McQuaid speaks on USPS investigation
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... l-vendetta
I'm reminded of the quote "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
I'm reminded of the quote "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
0
Comments
-
He keeps putting his foot in it. He knows he should avoid making comments on a serious investigation, especially since he seems to voice opinions, rather than stick to the facts.0
-
andyp wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-suggests-us-postal-investigation-sparked-by-personal-vendetta
I'm reminded of the quote "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
maybe you could take that advice!!!0 -
I can never quite get my head round the fact that he's managed to get into such a powerful position. He's clearly taken a partisan view all the way along, which just adds fuel to Landis' allegations regarding a cover up. Massively unprofessional at best, corrupt at worst, his lawyers must crap themselves every time he opens his mouth.
And this bit is basically a lie, isn't it, if he's talking about Landis?“From that point of view, it’s unfortunate that people who could have approached this in a completely different way didn’t do so. They just went public.”
The Landis emails were in possession of the relevant authorities long before they were published (we still don't know who leaked them), Landis was talking to the authorities detailing his own drug use before he started naming names.
And has anyone seen the receipts for the LA donation and purchase of the anti doping equipment yet? We were promised....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Dave_1 wrote:andyp wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-suggests-us-postal-investigation-sparked-by-personal-vendetta
I'm reminded of the quote "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
maybe you could take that advice!!!
Yes. Much better to follow the code of Omerta and keep that element of doubt, eh?
McQuaid trots out the personal vendetta defence, a la the average forum apologist.
Trouble is, I don't know if he means Landis, LeMond, the Andreus, or the stoolies who are blowing the whistle."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:I can never quite get my head round the fact that he's managed to get into such a powerful position. He's clearly taken a partisan view all the way along, which just adds fuel to Landis' allegations regarding a cover up. Massively unprofessional at best, corrupt at worst, his lawyers must crap themselves every time he opens his mouth.
And this bit is basically a lie, isn't it, if he's talking about Landis?“From that point of view, it’s unfortunate that people who could have approached this in a completely different way didn’t do so. They just went public.”
The Landis emails were in possession of the relevant authorities long before they were published (we still don't know who leaked them), Landis was talking to the authorities detailing his own drug use before he started naming names.
And has anyone seen the receipts for the LA donation and purchase of the anti doping equipment yet? We were promised....
you'd like the grand jury on live TV I guess..regardless of the veracity of the accounts. If plenty say LA wasn't doping, does that cancel out each team mate who says he did, or does he still go down?0 -
The comments that stood out for me were the obvious contradiction that comes from saying this;Pat McQuaid wrote:"We were testing even at that time more than anyone else. If it’s proven these guys were beating the system, they were beating the system put in place by the scientific authorities, by WADA and everyone else.”
followed by this;Pat McQuaid wrote:"“The cycling of today is completely different than the cycling of 2000, 2002 and 2003 which this investigation is talking about,”
That can be read as an admission that the system was beaten can it not?0 -
The UCI was resisting a lot of the efforts from WADA, the AFLD and others. Some suggestions were too complicated, others too expensive. Even the IOC was muttering darkly about the UCI's backward approach.Pat McQuaid wrote:"We were testing even at that time more than anyone else. If it’s proven these guys were beating the system, they were beating the system put in place by the scientific authorities, by WADA and everyone else.”0 -
Kléber wrote:
The UCI was resisting a lot of the efforts from WADA, the AFLD and others. Some suggestions were too complicated, others too expensive. Even the IOC was muttering darkly about the UCI's backward approach.Pat McQuaid wrote:"We were testing even at that time more than anyone else. If it’s proven these guys were beating the system, they were beating the system put in place by the scientific authorities, by WADA and everyone else.”
I agree historically..the UCI went after completely legal attempts at performance like Graeme Obree and let blood doping flourish for a decade. Obree wall posters are among the few which needn't be ripped down in disappointment0 -
you'd like the grand jury on live TV I guess..regardless of the veracity of the accounts. If plenty say LA wasn't doping, does that cancel out each team mate who says he did, or does he still go down?
No, I see no need for that. The point was the information was in their hands and apparently nothing was being done. Perhaps that's because loveable Pat is up LA's backside....
I haven't seen LA dope, would my testimony count? If Landis story is corroborated then yes, he should go down. Perhaps people that didn't see him dope just weren't looking?
Of course, we could just brush everything under the carpet and hope only BB sees the bulge of hidden crap....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:you'd like the grand jury on live TV I guess..regardless of the veracity of the accounts. If plenty say LA wasn't doping, does that cancel out each team mate who says he did, or does he still go down?
No, I see no need for that. The point was the information was in their hands and apparently nothing was being done. Perhaps that's because loveable Pat is up LA's backside....
I haven't seen LA dope, would my testimony count? If Landis story is corroborated then yes, he should go down. Perhaps people that didn't see him dope just weren't looking?
Of course, we could just brush everything under the carpet and hope only BB sees the bulge of hidden crap....
If LA's story of being clean is corroborated by ex USPS team mates, that cancels Landis's allegations equally. What decides his fate? 10 people say he did, 10 people say he didn't. It looks like a he said, she said case. Fact is Novtisky might need more than verbal testimony, which must be really hard to find given how long ago it was. Didn't Novitsky have material evidence from BALCO trash cans unlike Landis's allegations where nothing exists as physical evidence beyond performance?0 -
andyp wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
maybe you could take that advice!!!
Are you going to engage in a grown up debate or sling mud and petty insults?
well, if you can say its better he shuts it than makes a fool of himself, then it's no different me saying it to you. It makes us both not grown up, slinging mud or petty insults. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. A little respect wouldn't hurt, rather than mocking I suppose.0 -
I have to say that while McQuaid is constantly putting his foot in his mouth, cycling gets a VERY unfair perception as a doping sport that has "failed to aggressively police itself." Oh, you mean in relation to other sports, right? Because the phenomenal job done by football, baseball, American football, hockey, tennis, basketball, etc has been so much more impressive. :roll:
The NFL (american football) catches about 3-4 guys a year for doping of any kind. Who here believes those 300+ lb lineman who can run a 40-yard dash in under 5 seconds are doping-free?
And in baseball, the players get tested an average of ONCE per year. In cycling, you're lucky if you can go three WEEKS with only one test.
It's far from perfect, but it's the best out there so far.0 -
(buries head in hands and groans)0
-
Dave_1 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:you'd like the grand jury on live TV I guess..regardless of the veracity of the accounts. If plenty say LA wasn't doping, does that cancel out each team mate who says he did, or does he still go down?
No, I see no need for that. The point was the information was in their hands and apparently nothing was being done. Perhaps that's because loveable Pat is up LA's backside....
I haven't seen LA dope, would my testimony count? If Landis story is corroborated then yes, he should go down. Perhaps people that didn't see him dope just weren't looking?
Of course, we could just brush everything under the carpet and hope only BB sees the bulge of hidden crap....
If LA's story of being clean is corroborated by ex USPS team mates, that cancels Landis's allegations equally. What decides his fate? 10 people say he did, 10 people say he didn't. It looks like a he said, she said case. Fact is Novtisky might need more than verbal testimony, which must be really hard to find given how long ago it was. Didn't Novitsky have material evidence from BALCO trash cans unlike Landis's allegations where nothing exists as physical evidence beyond performance?
No it doesn't, and you're just being silly if you say it does. You aren't stupid, why are you pushing such a ridiculous line? If you really do need the huge flaws in that logic explained then say so and I'll do so, if you don't then please explain why you've brought such a shoddy argument to the table.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:you'd like the grand jury on live TV I guess..regardless of the veracity of the accounts. If plenty say LA wasn't doping, does that cancel out each team mate who says he did, or does he still go down?
No, I see no need for that. The point was the information was in their hands and apparently nothing was being done. Perhaps that's because loveable Pat is up LA's backside....
I haven't seen LA dope, would my testimony count? If Landis story is corroborated then yes, he should go down. Perhaps people that didn't see him dope just weren't looking?
Of course, we could just brush everything under the carpet and hope only BB sees the bulge of hidden crap....
If LA's story of being clean is corroborated by ex USPS team mates, that cancels Landis's allegations equally. What decides his fate? 10 people say he did, 10 people say he didn't. It looks like a he said, she said case. Fact is Novtisky might need more than verbal testimony, which must be really hard to find given how long ago it was. Didn't Novitsky have material evidence from BALCO trash cans unlike Landis's allegations where nothing exists as physical evidence beyond performance?
No it doesn't, and you're just being silly if you say it does. You aren't stupid, why are you pushing such a ridiculous line? If you really do need the huge flaws in that logic explained then say so and I'll do so, if you don't then please explain why you've brought such a shoddy argument to the table.
fair enough doc. Was just thinking that in life if one person says I did, one says I didn't, and they're equally qualified/experienced and we got no material proof I did or didn't, then they cancel out each other and I am free.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
fair enough doc. Was just thinking that in life if one person says I did, one says I didn't, and they're equally qualified/experienced and we got no material proof I did or didn't, then they cancel out each other and I am free.
Well clearly one of them can say with 100% certainty that he's seen you do something (whether his word is worth anything is another matter) while the other can say with 100% certainty that he's never seen you do that thing. Unless it's a specific incident, where both people were present, such as on a team bus apparently broken down on a mountain pass, then the second's testimony is pretty worthless.
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
seems McQuaid is in a no win situation here.
What I would like to see them do now they are in a no win situation and this is already out in the public domain is to a proper investigation and look into what went on with all teams and riders at the time.
Why single out Armstrong if Indurain or Ullrich and Riis did the same thing and got away with it.
Only problem with that is the UCI might be involved in a cover up0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
fair enough doc. Was just thinking that in life if one person says I did, one says I didn't, and they're equally qualified/experienced and we got no material proof I did or didn't, then they cancel out each other and I am free.
Well clearly one of them can say with 100% certainty that he's seen you do something (whether his word is worth anything is another matter) while the other can say with 100% certainty that he's never seen you do that thing. Unless it's a specific incident, where both people were present, such as on a team bus apparently broken down on a mountain pass, then the second's testimony is pretty worthless.
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.
If one person on the bus says they didn't recall it, and someone on the bus at the same time/stage says they did, they cancel each other out and you have no reliable witness. You're praying the majority back Positively False's story but that might not be what happens...and no material evidence..no case to answer0 -
Dave_1 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
fair enough doc. Was just thinking that in life if one person says I did, one says I didn't, and they're equally qualified/experienced and we got no material proof I did or didn't, then they cancel out each other and I am free.
Well clearly one of them can say with 100% certainty that he's seen you do something (whether his word is worth anything is another matter) while the other can say with 100% certainty that he's never seen you do that thing. Unless it's a specific incident, where both people were present, such as on a team bus apparently broken down on a mountain pass, then the second's testimony is pretty worthless.
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.
If one person on the bus says they didn't recall it, and someone on the bus at the same time/stage says they did, they cancel each other out and you have no reliable witness. You're praying the majority back Positively False's story but that might not be what happens...and no material evidence..no case to answer
No. The Grand Jury determine whether there is a case to be made. They don't do that based on some sort of democratic count of witnesses. A trial wouldn't see equal weight given to all witnesses, their credibility would be assessed, as would whether they stood to gain by giving false testimony. An entire mafia gang can be taken down by the witness testimony of one previous member, it's not purely about numbers.
As for the "no material evidence" you've just ignored two pieces of material evidence I gave you in the post you replied to.
I'm not "praying" for anything, but I do want to see justice. You've previously acknowledged you think he doped, your only point seems to be that you think the scandal could hurt cycling and lead to job losses for pro cyclists. But the can of worms is well and truly open now, you can't put the lid back on.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Will McTwit dare to step into the USA if a trial takes place. ?
Will he be there for next years TOC. ?
I still want to know what the TUE excuses the Texan from in the "TESTS" ?
No one in all the forums I have read have stated this.
Most tested rider means nothing without this information.
Get Mctwit on the stand to explain the various riders TUE's or just the Texans.
This will be another thread that goes around & around to finish up someones rectum.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
LA had a saddle sore in 99 and that was what the TUE was for. AFAIK that was the only time he had a TUE during his career.0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
fair enough doc. Was just thinking that in life if one person says I did, one says I didn't, and they're equally qualified/experienced and we got no material proof I did or didn't, then they cancel out each other and I am free.
Well clearly one of them can say with 100% certainty that he's seen you do something (whether his word is worth anything is another matter) while the other can say with 100% certainty that he's never seen you do that thing. Unless it's a specific incident, where both people were present, such as on a team bus apparently broken down on a mountain pass, then the second's testimony is pretty worthless.
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.
If one person on the bus says they didn't recall it, and someone on the bus at the same time/stage says they did, they cancel each other out and you have no reliable witness. You're praying the majority back Positively False's story but that might not be what happens...and no material evidence..no case to answer
No. The Grand Jury determine whether there is a case to be made. They don't do that based on some sort of democratic count of witnesses. A trial wouldn't see equal weight given to all witnesses, their credibility would be assessed, as would whether they stood to gain by giving false testimony. An entire mafia gang can be taken down by the witness testimony of one previous member, it's not purely about numbers.
As for the "no material evidence" you've just ignored two pieces of material evidence I gave you in the post you replied to.
I'm not "praying" for anything, but I do want to see justice. You've previously acknowledged you think he doped, your only point seems to be that you think the scandal could hurt cycling and lead to job losses for pro cyclists. But the can of worms is well and truly open now, you can't put the lid back on.
the grand jury is not a trial, more a pre trial...and as you say the jury wouldn't give equal weight to all witnesses which could go in Lance's favour or against him
.
Courts will need blood bags, used EPO cans with DNA, syringes, photos, recorded phone calls, SMS-none of which LA is silly enough to leave behind.0 -
deejay wrote:
you can't be serious.!sherer wrote:LA had a saddle sore in 99 and that was what the TUE was for. AFAIK that was the only time he had a TUE during his career.
But the thing no-one ever mentions in regard to this is that it was never a positive test. And never a doping infringement Not even close. It was only trace amounts way below the legal limit (about 3%). Armstrong was one of five cyclists mentioned in the same situation. The doping authorities said they'd see about 20-30 cases just like it in a Tour.
Here's the story as reported at the time (second item):
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml
And here's the follow-up:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul23.shtml
There's plenty of evidence against him, but I've always seen this bit as a non-story and wondered why people have, for ten years, gone on about it being a failed test.Twitter: @RichN950 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.
It's not all irrelevant, who will be held up as the real winner of 7 tours and the other races he took part in if LA is discredited? Is there any of the competition that can be relied on to step in as the 'clean' alternative that was cheated out of their glory? Ullrich? Basso? Hamilton? Pantani maybe? Perhaps Virenque might have fancied a go at yellow if the competition was less tough?
So maybe you do need rose tinted specs to believe LA achieved all this clean but my view is if you go after him, then you go after the lot. You drag Coppi, Anquetil, Mercx, Simpson, Pantani, Indurain etc etc through the same process otherwise it looks like you've just got it in for LA. In the context of the sport generally over the last 60 yrs it looks like he's just been too controvertial for his own good.O na bawn i fel LA0 -
donrhummy wrote:I have to say that while McQuaid is constantly putting his foot in his mouth, cycling gets a VERY unfair perception as a doping sport that has "failed to aggressively police itself." Oh, you mean in relation to other sports, right? Because the phenomenal job done by football, baseball, American football, hockey, tennis, basketball, etc has been so much more impressive. :roll:
The NFL (american football) catches about 3-4 guys a year for doping of any kind. Who here believes those 300+ lb lineman who can run a 40-yard dash in under 5 seconds are doping-free?
And in baseball, the players get tested an average of ONCE per year. In cycling, you're lucky if you can go three WEEKS with only one test.
It's far from perfect, but it's the best out there so far.
Cycling´s reputation as a sport that has failed to police itself is far from unfair. It is well deserved. Although Landis´ "revalations" are interesting, his credibility is open to legitimate doubt. The most persuasive evidence that Armstrong doped is from the 1999 tour tests, the scientific validity of which is not, sofar as I am aware, open to serious question. A suggestion that they were tampred with would require some evidence to support it. This is not to say that Amrstrong has doped, merely that he has serious questions to answer. To date, he hasn´t answered them, but has made silly comments about "tabloid" newspapers (as if Le Monde or LÉquipe could be described as such). A grand jury investigation may be the only way of getting Lance to answer these questions in a way that opens him to sanction if he does not tell the truth. One would have thought the UCI would think that a good thing. But the UCI is more interested in preserving what it perceives to be cycling´s image, ironically given the sport's image for being dope-riven!
The UCI has consistently failed to support riders who speak out against doping, whether Paul Kimmage, Christophe Bassons or Filippo Simeoni.0 -
Meds1962 wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
It's all irrelevant though. I know he did it, you know he did it, everyone bar the poor misguided fanboys knows he did it. There's even scientific evidence available in his blood values and his EPO positive, which he escaped a ban for due to procedural matters rather than scientific ones. All that remains is to see if a Grand Jury will put him on trial.
It's not all irrelevant, who will be held up as the real winner of 7 tours and the other races he took part in if LA is discredited? Is there any of the competition that can be relied on to step in as the 'clean' alternative that was cheated out of their glory? Ullrich? Basso? Hamilton? Pantani maybe? Perhaps Virenque might have fancied a go at yellow if the competition was less tough?
So maybe you do need rose tinted specs to believe LA achieved all this clean but my view is if you go after him, then you go after the lot. You drag Coppi, Anquetil, Mercx, Simpson, Pantani, Indurain etc etc through the same process otherwise it looks like you've just got it in for LA. In the context of the sport generally over the last 60 yrs it looks like he's just been too controvertial for his own good.
You are right to a point. If Lance doped, that cannot be separated from the context in which he did it - one of the dirtiest periods in cycling history. That explains the decision. What is less understandable is his vendetta against Simeoni, his dismissal of Bassons, and his disgraceful attitude towards Gre LeMond. And I write that as someone who still retains an admiration for Armstrong, for his charity work and for his entertaining racing style.
It's true that many great champions have doped. Coppi did, but it wasn´t against any rules then. Anquetil did, but was open about it. Merckx had his positives, but has always denied deliberately doping. Simpson doped, Pantani´s whole career was more a chemical than a sporting phenomenon if Matt Randell is to be belived (and he hasnñt been sued, so far as I know), which is not the case with Armstrong (even if he did dope). Indurain dominated a time in which EPO was rife, but has had the good sense to keep quiet about the subject.
If Lance is discredited, it won't change history, but it might force the UCI to get serious about doping, to recognise that there´s no point preserving a sport's reputation when the public thinks its filthy. I think that would be worthwhile.0
