# The real news: UCI covers up test results



## dbonbass (May 19, 2009)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-alleges-armstrong-epo-positive-cover-up-on-60-minutes



> "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.


It seems that the question of "did he or didn't he" is for the most part answered.

I think the biggest news out of all this is that the UCI colluded with a testing lab to hide results. The reasons this could happen are pretty obvious, Armstrong was huge for cycling, and a positive test could have had disastrous financial effects on cycling. If somehow this actually comes out as provable fact, then the UCI should hand over all testing to WADA. There would be no other way to be impartial, then to have an agency that has no direct financial interest in cycling conducting the testing.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

I've been saying this for a while to the people that said, "they all doped, Armstrong was the best at it and didn't get caught." 

I've believed that as you've stated, Armstrong's success in cycling was a huge asset to the cycling industry and all things connected to that industry. His demise would/could hurt cycling in many facets and the money side of things would take a severe hit.

The guy is the only cyclist to ever give the UCI money and that just recently made the press (around a year ago) but it was done years ago, why hide it if it was on the up and up? The numbers he said he gave and what the UCI reports were inconsistent with each other which should cause suspicion. And the mere fact that he gave to the same governing body in place to police doping certainly blurs the lines and is enough to question their relationship behind closed doors.

Lance doped, we're all beginning to accept this as fact (many did long ago). But it's bigger than that. He was cycling's golden child and could get away with the same thing others lose their careers and much more, over.

Lance is corrupt but it doesn't stop with him... It goes much higher.


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

I was just wondering when the UCI press release will come out threatening legal action against Tyler?
It seems like he just said the same thing that Floyd claimed earlier. Whoops. Looks like it's on them to be consistent with their outrage or they have no case. 

I think this adds fuel to the argument that professional cycling needs to step away from the UCI and get organized in a way that treats the teams and riders with respect while steering the revenue from the 'show' to the people who own the teams and races instead of the people who 'police' the sport. 

The UCI's silence so far is significant to me.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

dbonbass said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-alleges-armstrong-epo-positive-cover-up-on-60-minutes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. This seems like MORE of a story to us who are involved in cycling IMO. To the general public though...it is going to be about Lance cheating.

I do hope that UCI gets raked through the coals for this if guilty. Absolutely unprofessional!


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

This should probably go here.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Lol, to be consistent they now need to sue Tyler, 60 minutes/CBS, the lab director, USADA.....Actually they should sue Lance too since both Floyd and Tyler got their info from him.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I got hammered by several posters in another thread for suggesting that, with Hamilton and now apparently Hincapie admitting doping in connection with the ongoing federal investigation, that we are going to see some major changes in cycling. Armstrong has lost his chance to step forward and save face, but you are right the bigger story is the corruption. 

I really think you will see charges filed by multiple governments at the same time or in short succession. And when you get that kind of pressure you will get change. Whether it is a change in leadership at the UCI, or a change in who does the testing, I don't know. But in my mind the writing is clearly on the wall: corruption is a real problem and those in power to do something about it (governmental entities) are about to take action to try to clean up cycling.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Gatorback - What do you think the probability of wholesale change, new administration happening at UCI. The current and frankly previous administration seem to be accomplices in the systemic doping culture.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

The UCI has seemed to be on a control streak lately. Radios, etc banned. Arguing with team owners and directors. Did they know this was their dirty secret and were expecting it to come out or worried about it? Now with this type of corruption their will be a major shakeup coming. WADA definitely seems to be the way to go. Until Novitsky makes his move, we will all be guessing. I assume they will wait for that to be the first domino to fall but with so many governments and agencies involved now, things will probably speed up.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

rubbersoul said:


> Gatorback - What do you think the probability of wholesale change, new administration happening at UCI. The current and frankly previous administration seem to be accomplices in the systemic doping culture.


I don't know the inner workings of the UCI well enough to predict. When shake ups occur, there are always politics and relationships involved. And remember each country has its own doping authorities, some of whom may be corrupt themselves or have corrupt factions.

I think you will see an outcry from some in politics in the U.S. if we learn someone associated with the USADA and/or USA Cycling were involved in cover ups or were complicit in some of this stuff. Unfortunately, we have already seen and may still see politicians serve "defenders" of popular riders for purposes of grandstanding or money--but those folks don't really care about cycling and are most interested in money and votes. There may be some who are the opposite and look to grind an axe just because they want to look like they are doing something. 

From following all of this, I'd say the French are likely be to vocal about the need for organizational change at the top of cycling. Those in power in the U.S. will advocate for change if the system to shown to be corrupt. 

What about Spain and Italy? I don't know. My guess is there could be infighting, with some in power pushing for change and others wanting to keep the status quo.

Maybe Falsetti or some others can talk about who elects and/or appoints the UCI leadership. That would be helpful info.

What is clear to me, and I have expressed, is that their is a sea change on the horizon now. The U.S. investigators are not going it alone here. This is no longer about the French investigating and being accused of being upset because they don't field strong teams. Many countries are cooperating now. That isn't inside info, which I don't have. It is apparent from the news reports and the U.S. investigator's visit to Interpol, the Italian's raid of Popovich's apartment, the Italian's raid today of Radio Shack, etc. When all these investigators with a common interest get on a trail like a pack of bloodhounds, they obviously start talking and planning and can accomplish a lot through cooperation that could not accomplish alone. 

It will be interesting to watch it play out. Hopefully a lot will be accomplished and there can be a quantum leap away from the culture of doping.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Verdruggen is losing his mind.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-says-armstrong-never-never-never-doped

What sane person would swear up and down Armstrong never doped? I mean I could see a rational response along the lines of the UCI has no knowledge of....

Furthermore I'm pretty sure he's being disingenuous in the article.

I think 2001 the UCI had yet to submit to WADA so there would have been no requirement for the lab to also report the results to WADA. This requirement is in place to prevent exactly what has been alleged to happen. IIRC it wasn't until the 2004 Olympics that the UCI was essentially pressured into signing the WADA code by threat of exclusion from the Olympics if they did not.


----------



## dbonbass (May 19, 2009)

I agree, this seems like someone else covering his ass. How can he say that Armstrong "never,never, never" doped? The only thing he would have absolute knowledge of is that he never tested positive. At this point even in the unlikely scenario that Armstrong was a clean rider, there is no way to ever prove it.

If you're correct in your dates about the UCI submitting to WADA then this is also wrong.



> Even if we would like, it would not be possible to bury a positive test. Test results are not only to the UCI, but also to the WADA


It seems the denials are more far fetched than the accusations. I think there's a huge s#it storm heading the UCI's way.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> Maybe Falsetti or some others can talk about who elects and/or appoints the UCI leadership. That would be helpful info.


Salsa_lover had some good info in the following thread:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=246814

If I understood correctly, it's a democracy with member state federations having one vote each. So Belize has one vote, France has one vote. Cynically speaking, the best way to have a despotic state masked as a democracy is to take advantage of disparity. So there you go. 

IIRC there was a recent article in which this was heavily criticized w.r.t. UCI's attempts to corral teams and race organizers to expand their activities outside of Europe / North Am. Can't find this article again though.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Like Dwayne I'm baffled how someone could even contemplate publicly swearing to something they couldn't possibly know. It seems roughly equivalent to holding a sign saying "I'm lying" over his head while he's speaking. Maybe in an environment where truth is so malleable after a while it no longer seems ridiculous to say something like that.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

terzo rene said:


> It seems roughly equivalent to holding a sign saying "I'm lying" over his head while he's speaking. Maybe in an environment where truth is so malleable after a while it no longer seems ridiculous to say something like that.


See Eki's comments too.


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

dbonbass said:


> I agree, this seems like someone else covering his ass. How can he say that Armstrong "never,never, never" doped? The only thing he would have absolute knowledge of is that he never tested positive. At this point even in the unlikely scenario that Armstrong was a clean rider, there is no way to ever prove it.
> 
> If you're correct in your dates about the UCI submitting to WADA then this is also wrong.
> 
> ...


Always disliked Heinie, thought his leadership was very poorly directed (aerobars and position banning, bike weight limits, the forced mondialisation of cycling was doomed from start, the Pro League or whatever it was termed...). McQuaid seems to be more of the same.

When the news came out that LA had donated to the UCI money for anti-doping equipment and it was alleged this was a payoff, not being a conspiracy theorist fan, I found it hard to believe. Now the increased smoke bellowing out of the UCI offices points to a big fire, (the handling of Contador's positive from Tour '10 comes to mind). Seems like it's rotten through and through, as I've stated in a previous post let the whole thing burn down. let something better rise from the ashes.

In reading Gatorback's earlier post he has an optimism about the possibilities of positive changes occurring, an optimism I wish that I could share.

screw the UCI and the cheats and enablers.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

bnoojin said:


> In reading Gatorback's earlier post he has an optimism about the possibilities of positive changes occurring, an optimism I wish that I could share.
> 
> screw the UCI and the cheats and enablers.


I will admit that one of my weaknesses is that I always try to see the positive side of things. 

Your are probably right there isn't too much reason for optimism. Big changes are hard and don't come often. But we can hope, especially when the heat and pressure are on like they are now. If the momentum of the investigations fizzles without something big happening, however, everything will just go back to the status quo for a long time. It takes lots of energy and commitment to make big changes. Hopefully the momentum which exists now will continue to build instead of being lost.

I continue to believe that the ongoing investigations are important, worthwhile, and justified. They are not a waste of money. We can either throw our hands up and say screw it, we can't catch em so let's just let them all cheat, or go all out to fix the problem. What lies in between is an unfair and unjust no man's land where guys like Landis and Hamilton and others get busted and others like Contador and Armstrong go free. It makes no sense.

It is an unjust world. But that doesn't mean we should just sit by and accept it. 

And I agree: screw the UCI and its enablers.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

yep...how could he claim this about LA. not smart. not smart at all I predict that we see a ton of leadership changes throughout the professional cycling world. Things are gonna start shakin'.

I hope someone creates a movie about all of this and does it right. Crazy stuff going on..for a lonnnnng time..


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

[It is an unjust world. But that doesn't mean we should just sit by and accept it. 

And I agree: screw the UCI and its enablers.[/QUOTE]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for those who've cheated, lied, defrauded, manipulated, covered up and generally profited from it to be exposed and justly punished. This includes directors, doctors, UCI officials as well as the riders. (sometimes I wonder if too much focus is put on punishing and penalizing riders and not enough on the real power brokers in the sport, but that's for another thread)

overcoming the inertia of the established cycling powers and omerta will take a dramatic wave of events (not simply the exposing of LA but the whole system) including policing and political agencies almost on a universal scale. is it possible? sure, but is it probable, not so sure. but there are encouraging signs, especially after reading this article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sports-governing-bodies-to-face-greater-scrutiny-in-switzerland I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to start from scratch at the grass roots level rather try to reform something with rotting supports.

I guess we'll see once the indictments starting rolling out and where it all goes. I'm not encouraged by what has already occurred in MLB. If cycling really cleans up its act will it be a vanguard for clean pro sports or simply an anomaly? time will tell.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

This is a great article:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-helped-with-novitzky-investigation

If there is a significant change in cycling, the article gives insight into how it will likely happen. It appears the WADA, plus police agencies from many different countries, are in on this. I could really see the UCI lose its jurisdiction over doping in cycling and have it turned over to another agencies or multiple agencies with more cooperation with law enforcement from various countries. 

It is also nice to see the head man at the WADA both admitting that testing is insufficient to catch dopers, because we know dopers can and do beat the tests, so that more is needed. And it is also great to her him say that cycling has done more than other sports to try to address the doping problem.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

The need to jail Pat McQuaid and his predesessor


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> This is a great article:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-helped-with-novitzky-investigation
> 
> ...


WADA has discussed many times decertify the UCI. The discussion was fairly advanced a few years ago but with Verburggen on the IOC board I doubt it will ever happen. 

Verbuggen still controls the UCI. I know team directors who have recently received screaming, irrational, voice mails from him and many of McQuaids correspondence are clearly written by Verburggen. They even include the same weird Dutch grammatical errors. 

The teams, riders, and race organizers have zero input. McQuaid knows he can behave like an idiot as long as he takes care of the small Feds. One of the ways he does is by making each Pro-Tour team give the UCI 10 complete bikes for developing countries. The teams cannot ship the bikes to the countries themselves but they send them to the UCI.....who then sends them to the Fed of Burkina Fasso, Lebanon, etc. Likely with a nice note "From Uncle Pat" 

While there has been much talk of a break away league no way Johan can drive it. All the other DS' know the Johan is in serious legal trouble. He is dead in the water. The only thing the teams can do is hit them in the wallet. Boycotting the Tour of Beijing is directed at one person, Verburggen. He has a large financial stake in the race. 

Back on the topic of the testing. There has been a real attempt to confuse the discuss by introducing Saugy into the conversation. Saugy was not the director of the lab at the time, it was was Laurent Rivier


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Do you think there are there any team director's who have the ability and the respect to step up and lead the charge? I think what you would need is a team director, or a few of them, who could develop a coalition and have the ability to take some major sponsors with them. Obviously some (or maybe many?) team directors are part of the problem, but it seems there are a few who are campaigning for a clean sport.

But there is a real difference in wanting to make changes and having the leadership and political skills to build the necessary coalition--all the while have to worry you will get blackballed. It would take a real leader.

I doubt there are any riders who are strong enough to lead the charge.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> WADA has discussed many times decertify the UCI. The discussion was fairly advanced a few years ago but with Verburggen on the IOC board I doubt it will ever happen.
> 
> Verbuggen still controls the UCI. I know team directors who have recently received screaming, irrational, voice mails from him and many of McQuaids correspondence are clearly written by Verburggen. They even include the same weird Dutch grammatical errors.
> 
> ...


Wont any of this stick to Verburggen and make him a non-factor in the future? It was his watch where LA got the suspicious test taken care of and the meeting where they learned how to avoid a positive in the future?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

gh1 said:


> Wont any of this stick to Verburggen and make him a non-factor in the future? It was his watch where LA got the suspicious test taken care of and the meeting where they learned how to avoid a positive in the future?


The problem is there is no accountability. The payoffs to the UCI have been known for years. I first heard about it almost 10 years ago. The IOC ignores it. The Fed's ignore it. The only way to address it is via the civilian courts....good luck with that. 

I do not think the dismantling of the UCI is necessary but a purge of the top ranks and giving some power to the other stakeholders in the sport would be a good thing.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The problem is there is no accountability. The payoffs to the UCI have been known for years. I first heard about it almost 10 years ago. The IOC ignores it. The Fed's ignore it. The only way to address it is via the civilian courts....good luck with that.
> 
> I do not think the dismantling of the UCI is necessary but a purge of the top ranks and giving some power to the other stakeholders in the sport would be a good thing.


Wow, I had no idea. Thats really sad.


----------

