth coming out about Armstrong will be any different.For one there is little or no real question of 'if' about whether 'Armstrong and others cheated'
You might be right - but really you should say 'For me', but until (if it happens at all) the truth comes out then it can't be called one way or the other.Secondly, the constant doping scandals don't seem to have put investors in the sport off and even the Festina scandal had little impact, so there is no reason to think that the full truth coming out about Armstrong will be any different.
Disagree, as per my post, this is in a whole other league if it involves Armstrong. You need to understand ( I think you do really, though you come across a bit zealot like!), this is about business not sport. When business gets hurt - it doesn't come back. People don't like losing money.Mens agitat molem0 -
Radioshack won't be in the sport much longer no matter what happens...bazbadger wrote:this is about business not sport. When business gets hurt - it doesn't come back. People don't like losing money.0
