What about McQuaid, Verbruggen and the UCI?

Gazzetta67

BikingBernie wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Haven't seen you on the forum for a while bikingbernie.

I have been 'off-line' for a while, and now I have got out of the posting habit I might not be posting that much in the future either. I also see that the true fanboys like Paul Cuthbert and Dennis don't seem to posting nowadays either, which sort of takes the edge off the fun.

Maybe they are busy cleaning there Trek`s (in US Postal colours of course) for there
"Fanboystrong" ride this weekend ?

frenchfighter

Good to see you back BB.

Tusher

Yes, it is Bernie.
Actually, I'm a bit worried about Dennisn and Paul. If you're lurking out there boys

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<HUGS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

finchy

Well, the UCI are outraged and have released a press statement which they seem to have copy & pasted off LA's press statements - Tyler Hamilton is trying to damage cycling's image, lied to true cycling fans on several occasions, etc.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves20 ... efend.html

So there you are, nothing to see here, move along people. Or we'll shoot you.

ratsbeyfus

BikingBernie wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Haven't seen you on the forum for a while bikingbernie.

I have been 'off-line' for a while, and now I have got out of the posting habit I might not be posting that much in the future either. I also see that the true fanboys like Paul Cuthbert and Dennis don't seem to posting nowadays either, which sort of takes the edge off the fun.

Good to see you back BB.

Last I heard Dennisn was 30,000 feet up in his house drifting towards Venezuela aided by a shed load of helium balloons.


(Is that Mr Gubb with him?)

I'm sure he will reappear soon with the line "It's been a while since I've been here, and folk SURE seem to be getting hot under the collar about this lance STUFF. Personally I don't CARE if he doped one WAY or another, I'm just intrigued about WHY y'all CARE. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: " or some such psychobabble guff.

hotoph88

"60 Minutes" obtained a letter from USADA in which the Swiss lab which tested Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse considered Armstrong's sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use". The CBS news program learned that the director of the Swiss lab had met with both Lance Armstrong and team director Johan Bruyneel concerning the test from the Tour de Suisse.
"The Swiss lab director has since given a sworn statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). "60 Minutes" has learned that the lab director testified that a representative of the UCI wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further. The lab director also testified that the meeting between himself, Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the UCI."

Any news on how the court case is progressing ? (Hope the UCI are spending our money wisely.)

"The International Cycling Union (UCI), its current President, Mr Pat McQuaid, and one of its former Presidents, Mr Hein Verbruggen, have lodged a case in the Swiss courts against Mr Floyd Landis regarding repeated, serious attacks against their characters.

"By this step, made necessary by numerous unacceptable public statements by Mr Landis, the UCI is seeking to defend the integrity of the cycling movement as a whole against the accusations of a rider who, by breaching the Anti-doping Rules, caused cycling serious harm."

Best bit was this (ok I am cutting out a section but just who the hell do they think they are !)

"The UCI is deeply shocked by the seriousness of the allegations made.... and by the extent of the media interest in the case."

Deeply shocked by the media interest ! - Pesky blighters - now clear off do you hear !

morstar

BikingBernie wrote:

dougzz wrote:

morstar wrote:

'm firmly in the Lance is guilty camp but you're agenda peddling. Your OP is fanciful. The situation evolved and was not a predefined masterplan as you tell the story. Also, finishing however many hours / mins down in early tour attempts says very little about a rider. Big Migs early performances were very uninspiring also.

You don't see a parallel between Mig and Lance? You think Mig was any cleaner?

And don't forget to add Riis to the list of 'No hopers become Tour winners, 'coincidentally' yet another 'EPO era' rider

Then look at the sort of riders who became winners, and especially multiple winners, before the EPO era. Almost to a man they showed their potential the first time they rode the Tour, often winning the race first time out. For example, Merckx, Fignon and Lemond.

Oh, and as I have already pointed out, nowhere have I argued that there was a 'predefined masterplan', rather the whole mess arose because promoting / protecting Armstrong fitted in with the goals of the UCI, and one thing inevitably led to another.

So, Fignon and Ullrich both showed their colours first time out and they were doping. Therefore your argument is stored in a leaky bucket. What about the Wiggins effect? Tossing about for years and then deciding to try for GC. All the riders you've listed in your reply to me are very different styles of rider so comparison of one aspect of their character / riding is fairly superficial.

Look, Armstrong doped. I agree with much of I've read from you in the past and have found it quite informative and frequently in depth. In this instance, I never read all of your OP as it was just so fanciful, you sold the story as pre-determined. Maybe not your intention but that is how it came across.

Hate him or hate him, dismissing LA as below average just undermines your point as it's plain stupid.

BikingBernie

morstar wrote:

What about the Wiggins effect? Tossing about for years and then deciding to try for GC.

And you have proof that Wiggins was clean? Given recent revelations he should be claiming as his by rights that third place in the 2009 Tour, instead he apparently remains a firm supporter of Armstrong. Go figure...

As to the observation that in pre-epo days Tour winners usually showed their ability the first time they rode is also argued for in Christopher S. Thompson's cultural history of the Tour, The Tour de France where he writes (p.342):

This record [Armstrong's] represents a departure from the typical trajectory of Tour riders. From the first Tour in 1903 to the early 1990's, in virtually every case winners and top contenders in the race demonstrated their potential from the very beginning of their professional careers. Only in the past decade and a half has the Tour been won by racers who did not demonstrate that kind of potential early in their careers and whose first Tour performances were mediocre. Miguel Indurain, Lance Armstrong and Bjarne Riis, winners between them of thirteen of the fifteen Tours between 1991 and 2005, fit this profile.

deejay

speshsteve wrote:

I am neither pro or against LA however was he really a below average rider before his post cancer return. Was he not an up and coming rider (well proven at tri) who had just won a stage of the tour and then was diagnosed with cancer?

That should read below average Tour rider.
He was an above average rider at a level of say Laurent Brochard who also won a World Championship but never expected to win a TDF.

If you are too young for that
Then try a more recent World Champion Alessandro Ballan who is a similar level rider that is never expected to win a TDF.

Armstrong couldn't Time Trial and was passed by Raoul Alcala in the USA Tour de Trump and when the Mexican punctured and then caught and dropped Armstrong a second time to win the Trump.

Armstrong had many European 2nd places and podiums compared to his few wins.

dougzz

morstar wrote:

So, Fignon and Ullrich both showed their colours first time out and they were doping. Therefore your argument is stored in a leaky bucket. What about the Wiggins effect? Tossing about for years and then deciding to try for GC. All the riders you've listed in your reply to me are very different styles of rider so comparison of one aspect of their character / riding is fairly superficial.

Look, Armstrong doped. I agree with much of I've read from you in the past and have found it quite informative and frequently in depth. In this instance, I never read all of your OP as it was just so fanciful, you sold the story as pre-determined. Maybe not your intention but that is how it came across.

Hate him or hate him, dismissing LA as below average just undermines your point as it's plain stupid.

Ullrich came from a country dedicated to political advancement through athletic achievement. He'd have been on some sort of 'supplement' program since he was first noticed as junior. I don't fully agree with BB but I thought your use of Mig as an example was very flawed, as is Ullrich. Wiggins is a bit of a one near miss case, not really a comparison with the other names mentioned, I think it's also worth noting he'd always been about the track, the road was very second best for him.

deejay

BikingBernie wrote:

morstar wrote:

What about the Wiggins effect? Tossing about for years and then deciding to try for GC.

And you have proof that Wiggins was clean? Given recent revelations he should be claiming as his by rights that third place in the 2009 Tour, instead he apparently remains a firm supporter of Armstrong. Go figure...

As to the observation that in pre-epo days Tour winners usually showed their ability the first time they rode is also argued for in Christopher S. Thompson's cultural history of the Tour, The Tour de France where he writes (p.342):

This record [Armstrong's] represents a departure from the typical trajectory of Tour riders. From the first Tour in 1903 to the early 1990's, in virtually every case winners and top contenders in the race demonstrated their potential from the very beginning of their professional careers. Only in the past decade and a half has the Tour been won by racers who did not demonstrate that kind of potential early in their careers and whose first Tour performances were mediocre. Miguel Indurain, Lance Armstrong and Bjarne Riis, winners between them of thirteen of the fifteen Tours between 1991 and 2005, fit this profile.

Which I've told you before is wrong regarding Indurain who came through the ranks as a "Domestic" to Delgado and in that capacity annoyed Lemon by wheelsucking him before taking the biggest mountain stage win.
What was it Luz Ardiden.
The year before Indurain won the mountain stage to Cauterets.
Indurain didn't suddenly pop up a mountain as never before to win a TDF.

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

Armstrong couldn't Time Trial and was passed by Raoul Alcala in the USA Tour de Trump and when the Mexican punctured and then caught and dropped Armstrong a second time to win the Trump.

From here: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/17/sport ... upont.html

Armstrong, a first-year pro riding the longest individual time trial of his career, also had misfortune during the final several stages.

In addition to a flat tire, a crash and a broken time-trial bike, Armstrong learned early this morning that a longtime friend had died Saturday of a heart attack.

Armstrong also was forced to use a less aerodynamic road race bike when a crack was discovered in his time-trial bike before the last stage.

I always like to consider both sides of the story. In reality, he was always a pretty good TTer.

bigmat

There's that clip on youtube of Indurain passing Armstrong in a tt - looks like Lance is stationary! Mig did show glimpses of grand tour winning form, won a stage in 89 then in 90 - I reckon he could've won the 1990 tour outright but he sacrificed himself for Delgado, he looked the strongest rider there to me but he was a classy guy and happy to do his job for his team leader. Sadly, I'm pretty sure he was on the sauce, but I don't class him as a carthorse turned thoroughbred (like Riis for example).

heavymental

The UCI's statement sound so weak. This technique of just trying to discredit the accuser is wearing so thin now. Even if it isn't true, the response is very unprofessional. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rej ... g-cover-up

deejay

BigMat wrote:

There's that clip on youtube of Indurain passing Armstrong in a tt - looks like Lance is stationary!

I watched and enjoyed this and the Tour Du Pont both Live.
Somewhere else but where (scratches head) to know he was mediocre at Time Trials even without the excuses he always made when he didn't win.
OFTEN that is

Whinging to his mechanics that nobody here recognised the reigning world champion. (that's what you think dummy)
Oh yes I've had some fun at his expense (even at the side of the road to his face) and then seven years (longer in fact) of whinging about him but the coin turns to having fun once again.
More Please, I'm Adicted to the End Game.

Gazzetta67

I was there in 94 Perigeux to Bergerac TT I remember it well cos i got heat stroke 8)

Armstrong was riding like a girl and then came along Indurain who was riding as fast as a TGV. fast forward 5 years and the magic fairy transforms certain folk into unbeatable time triallists.

RichN95.

Gazzetta67 wrote:

I was there in 94 Perigeux to Bergerac TT I remember it well cos i got heat stroke 8)

Armstrong was riding like a girl and then came along Indurain who was riding as fast as a TGV. fast forward 5 years and the magic fairy transforms certain folk into unbeatable time triallists.

Yeah, but Armstrong never had to beat Indurain. Indurain beat everyone in that TT by over 4 minutes (except Rominger at 2 mins). He beat Boardman (who was 5th) by 5'27. Armstrong actually came 13th in that TT - not a shoddy result for a 22 year old.

Some other people's results that day:

5. Boardman +5'27
6. Riis +5'33
8. Olano +5'45
13. Armstrong +6'23
15. Yates +6'50
23. Breukink +7'49
37. Zulle +9'03
39. Mottet +9'10

The one anti-Armstrong argument I've never bought into is that he had no talent as a GC rider.