Another Paddy McQuaid FAIL

ratsbeyfus

iainf72 wrote:

sherer wrote:

If all this is true why did the UCI protect LA at that point when he wasn't even a superstar rider ?

He was leading the Tour, wasn't he?

The UCI drug testing should have picked up Lance's cancer early, if it was being done properly. The hormones generated when you've got testicular cancer would trigger a positive for testosterone.. Lance was tested a fair bit then but never tested positive (he was the Words #1 at that stage I think) So maybe that's got something to do with it? Who knows.

Tangled web.

Perhaps post Festina the UCI couldn't stomach having the tour leader being exposed as a doper. That, and the positive publicity of the fairy-tale headlines generated by having a cancer survivor leading and winning the a 'clean' tour. (This is all speculation of course... I don't have a graph to back this up )

BikingBernie

sherer wrote:

why did the UCI protect LA at that point when he wasn't even a superstar rider ?

It's a long story but salient points include Armstrong's market value as a 'cancer survivor', the Festina scandal and the desperate desire of the UCI to pretend that the sport had turned over a new leaf. (And it wasn't as if the UCI hasn't done the same thing before, covering up a positive test for Laurent Brochard when he won the world RR championships).

In addition, Verbruggen and McQuaid made it clear that they wanted to 'globalise' cycling and Armstrong was the perfect icon for this goal. In turn there was the related desire of McQuaid and co to break the power of the traditional European cycling nations (especially 'the French' who McQuaid appears to hate with a vengeance) and to wrest control of the TV rights to world cycling away from the Tour organisers.

As Armstrong's reputation and power grew he became ever more central to all these aims, with Armstrong opening up the potentially valuable American market, Verbruggen trying to negotiate global deals to the TV rights to cycling and the UCI and Armstrong both being involved in attempts to buy the Tour de France itself.

---

More on the close links between Armstrong and the UCI...

Once he dominated - now Lance could own the Tour

It may not be unveiled next week, but the word is that Armstrong is involved in a possible buyout of Tour organisers Amaury Sport Organisation from its parent company the Amaury Group. Furthermore, Armstrong may saddle up in the deal with Hein Verbruggen - the former president and now vice-president of cycling's world body, the Union Cycliste Internationale. Some say it may be an Armstrong-UCI deal.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/once-h ... ntentSwap1

Seeking to Overhaul Cycling, Armstrong Played a Part in Talks to Buy the Tour

According to his agent, Bill Stapleton, Mr. Armstrong has discussed the idea of buying the Tour with investors and remains interested in creating an organization that would run professional cycling and include the Tour. There is no current effort underway to buy the Tour, he said.

...In fall 2006, at a Manhattan bar, Mr. Armstrong, his agent Mr. Stapleton, and hedge-fund manager David "Tiger" Williams, along with actor Jake Gyllenhaal, discussed how cycling could benefit from central ownership. Mr. Armstrong said no new organization could succeed unless it controlled the Tour de France, say Mr. Stapleton and others familiar with the discussion.

Afterward, Mr. Armstrong rounded up a number of wealthy cycling enthusiasts willing to help fund a potential acquisition of the Tour de France, say Messrs. Stapleton and Weisel. It would have cost about $1.5 billion at the time to buy the Tour, people familiar with the matter say.

Others were also looking. In July 2007, Messrs. Armstrong and Stapleton entertained another prospective plan to reorganize cycling from Wouter Vandenhaute, a Belgian television executive and former sportscaster, who has a plan he calls the "World Tour." At the Hôtel de Crillon in Paris, Mr. Vandenhaute proposed a series of races with the Tour de France as the de facto Super Bowl of the season.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1238111 ... 3043.html#

Hein Verbruggen was also reported as being in negotiations with several investment companies interested in 'buying of the rights to televised cycle sport'. These included the Belgian production company Woestijnvis. (See http://tinyurl.com/2bt5hn ).

Guess who owns Woestijnvis? Yes Wouter Vandenhaute. Quite a 'coincidence'

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

Also, I have a feeling that British Cycling are as keen to play down the doping issue as McQuaid is, especially with everything that is at stake with Team Sky. On other forums comment has also been passed about the low level of testing at British events and their 'defensive' attitude when questioned about this.

Isn't UKAD, the independent anti-doping organisation, in charge of all testing in UK sport these days?

sherer

thanks for the links. I heard about LA being interested in buying ASO before although that would also include a host of other non cycling sports they run too.

If they really had to cover something up it's a shame they didn't do something like let him get away with one tour win but ban him from winning it again, not let him dope away to 7 wins and become a multi millionaire on the back of it

BikingBernie

stagehopper wrote:

Isn't UKAD, the independent anti-doping organisation, in charge of all testing in UK sport these days?

As far as I understand it British Cycling still plays a central role in targeting events to be tested and so forth, although a quick look on the BC site is revealingly unrevealing about this.

BikingBernie

sherer wrote:

I heard about LA being interested in buying ASO before although that would also include a host of other non cycling sports they run too.

Not quite right, the Armstrong / Verbruggen consortium was apparently looking to buy the rights of the Tour from the ASO, not buy out the ASO itself..

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

Isn't UKAD, the independent anti-doping organisation, in charge of all testing in UK sport these days?

As far as I understand it British Cycling still plays a central role in targeting events to be tested and so forth, although a quick look on the BC site is revealingly unrevealing about this.

I suspect the level of testing is pegged to the level of funding UKADA has spread over all sports - and let's not forget most British events are hardly elite level so you'd expect a lower frequency of testing in the same way there's less testing lower down the divisions in football, rugby etc

BikingBernie

stagehopper wrote:

let's not forget most British events are hardly elite level so you'd expect a lower frequency of testing in the same way there's less testing lower down the divisions in football, rugby etc

The comment I saw related to the lack of testing at the Elite televised criterium series, which as the poster noted simply cried out for a bit of testing.

Word also has it that if you are the DS of a UK elite team whose riders are given a hard time by some 'nobody' riding like Desperate Dan on a bike, a word in the right ear will see BC 'send the boys round', as it were.

sherer

BikingBernie wrote:

sherer wrote:

I heard about LA being interested in buying ASO before although that would also include a host of other non cycling sports they run too.

Not quite right, the Armstrong / Verbruggen consortium was apparently looking to buy the rights of the Tour from the ASO, not buy out the ASO itself..

ok thanks for that. The article I read on this awhile ago must have been poor as that stated the ASO.

stagehopper

BikingBernie wrote:

The comment I saw related to the lack of testing at the Elite televised criterium series, which as the poster noted simply cried out for a bit of testing.

Word also has it that if you are the DS of a UK elite team whose riders are given a hard time by some 'nobody' riding like Desperate Dan on a bike, a word in the right ear will see BC 'send the boys round', as it were.

I wouldn't call that Elite.

symo

So you think they are CAT1 then?