I'll take lemond, thanks.

lemond-
You've got to get rid of the UCI (international governing body)," he said. "There's corruption in the UCI. It goes back. <i>You have certain athletes donating money for doping machines</i>. Ethically it crosses a barrier. It sends a message that: Are all the riders really being tested? That's what's going on in the minds of the peloton."

mcquaid-
UCI president Pat McQuaid, reached in Dublin, Ireland, on Saturday, angrily answered: (harumph!) "I completely disagree and completely dispute what Greg LeMond says. <i>Greg LeMond himself is not above suspicion</i>. The UCI is doing a good job in the fight against doping. If he talks about accusations of corruption, let him prove it."

lots(!) more in the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_6727367">denver post</a> article and in the daily camera interview he did friday night.

I'll take lemond, thanks.

lemond-
You've got to get rid of the UCI (international governing body)," he said. "There's corruption in the UCI. It goes back. <i>You have certain athletes donating money for doping machines</i>. Ethically it crosses a barrier. It sends a message that: Are all the riders really being tested? That's what's going on in the minds of the peloton."



Is this a shot at Armstrong?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jul05/jul01news3

'A more infrequently reported fact, although one that is by no means a secret, is that he has helped the UCI over the years in its fight against doping, by donating money to the cause. "I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out of competition controls," said Armstrong in an interview with Cyclingnews last year. "I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]."'

It's just Lemond, talking out his ass again. Does he offer anything other than bizarre accusations these days? He hasn't been involved in professional cycling for at least 25 years, so why would anyone think he knows anything about it?

what's so bizarre about what Lemond says? It not like he's the only one attacking McQuaid. The ASO has also called for his resignation over the Rasmussen affair. McQuaid can decide whether the UCI rules are too harsh and ignore them when he wants to (rule 222)? Pound and WADA also call the UCI a joke and only retracted their statements under pressure of a lawsuit.

Besides, any normal organization would have fired their director for making the sort of statements McQuaid did a while ago when he talked about the "Anglo-Saxon vs Mafia Western European culture."

"http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/jan07/jan08news

It's just Lemond, talking out his ass again. Does he offer anything other than bizarre accusations these days? He hasn't been involved in professional cycling for at least 25 years, so why would anyone think he knows anything about it?


Ill give you this-he's gotten more shrill recently. I think you'd have to have not read the link to think he's not offering anything other than accusations though. no injections, 46% blood viscosity threshold, 2 hours of sequestration pre race and enhanced criminalization of doping are all actions he'd like to see implemented. coming up with solutions, even far fetched ones, beats the crap out of disbanding your team and going home b/c the winds are changing.

Ill give you this-he's gotten more shrill recently. I think you'd have to have not read the link to think he's not offering anything other than accusations though. no injections, 46% blood viscosity threshold, 2 hours of sequestration pre race and enhanced criminalization of doping are all actions he'd like to see implemented. coming up with solutions, even far fetched ones, beats the crap out of disbanding your team and going home b/c the winds are changing.

I did read the link, and I actually like some of his proposals, but come on, what does he know about corruption in the UCI? The guy doesn't know when to shut up, and it never fails to make him look like an idiot.

How would you positively construe Lance donating money to the UCI for anti-doping?

He's under their testing and in the face of an obvious conflict of interest, they accept the money. Maybe corruption is the wrong word, how about complete lack of ethics?

How would you positively construe Lance donating money to the UCI for anti-doping?

He's under their testing and in the face of an obvious conflict of interest, they accept the money. Maybe corruption is the wrong word, how about complete lack of ethics?


Armstrong has been quoted.

So are you saying, that because Armstrong has admitted to contributing, it's a bold face lie. But his failure to admit to doping is also a lie.

Are you saying Armstrong has never told the truth?

Contributing to the anti doping authorities is akin to a suspected criminal contributing to the DA's office or the Police. It may very well be above board but it lays both sides wide open to critisism & suspicion.

It's just Lemond, talking out his ass again. Does he offer anything other than bizarre accusations these days? He hasn't been involved in professional cycling for at least 25 years, so why would anyone think he knows anything about it?Need to brush up on your maths.

Lemond turned pro for Renault in 81 - 26 years ago. He retired in 94 - 13 years ago. His career spanned the dark ages of inexact doping through to the dawn of doctors, epo & blood doping. If anyone is qualified to comment it's him. He was not some foot soldier who was spat out of the peleton after a handful of years without any wins, like Kimmage. Rather he rode for 13 years and won many prestigious races including 3 Tours. Yes he does sound bitter, but then wouldn't you if the sport you love was being turned into a freak show by dopers?

Contributing to the anti doping authorities is akin to a suspected criminal contributing to the DA's office or the Police. It may very well be above board but it lays both sides wide open to critisism & suspicion.

I disagree with that. It says (and is probably what Lance wants it to say) that he's clean and wants the sport to be clean, so he's helping the cause by contributing.

It's more like an accused/suspected criminal helping the investigation to try to catch the real perp. He's saying "I didn't do it, and I'll help you catch the guy that did".

What's so underhanded about that? Just for a moment, change sides, and pretend that you think Lance is clean. Why wouldn't he help the UCI and WADA clean up the sport he loves?

//back to your regularly scheduled conspiracy theory

It's more like an accused/suspected criminal helping the investigation to try to catch the real perp. He's saying "I didn't do it, and I'll help you catch the guy that did".

What's so underhanded about that?

kinda sounds like OJ

Yeah, my math was wrong. But if Lemond thinks the sport he loves is being turned into a freak show by dopers, he is absolutely clueless. Lemond hardly rode in a clean era! And like McQuaid said, Greg LeMond himself is not above suspicion.

How would you positively construe Lance donating money to the UCI for anti-doping?

He's under their testing and in the face of an obvious conflict of interest, they accept the money. Maybe corruption is the wrong word, how about complete lack of ethics?

I would positively construe that Lance is so anti-doping, he is willing to put his own money behind the effort. That makes a lot more sense than suggesting he is trying to buy off the UCI to overlook his own doping. I don't even think that is possible to do. There are far too many people involved in the testing process, including plenty of people who don't work for the UCI. That would be a cover up of massive proportions.

Would it really be surprising since other riders were aware of upcoming out of competition tests from the UCI?

kinda sounds like OJ

But you can't make an assumption of guilt or innocence based on whether they give money to the organization or not. All it seems to do for the public is reinforce their existing opinions...

"See? He must be innocent! He's helping them find the guilty!"

or

"See? He's guilty and trying to cover it up!"

I'd like to believe Lance is/was clean, so I'll go with the former. If you want to believe he doped, then you'll opt for the latter.

The folks on the innerwebz (and Lemond, etc) can speculate and hypothesize all they/we want. The simple fact is, we'll never know. Even those who claim to know, really don't. It's not like they have inside info that the UCI, WADA and UDADA don't have.

All I know is that I hope that non of the Lance conspiracy theorists and haters aren't racers that have to take drug tests, and one of their tests comes out false "positive" or suspicious. To me, it's a lot like the justice system convicting an innocent person based on an eye witness with 20/2000 vision, or being set up. How do you prove a negative (prove you didn't do something)? That's why the justice system is "innocent until proven guilty", and "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt". Taking (to change perpatrators) Floyd's career away because of a chemical imbalance that can't be proven is only slightly less bad than throwing him in jail for a few years for a crime he didn't commit. In his case, I don't know of any large scale studies that says it's impossible to have a naturally occuring imbalance of test. levels. But I don't want to keep going down that road and turn this into a "Free Floyd" thread. It's just a hypothetical example.

I would positively construe that Lance is so anti-doping, he is willing to put his own money behind the effort. That makes a lot more sense than suggesting he is trying to buy off the UCI to overlook his own doping. I don't even think that is possible to do. There are far too many people involved in the testing process, including plenty of people who don't work for the UCI. That would be a cover up of massive proportions.

Plus, don't you think the UCI would LOVE to find him guilty/positive? They'd have a field day and be all over the news. They live for that s#!t. So I seriously doubt they'd be able to be bought off. Their egos are at least as big as Lance's.

You must be confusing the UCI with an organization that has been fighting doping for more than the last 6 months...maybe WADA?

I would positively construe that Lance is so anti-doping, he is willing to put his own money behind the effort.

LOL! You can't be serious. Lance was afraid of Mayo.

Yeah, my math was wrong. But if Lemond thinks the sport he loves is being turned into a freak show by dopers, he is absolutely clueless. Lemond hardly rode in a clean era! And like McQuaid said, Greg LeMond himself is not above suspicion.

I think Lemond is far from clueless.... And I'm not sure what tour/cycling year you watched this year but from what I saw it looked like a freak show... (yellow jersery fired from team when he looked like a sure winner, Vino positive & team leaves, T-moble rider positive & team asked to leave, German tour coverage pulls out, etc.. I can't even remember everything...) And the whole cycling year... don't forget the Basso fiasco, Riis admits to doping along with many others.... ongoing Puerto crap, Discovery can't find a sponsor, ETC..... A freak show!

And yes of course there was plenty of doping when Lemond rode... but not epo, which changed donkey's into race horses.

Since people in the UCI have reportedly tipped off some teams about testing I would say the UCI are perfectly fine with being bought off.

There are far too many people involved in the testing process, including plenty of people who don't work for the UCI. That would be a cover up of massive proportions.

There have been multiple claims that certain people get tipped off by the labs or officials who send out the testers for dope controls. Manzano says Kelme's docs had this relationship with the WADA lab in Spain, and that the guy tipping them off is known to be a good friend of the docs at USPS/Disco so he suspects they had the same relationship. There was a report last year that the Dutch testing group was letting athlete's know ahead of time for "surprise" OOC testing.

It probably stems from the same docs being involved with the UCI drug testing as doping riders at various times which goes back decades in cycling.

I would argue that Verbruggen assigning Vrijman to look into Armstrong's EPO "positives" from the '99 Tour retro-testing was a cover-up by the UCI.

Plus, don't you think the UCI would LOVE to find him guilty/positive? They'd have a field day and be all over the news. They live for that s#!t. So I seriously doubt they'd be able to be bought off. Their egos are at least as big as Lance's.

I don't think you have an accurate handle on the UCI and doping. The UCI has little interest in exposing anyone, especially one of their stars as a doper. They have been doing as little as possible up until recently. As someone else said, it seems like only in the last 6 months they really started to get serious about stopping the doping mostly because of Gripper's appointment as the head of the anti-doping effort.

I don't think you have an accurate handle on the UCI and doping. The UCI has little interest in exposing anyone, especially one of their stars as a doper. They have been doing as little as possible up until recently. As someone else said, it seems like only in the last 6 months they really started to get serious about stopping the doping mostly because of Gripper's appointment as the head of the anti-doping effort.

Okay. I'll take your word for that. But it's pretty apparent, even to the casual observer (which is really all I am), that WADA and folks like the ASO and the entire Euro cycling community would love to see Lance get thrown under the bus. Did lance ever contribute $ to WADA and/or USADA? If so, how can that be seen as making him look more suspicious (moreso WADA than USADA)?

Okay. I'll take your word for that. But it's pretty apparent, even to the casual observer (which is really all I am), that WADA and folks like the ASO and the entire Euro cycling community would love to see Lance get thrown under the bus. Did lance ever contribute $ to WADA and/or USADA? If so, how can that be seen as making him look more suspicious (moreso WADA than USADA)?

I think WADA would have loved to have caught Armstrong, afterall their purpose is to catch dopers. ASO, I'm not so sure. Up until the end Armstrong and Le Blanc got on well, Armstrong increased the cache of the Tour, he was a fan favorite with the cancer story and all. Most of the stick Armstrong got in France was from the media and seemed to stem from how he treated them or reacted to them.

I don't know about Armstrong giving money to WADA or USADA. Basic ethics just tells you if an organization has an oversight role you shouldn't give them money, nor should they take it.

yeah, the German and Spanish fans really loved Armstrong-that is if you consider spitting on him a sign of love. I was at his 6th win in Paris and the French fans I met all hated the fact that he was going to win 6. LA's brashness made him a symbol for anti-American hatred in particular.

So how come we never heard of Kelme and the Dutch athletes and whoever else donating money to the UCI? Why would Lance be so obvious about buying off the UCI, suggesting an ethical violation and attracting attention, when it could be done just as well in secret? And why would he even need to do it when, as you suggest, USPS/Disco supposedly had a guy in Spain already tipping them off? It's a nice sounding conspiracy, but for my money, it's a silly one, and it doesn't hold up.

So how come we never heard of Kelme and the Dutch athletes and whoever else donating money to the UCI? Why would Lance be so obvious about buying off the UCI, suggesting an ethical violation and attracting attention, when it could be done just as well in secret? And why would he even need to do it when, as you suggest, USPS/Disco supposedly had a guy in Spain already tipping them off? It's a nice sounding conspiracy, but for my money, it's a silly one, and it doesn't hold up.

I've never given much credit to the idea that LA was actually trying to buy anyone off. Its more comparable to a sort of greenwashing as I see it. His donation is comparable to exxon donating $500k to the WWF or the nature conservancy and spending $10m airing a 30 second commercial advertising it. or maybe Im completely wrong and he cares deeply about drug free sport. lol, I crack myself up.

It's a nice sounding conspiracy, but for my money, it's a silly one, and it doesn't hold up.

Mo,

You're connecting two things that I don't. I have no idea of the financial workings of the tip offs. I have no idea what Lance's money to the UCI was for, it probably was for what he claims, I don't know.

My point was simply that it seems pretty clear that there are tip-offs so I don't think there is any need to claim "massive cover-ups" are necessary.

And one shouldn't give money to a group that has oversight over you, nor should that group take the money because it opens the possibility of special treatment. Of course this is done all the time in many situations but it shouldn't be from an ethics perspective.

The way I remember it LA's donation didn't come to light until more than a year after it was made, and I believe he had made more than 1 contribution as well. So I don't think he really wanted it to be public.

It also doesn't have to be either charitable or corrupt: large companies are great fans of more government regulation because they have the legal staff and resources to deal with it while the smaller competition doesn't and gets squeezed out. In the same vein, if you believe you have better medical advice than your competition it would be tactically wise to increase the dope testing burden to cause the competition more difficulty.

The way I remember it LA's donation didn't come to light until more than a year after it was made, and I believe he had made more than 1 contribution as well. So I don't think he really wanted it to be public.

It also doesn't have to be either charitable or corrupt: large companies are great fans of more government regulation because they have the legal staff and resources to deal with it while the smaller competition doesn't and gets squeezed out. In the same vein, if you believe you have better medical advice than your competition it would be tactically wise to increase the dope testing burden to cause the competition more difficulty.


I recall reading an article at the time that LA sent an email to the UCI suggesting that the spanish riders in particular were doping. It does not seem implausible that LA was looking at Mayo (as most of us were) and thinking that he was up to something naughty (and I firmly believe that LA was as naughty as the rest but more clever). I agree that the former was trying to "squeeze out the competition" as you suggest.

I recall reading an article at the time that LA sent an email to the UCI suggesting that the spanish riders in particular were doping. It does not seem implausible that LA was looking at Mayo (as most of us were) and thinking that he was up to something naughty (and I firmly believe that LA was as naughty as the rest but more clever). I agree that the former was trying to "squeeze out the competition" as you suggest.

Exactly. Donate machine to scare the competition. Machine you know wont catch you.
Was meant to be secret donation like work with Ferrari was meant to be secret.

...ASO, I'm not so sure. Up until the end Armstrong and Le Blanc got on well, ...

Wait a minute. I'm confused now. LeBlanc is the head of the ASO, and owns the TdF, right? I recall that Lance wasn't at this year's TdF until the last 2 days because the ASO said he wasn't welcome. I think Liggett & Sherwin said that.

Is that wrong? :confused:

In my opinion, Lance should be there on the side of the podium with the other old timers, shaking the hands of the winners as they walk off stage. If I recall correctly, he's won more TdFs than anyone else. So if LeBlanc is okay with Lance, and he's a draw, why not have him there? (unless Lance is being an assh@t and is demanding compensation for the guest appearance).

LeBlanc is no longer the head of the ASO.

In my opinion, Lance should be there on the side of the podium with the other old timers, shaking the hands of the winners as they walk off stage.

what old timers, hinault? he works for ASO, so its sort of his job to stand there. the others are usually local pols etc.

LeBlanc is no longer the head of the ASO.

Right Prudhomme took over, also LeBlanc and Armstrong did have a falling out either right at the end of his reign or even after it was over.

Also to the other poster, while I'm aware Lance's popularity deteriorated over the years, the famous spitting stories, etc. I think most of that came towards the end. Did the fan animosity ever rise to the level of him being booed the way Rasmussen was this year? I don't recall it, but then again I didn't watch much of his last couple of wins.