USADA files doping charges against Lance

LangerDan

If collusion by the UCI is shown to have occurred, then it opens up an even more appalling vista - if Aigle took "cash for no questions" from LA and/or the Hog, how many other teams and riders took advantage of such an arrangement over the years.

peterst6906

speshsteve wrote:

The simple fact is that during the LA reign I believe it was a level playing field of sorts so why bother looking back

The level playing field argument is a fallacy, but the health consequences that result from doping are not.

Saying that it was a level playing field because everyone doped is like saying it's a level playing field when no-one dopes. It's never a level playing field.

In a dope free peleton, those with the best abilities rise to the top and win. In a doped peleton, those with the best response to drugs rise to the top and win; and in the process they promote a drug culture for everyone.

But there are long term health problems that can result from doping (not to mention the deaths that occur as a result of poorly structured regimes) and riders who would otherwise never go near dope end up doping themselves just to have any chance.

So why look back? Because there's a need to minimise the risk of systematic team level doping in the future and looking back is an important part of that process, especially as a number of people complicit in that era are still leaders in the sport today.

andy_wrx

The Inner Ring take on it is also that it's not just about Armstrong - it's about the conspiracy, Bruyneel and other team personnel still active, Ferrari and other doctors still active
http://inrng.com/2012/06/usada-charges- ... #more-9189

Al-McQaeda and the UCI complicit in the conspiracy too, hiding positive tests, tipping-off about testers' visits, taking 'anti-doping' donations, etc is going a whole lot further

No_Ta_Doctor

Ashenden weighs in on the UCI

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-c ... enden-says

BikingBernie

LangerDan wrote:

If collusion by the UCI is shown to have occurred, then it opens up an even more appalling vista - if Aigle took "cash for no questions" from LA and/or the Hog, how many other teams and riders took advantage of such an arrangement over the years.

Who knows? However, I would guess that not many teams fitted in with Fat Pat's vision of making cycling 'global' and breaking the dominance of the 'mafia European nations', as Armstrong did. In fact given the many times McQuaid has made it clear that he doesn't like the 'old school' cycling nations, and positively hates the French, I would have thought the best contenders for such a deal, if any, would be other 'Anglo-Saxon' teams.

ddraver

Oh Yeah, Clearly this means Wiggins is a doper, I mean come on!

BikingBernie

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ashenden weighs in on the UCI

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-c ... enden-says

“For me the thing that has the most far-reaching consequence is that several witnesses said that Armstrong talked about having a test result covered up,” Ashenden told Cyclingnews.

“That has enormous implications. If the evidence supports that charge it’s likely to descend cycling, which is already fending off a fair bit of criticism, into chaos. It’s hard to understate the ramifications. If Armstrong believed that he had a test that was covered up then that story doesn’t just end with him being sanctioned or not because other people must have been complicit with Armstrong.”

Whether the EPO gel in question was positive, suspicious or negative is secondary to the fact that according to multiple witnesses, Armstrong thought he had had one of his results covered up. He can’t cover it up himself so he must have believed that he’d influenced someone to cover up his result. That points to the UCI, and infers that Armstrong believed at the time that he had the capacity to influence their actions.

The UCI has steadfastly denied any allegations of such a cover up, moving as far as opening legal proceedings against Floyd Landis. However Cyclingnews understands that the American has not received notification of any legal suit in the last two years.

Rather unfortunately for the UCI they have also faced scrutiny over donations made by Armstrong to their bank accounts. Armstrong made two donations to the UCI during his racing career. The seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005.

The UCI in 2010 that the money was used in the fight against doping and in July of that year UCI President Pat McQuaid showed Cyclingnews a photocopy of the invoice of the Sysmex blood testing machine that a large part of Armstrong's $100,000 donation was used to buy. He refused to let us take a photograph of it, keeping it in a file marked 'Confidential'.

At last people are beginning to add two and two together and actually agree that they make four!

BikingBernie

ddraver wrote:

Oh Yeah, Clearly this means Wiggins is a doper, I mean come on!

What? Who mentioned Wiggins? The logic of McQuaid's declared aims and his dislike of 'the mafia European nations', especially 'The French', surely means that he would be loath to hand out similar 'favours' to teams from such nations?

jerry3571

LangerDan wrote:

If collusion by the UCI is shown to have occurred, then it opens up an even more appalling vista - if Aigle took "cash for no questions" from LA and/or the Hog, how many other teams and riders took advantage of such an arrangement over the years.

+1

This is the big question. I had heard a story that the UCI, after the 1998 TDF, wanted to sweep any more bad news aside and start with a new story. That story was the Lance Armstrong story. With this, it may have happened, that a blind eye was given to LA and co where doping was concerned. This seemed to have carried on for 7 years until the stink became unbearable (LA was getting on a bit also). This is where we are today. The issue at hand is whether the Authorities allowed one or more teams to take doping to a new level with their consent.

Jerry

Jez mon

BikingBernie wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Oh Yeah, Clearly this means Wiggins is a doper, I mean come on!

What? Who mentioned Wiggins? The logic of McQuaid's declared aims and his dislike of 'the mafia European nations', especially 'The French', surely means that he would be loath to hand out similar 'favours' to teams from such nations?

You hinted with your Anglo-Saxon comment Bernie, play fair

FWIW did T-Mobile ever have a positive test?

Basso?

No_Ta_Doctor

So... Ekimov's Olympic Gold (forwarded by Hamilton).... Anyone up for a game of pass the parcel?

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

FWIW did T-Mobile ever have a positive test?

Wasn't Kessler busted at T Mobile?

And Honchar?

Oscar Sevilla?

Patrik Sinkewitz?

Cumulonimbus

Kessler had moved on to Astana by that point. Sinkewitz was still riding for T-mobile when he tested positive in 2007

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

FWIW did T-Mobile ever have a positive test?

Wasn't Kessler busted at T Mobile?

And Honchar?

Oscar Sevilla?

Patrik Sinkewitz?

According to wiki

Astana

Suspended by team

Can't find a positive test

Yes.

But the last three seem to be in what I affectionately think of as the "clean" T-mobile vintage, once they started taking anti doping a bit more seriously.

Jez mon

No tA Doctor wrote:

So... Ekimov's Olympic Gold (forwarded by Hamilton).... Anyone up for a game of pass the parcel?

Stuart Dangerfield...

Monty Dog

So after 15 pages of discussions we've come to the conclusions that the Wolverhampton Whinger is the 2000 Olympic TT champion?

LangerDan

BikingBernie wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

If collusion by the UCI is shown to have occurred, then it opens up an even more appalling vista - if Aigle took "cash for no questions" from LA and/or the Hog, how many other teams and riders took advantage of such an arrangement over the years.

Who knows? However, I would guess that not many teams fitted in with Fat Pat's vision of making cycling 'global' and breaking the dominance of the 'mafia European nations', as Armstrong did. In fact given the many times McQuaid has made it clear that he doesn't like the 'old school' cycling nations, and positively hates the French, I would have thought the best contenders for such a deal, if any, would be other 'Anglo-Saxon' teams.

Once you're in to such an arrangement, cash is cash, regardless of where it comes from.
If such a scheme existed as a a "UCI" arrangement, rather than a "get-rich-quick scheme" initiated by McQuaid, chances are it pre-dated McQuaids ascendancy to the top job and may have started on the previous incumbent's watch. Even allowing for the poorer doping detection technology available 10 or 15 years ago, I can think of several big-budget squads - some from cycling's heartlands - that sailed under the radar while achieving frankly outrageous results.

mididoctors

peterst6906 wrote:

speshsteve wrote:

The simple fact is that during the LA reign I believe it was a level playing field of sorts so why bother looking back

The level playing field argument is a fallacy, but the health consequences that result from doping are not.

Saying that it was a level playing field because everyone doped is like saying it's a level playing field when no-one dopes. It's never a level playing field.

In a dope free peloton, those with the best abilities rise to the top and win. In a doped peloton, those with the best response to drugs rise to the top and win; and in the process they promote a drug culture for everyone.

But there are long term health problems that can result from doping (not to mention the deaths that occur as a result of poorly structured regimes) and riders who would otherwise never go near dope end up doping themselves just to have any chance.

So why look back? Because there's a need to minimise the risk of systematic team level doping in the future and looking back is an important part of that process, especially as a number of people complicit in that era are still leaders in the sport today.

well argued

iainf72

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

2) RSNT won't survive this. (IMO)

peterst6906

iainf72 wrote:

2) RSNT won't survive this. (IMO)

+1

knedlicky

Coincidentally (wrt the USADA news coming out), today and tomorrow the UCI Management Committee is meeting in Salzburg, as is the UCI Anti-doping Commission. McQuaid is supposed to be giving a speech where he states how the future of International Cycle Sport should develop.

Also taking place in Salzburg, yesterday, was a meeting of the Professional Cycling Council which I think includes Prudhomme. McQuaid gave a speech there: "Beyond the aspects related to competition, our sport is an ideal vehicle for fundamental values such as individual well-being and respect of the environment”, etc, etc.

The rest of the PCC meeting seems to have concerned itself with dates of events, to which events to give World Tour licences, plans to create a UCI International Licence for riders and to extend the Biological Passport programme to Continental level, etc.

It’ll be interesting to see whether any statements of more substance than McQuaid’s initial speech come out from any of the groups.

No_Ta_Doctor

[tinfoilhatmode] Personally I'm amazed that Bjarne could manage to swing a conspiracy this size just to get custody of his Schleck kiddies[/tinfoilhatmode]

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

Cleat Eastwood

can someone clarify - what happens to currently working DS's who are caught up in it all - can they just walk away to another job at another team or do they face a punishment like the bike cheats, I suppose I'm asking do the UCI have any means to impose a ban on staff as well as riders?

Monty Dog

I expect the sanction that the UCI can impose is the withdraw the ProTour licenses of the teams in question?

Expect there's some rapid re-drafting of the license agreements going on right now?

Jez mon

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

can someone clarify - what happens to currently working DS's who are caught up in it all - can they just walk away to another job at another team or do they face a punishment like the bike cheats, I suppose I'm asking do the UCI have any means to impose a ban on staff as well as riders?

From what I've read, it suggests that you do need a license to be a DS. So theoretically, that can be revoked. Now they could turn up to a new team, in some unofficial capacity, as hangers on. But would a sponsor take that risk, bearing in mind this goes beyond, stopping riders from dying when they've doped and is instead, running a massive well organised, doping machine.

iainf72

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

BikingBernie

On the subject of the UCI being willing to collude with teams that will help them to further their aims, I wonder what Patrice Clerc is feeling right now.

Everyone will probably remember how it was reported that Armstrong met with the UCI prior the 2009 Tour in order to negotiate how his return to the race would be handled. The aftermath saw the UCI 'fall out' with the AFLD, with the AFLD accusing the UCI of favouritism when testing riders from Armstrong's team in the 2009 Tour, and the UCI then preventing the AFLD from testing riders at the 2010 Tour. Even more tellingly, after his meeting with Armstrong, McQuaid arranged a meeting with the ASO. Shortly after this Patrice Clerc, who was president of the ASO and had taken a strongly anti-doping stance, was sacked. McQuaid's arrogance was such that he even admitted the part he had played in his dismissal saying:

"It's something I shouldn't comment on," McQuaid told ESPN.com Wednesday. "It's an internal Amaury decision. All I would say [to Clerc] is 'goodbye,' and you can read between the lines if you like."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=3621096

I guess that makes the ASO complicit in all this as well...

andy_wrx

No tA Doctor wrote:

[tinfoilhatmode] Personally I'm amazed that Bjarne could manage to swing a conspiracy this size just to get custody of his Schleck kiddies[/tinfoilhatmode]

Wasn't there also a thread recently about Spartacus back to Bjarne ?

LeicesterLad

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

Correct. No evidence was provided from the federal investigation. Well done to USADA I say.

As for RSNT - Will they even start the Tour this year? I'm struggling to see it myself.