McQuaid speaks on USPS investigation

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

... 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.

The interest in the story stems from the fact that Armstrong stated, in public, that he had no TUE for any product only days before the traces of corticosteroid were found in his sample. Then, a few after the test result was made public, a UCI TUE was produced which Emma O'Reilly, the team's masseuse at the time, said was given to Armstrong by the UCI retrospectively (and so against their own rules) with the team also giving the UCI a back-dated medical prescription to back-up the TUE.

Whatever the level of the substance found in his sample, the fact there was any trace at all suggested that Armstrong was using banned products, with the low level quite possibly indicating that he had taken the product a while earlier, so that when tested only traces remained. This obviously stained the 'whiter than white' image the UCI and Armstrong himself wanted to promote.

(It is not mentioned in the article but apparently Triamcinolone acetonide, when given intravenously, has a half-life in the blood steam of just 88 minutes. When delivered in the form of a nasal spray it is undetectable in the blood after 24 hours).

Another possibility, given in the article you linked to, was that the corticoids found in Armstrong's sample were the slow or 'late' release variation. Quote: 'A doctor we interviewed has a hypothesis concerning the low levels found in the riders' samples: "If they are late corticosteroid the low levels is not surprising, since their spread in the body happens more slowly and their tracability becomes harder." '

It is also interesting that the corticosteroid that was found in Armstrong's sample was the same as that found in the samples of another 4 riders and, until 10 days before the Tour started, there was no test to detect it. Perhaps they all had 'saddle sores'...

When the story broke UPS's press officer, Dan Osipow, refused to comment but a team meeting was held the same evening. Emma O'Reilley later spoke about this meeting saying:

"At one stage two of the team officials were in the room with Lance. They were all talking. 'What are we going to do, what are we going to do. Let's keep it quiet, let's stick together. Let's not panic. let's all leave here with the same story.' There was a real sense that the shit was about to hit the fan and they had to come up with an explanation. From that discussion came the saddle sore story, the corticoidal cream to treat it, and a backdated medical prescription."

This is why it is interesting, as quite apart from the fact that traces of a banned corticosteroid were found in Armstrong's blood, it was the first occasion for which there is evidence showing that the UCI were prepared to break their own rules in order to preserve Armstrong's 'whiter than white' image.

blazing_saddles

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

Huh? What are you on about?
If one person corroborates a specific allegation from Landis and other says they don't recall it, there is no cancelling out.
If individuals can recall witnessing the same acts of doping, no material evidence is required. Sworn testimony is considered to be evidence, at trial.
To refute that evidence, other individuals would be required to have witnessed the same scene, but, under oath, deny that the act took place.
Merely to say one didn't see it, or don't recall said act, carries no evidential weight at all.

A better analogy of your rational would be that a murdered gets off for shooting someone, because an eye witnessed is cancelled out if another says he didn't witness the murder.
That's ludicrous.

moray_gub

Blazing Saddles wrote:

A better analogy of your rational would be that a murdered gets off for shooting someone, because an eye witnessed is cancelled out if another says he didn't witness the murder.
That's ludicrous.

If the eye witness was the only evidence available and another person said it wasnt him then its unlikley to result in a conviction.

moray_gub

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?

Your opening post is hardly grown up debate is it ?

andyp

It was a comment to open a debate. Which has been successful. It's just a shame I've not had the time to engage in the debate myself.

dave_1

Blazing Saddles 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

Huh? What are you on about?
If one person corroborates a specific allegation from Landis and other says they don't recall it, there is no cancelling out.
If individuals can recall witnessing the same acts of doping, no material evidence is required. Sworn testimony is considered to be evidence, at trial.
To refute that evidence, other individuals would be required to have witnessed the same scene, but, under oath, deny that the act took place.
Merely to say one didn't see it, or don't recall said act, carries no evidential weight at all.

A better analogy of your rational would be that a murdered gets off for shooting someone, because an eye witnessed is cancelled out if another says he didn't witness the murder.
That's ludicrous.

there were perhaps 10 or 15 people on a bus at one time, so if plenty of them refute what others on the bus that day say happened on that day, in that layby then it comes down to who the jury believe to be a truthful witnesses and that could work for or against LA. I can't see how those against Lance can deny this is how it would work. It could go either way, but I always thought that's is why witnesses are called from both sides. Am I missing something? I don't think so.

BikingBernie

Dave_1 wrote:

there were perhaps 10 or 15 people on a bus at one time, so if plenty of them refute what others on the bus that day say happened on that day...

And how could they 'refute' it. Surely, without hard evidence all they could do would be to deny it?

Are you deliberately trying to use 'loaded' words, or don't you have a dictionary?

sherer

surely it depends on what they are investigating. Te the feds really need to show is that the USPS team paid for doping products. Do they even care which team members used them ?

dave_1

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

there were perhaps 10 or 15 people on a bus at one time, so if plenty of them refute what others on the bus that day say happened on that day...

And how could they 'refute' it. Surely, without hard evidence all they could do would be to deny it?

Well, they just say, that did not happen and that cancels out what the others say happened as their isn't any hard evidence from the bus in 2004 to strengthen the allegations.. so both sides are equal. It would then be up to the jury or whoever to decide who is truthful and you know that could go either way...for or against LA

blazing_saddles

Dave_1 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

there were perhaps 10 or 15 people on a bus at one time, so if plenty of them refute what others on the bus that day say happened on that day...

And how could they 'refute' it. Surely, without hard evidence all they could do would be to deny it?

Well, they just say, that did not happen and that cancels out what the others say happened as their isn't any hard evidence from the bus in 2004 to strengthen the allegations.. so both sides are equal. It would then be up to the jury or whoever to decide who is truthful and you know that could go either way...for or against LA

Yes, this is correct, but it is not what you originally said.
If they give sworn testimony saying: "I was there and what is being alleged, did not happen."
It would be rebuttal that should cancel out the allegation.
Then, it would be a question of which testimony the jury accepts as fact.

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

A better analogy of your rational would be that a murdered gets off for shooting someone, because an eye witnessed is cancelled out if another says he didn't witness the murder.
That's ludicrous.

If the eye witness was the only evidence available and another person said it wasnt him then its unlikley to result in a conviction.

Yes. I don't disagree with this statement.

No_Ta_Doctor

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.

Well firstly, how many of those riders are still riding? That's a fairly important distinction, LA is a current rider, his wins aren't history, they're very recent. The UCI (or is it WADA?) has a statute of limitations concerning doping cases, and LA's TdF wins fall inside them. Pantani has already been dragged through it anyway. I'm not concerned with who the wins get attributed to if they're stripped from LA, it would probably be best to call the races void.

For me there's also an issue of systematised team facilitated doping which is far more abhorrent than any individual doping case.

Lastly there is LA's aggressive protection of omerta. While plenty of other riders have benefited from the silence LA seems to have really gone out of his way to make sure it stays that way - e.g. Simeoni being chased down.

LA is the biggest fish it's possible to catch, and it's fair enough to try and catch him.

donrhummy

Dgh wrote:

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.

I'm not saying cycling's done enough or a perfect job. I'm saying that WADA, etc call out cycling way more than they do other sports DESPITE the fact that all the other sports do LESS policing of doping than cycling! That IS unfair. WADA has been particularly critical of cycling as a doping sport, yet we've heard nothing from them on football, which tests their athletes maybe 10% as much as cycling.

dave_1

donrhummy wrote:

Dgh wrote:

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.

I'm not saying cycling's done enough or a perfect job. I'm saying that WADA, etc call out cycling way more than they do other sports DESPITE the fact that all the other sports do LESS policing of doping than cycling! That IS unfair. WADA has been particularly critical of cycling as a doping sport, yet we've heard nothing from them on football, which tests their athletes maybe 10% as much as cycling.

+1 Donhrummy!

Meds1962

No tA Doctor wrote:

Meds1962 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Well firstly, how many of those riders are still riding? That's a fairly important distinction, LA is a current rider, his wins aren't history, they're very recent. The UCI (or is it WADA?) has a statute of limitations concerning doping cases, and LA's TdF wins fall inside them. Pantani has already been dragged through it anyway. I'm not concerned with who the wins get attributed to if they're stripped from LA, it would probably be best to call the races void.

For me there's also an issue of systematised team facilitated doping which is far more abhorrent than any individual doping case.

Lastly there is LA's aggressive protection of omerta. While plenty of other riders have benefited from the silence LA seems to have really gone out of his way to make sure it stays that way - e.g. Simeoni being chased down.

LA is the biggest fish it's possible to catch, and it's fair enough to try and catch him.

Fine if that's how you see it but the fact that he's only just retired again is irrelevant in my view. This is all aimed at one person when the issue is really far wider and firmly ingrained in the sport at that time and for many decades previously. If he'd been nice to the French press, not chased Simeoni down etc it seems some people on here would have less of an issue with it. There's a lot of hypocrisy on here at times, people saying what style and panache Pantani had, what a great rider Simpson was etc but still putting the knife into LA, it's often as much dislike of him as a person as it is about the (alleged) doping.

SpaceJunk

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?

Jeez you sound like a broken record Dave.

Can I run this scenario past you:

10 ex riders USPS say he doped.
10 ex USPS say he didn't dope.

The 10 who said he doped also admitted that they doped with him.
The 10 who said he didn't dope also deny they have ever doped.

Who would you believe?

dave_1

SpaceJunk 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?

Jeez you sound like a broken record Dave.

Can I run this scenario past you:

10 ex riders USPS say he doped.
10 ex USPS say he didn't dope.

The 10 who said he doped also admitted that they doped with him.
The 10 who said he didn't dope also deny they have ever doped.

Who would you believe?

Why would they have to believe the 10 you want to believe? They only admit they doped cause they got caught as far as we know. We don't know how they will each respond to a jury yet. Also, a sore point for some like you, but nobody failed a test in the years they were with LA at the TDF, their doping problems came later, on different teams and some like Andreu said he did it alone, not as team organised doping. You ca't bring yourself to admit the outcome of a case that could purely depend on eye witness testimony could go the way you don't want

blazing_saddles

Uuumm, maybe a thread entitled; "The Trial of Lance Armstrong" should be started.
Obviously, this would be ideal territory for hypothetical debate, where folks could take fellow posters points and spin them to fuel their POV.

As a serious topic, it's dead in the water.
Too much guess work and folks cannot predict results of the Feds investigation into the financial aspect of the case.

SpaceJunk

Dave_1 wrote:

Why would they have to believe the 10 you want to believe? They only admit they doped cause they got caught as far as we know. We don't know how they will each respond to a jury yet. Also, a sore point for some like you, but nobody failed a test in the years they were with LA at the TDF, their doping problems came later, on different teams and some like Andreu said he did it alone, not as team organised doping. You ca't bring yourself to admit the outcome of a case that could purely depend on eye witness testimony could go the way you don't want

Dave, I didn't say 10 dopers who got caught. I said 10 who admitted to doping.

Let me rephrase:

Who would you believe?

10 riders who never failed a drugs test who say yes, I doped and I did so alongside of LA,

or

10 riders who never failed a drugs test and who say, I didn't dope and LA didn't either.

The 10 who admitted to doping have nothing to gain by doing so. They are dropping themselves in it big time.

So to answer your question - just because you can find 10 riders who say he doped, and also 10 who say he didn't wouldn't necessarily cancel each other out.

It's a hypothetical obviously, but hopefully it just stop you sounding like a broken record.

symo

McQuaid wants to STFU and declare that the UCI will be the first sporting body to retrospectively test samples. I can't see why someone who was bending themselves around the rules because they had a new product should profit from that knowledge. They doped therefore cheated and having retrospective testing known to be taking place in the future will act as a significant deterrent on using undetectable 'now' drugs.

Oh and Mr McQuaid what about the USPS Trek made available on eBay eh?

jimmythecuckoo

I dont know enough about this situation to comment with the degree of detail that some posters on here have.

From the laymans perspective there is little doubt Landis doped. There is also little doubt that having been hung out to dry he is coming back to take others down.

Is it likely Lance doped? Look at the podiums behind him in his Tour wins, whilst that doesnt constitute evidence it does expose him.

Will this investigation give this forum closure ?

Nope!!!!

I think we will still be having threads like this in 5 years.

dulldave

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

I dont know enough about this situation to comment with the degree of detail that some posters on here have.

From the laymans perspective there is little doubt Landis doped. There is also little doubt that having been hung out to dry he is coming back to take others down.

Is it likely Lance doped? Look at the podiums behind him in his Tour wins, whilst that doesnt constitute evidence it does expose him.

Will this investigation give this forum closure ?

Nope!!!!

I think we will still be having threads like this in 5 years.

Yip, I agree. After they catch Lance the whole thing will just move onto Contador as it was beginning to do in 2008.

sherer

sa I said before, can't remember if it was in this thread or not, I would expect any trial, if it comes to that, to first of all follow the money trail to prove that doping products were purchased by the team. Then they will look into who owns the team and charge them purchasing these with govt money.

My understanding is that this isn't so much about whether LA doped or not but about what govt money was spent on

Pross

Moray Gub wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

A better analogy of your rational would be that a murdered gets off for shooting someone, because an eye witnessed is cancelled out if another says he didn't witness the murder.
That's ludicrous.

If the eye witness was the only evidence available and another person said it wasnt him then its unlikley to result in a conviction.

That's very different to Blazing Saddles' analogy of the person not seeing the murder. If someone under oath says an incident definately didn't happen then it would cancel out someone saying it definately did happen but if they only say they didn't see it happen or the politician's favourite "I have no recollection of that happening" then it wouldn't been a direct rebuttal of the allegation. That is the whole reason for the "I have no recollection" answer as it protects against a charge of perjury.

Pross

Double post deleted.

Monty Dog

The dilemma for any rider deposed to appear before the Grand Jury or the subsequent trial is that if they deny that they ever doped and subsequently evidence comes to light that they in fact did, then they can be charged with perjury - this is what happened to Marion Jones following the Balco trial.

The other point is the Federal Investigation isn't necessarily about proving so-and-so doped, but on systematic and institutional fraud, in particular that the team management (and perhaps sponsors?) were complicit in the administration of doping products which in turn generated earnings and additional sponsorship for the team - and likewise that these 'fraudulent' winnings when then used to administer 'donations' to the sports governing body. Finally, there's also the small issue of the previous Tailwind vs SCA promotions case - SCA are likely to want their money back and punitive damages. Likewise, the prospect of Greg Lemond revealing the evidence that his settlement with Trek failed to keep disclosed.

dave_1

SpaceJunk wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Why would they have to believe the 10 you want to believe? They only admit they doped cause they got caught as far as we know. We don't know how they will each respond to a jury yet. Also, a sore point for some like you, but nobody failed a test in the years they were with LA at the TDF, their doping problems came later, on different teams and some like Andreu said he did it alone, not as team organised doping. You ca't bring yourself to admit the outcome of a case that could purely depend on eye witness testimony could go the way you don't want

Dave, I didn't say 10 dopers who got caught. I said 10 who admitted to doping.

Let me rephrase:

Who would you believe?

10 riders who never failed a drugs test who say yes, I doped and I did so alongside of LA,

or

10 riders who never failed a drugs test and who say, I didn't dope and LA didn't either.

The 10 who admitted to doping have nothing to gain by doing so. They are dropping themselves in it big time.

So to answer your question - just because you can find 10 riders who say he doped, and also 10 who say he didn't wouldn't necessarily cancel each other out.

It's a hypothetical obviously, but hopefully it just stop you sounding like a broken record.

It's hypothetical and we don't know who will admit to doping yet...but they get immunity deals, so no consequences legally. You don't know who's admitted doping yet as we've only had hearsay reports thus far

and the only broken record is you biking bernie people singing your sad and bitter song over and over again.

sherer

Monty Dog wrote:

The dilemma for any rider deposed to appear before the Grand Jury or the subsequent trial is that if they deny that they ever doped and subsequently evidence comes to light that they in fact did, then they can be charged with perjury - this is what happened to Marion Jones following the Balco trial.

The other point is the Federal Investigation isn't necessarily about proving so-and-so doped, but on systematic and institutional fraud, in particular that the team management (and perhaps sponsors?) were complicit in the administration of doping products which in turn generated earnings and additional sponsorship for the team - and likewise that these 'fraudulent' winnings when then used to administer 'donations' to the sports governing body. Finally, there's also the small issue of the previous Tailwind vs SCA promotions case - SCA are likely to want their money back and punitive damages. Likewise, the prospect of Greg Lemond revealing the evidence that his settlement with Trek failed to keep disclosed.

this is my take on it too. Although with SCA the payments were based on winning the tour and there was no none doping clause. If the wins get marked off they can get money back but if a Riis asterisk is used what would they do then ?

BikingBernie

sherer wrote:

Although with SCA the payments were based on winning the tour and there was no none doping clause. If the wins get marked off they can get money back but if a Riis asterisk is used what would they do then ?

If evidence comes out proving that the UCI were 'protecting' Armstrong, sue the UCI?

After all, at the SCA hearings it was ruled that no amount of evidence showing that he doped was relevant, all that mattered was that the UCI had declared him to be the official winner. However if, for example, his 1999 Tour 'win' had been taken away from him as a consequence of the UCI investigating his Epo 'positives', rather than commissioning a 'hatchet job' on the LNDD, the SCA would have won their case. Same goes for the other 4 of his first 5 'wins'.

Monty Dog

Quote: If the wins get marked off they can get money back but if a Riis asterisk is used what would they do then ?

But Rijs didn't engineer himself a deal with an unsuspecting third party that he'd get a big pay out ?

If you had suspicious motives, you could conclude that Tailwind were readily aware that by being prepared by Ferrari - and the 4th place result in the preceding Vuelta confirmed it - that they were in for a big pay-day come July and SCA were inadvertantly drawn in to their scam. Tailwinds lawyers must have been laughing all the way to the bank when there was 'no doping' exclusion in the agreement.