# Well this seems pretty bad...



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lequipe-calculates-index-of-suspicion-for-teams-and-nations

Most shocking thing though is how clean Cancellera appears, and the modest level of suspicions most of the protagonists fall under.

I gather the details are pretty damning in that a number of the most suspicious riders were hardly tested during the Tour.

The cynic would suspect Rabobank was being protected with 2 of the 3 most likely dopers and nothing done about it?

Crazy if Radioshack is still playing the game; Astana, Casse and the other suspect teams seems like the list of usual suspects.


----------



## olli (Jan 30, 2009)

team average

COFIDIS, LE CREDIT EN LIGNE 0,444444
BBOX BOUYGUES TELECOM 1,555555556
AG2R-LA MONDIALE 1,666667
FDJ 1,666667
GARMIN – TRANSITIONS 1,888888889
CERVÉLO TEST TEAM 2,222222
FOOTON – SERVETTO 2,222222
RABOBANK 2,333333
LIQUIGAS – DOIMO 2,44444444
TEAM SKY 2,44444444
TEAM MILRAM 2,555556
TEAM SAXO BANK 2,555556
EUSKALTEL – EUSKADI 2,666666667
KATUSHA TEAM 2,888889
LAMPRE 3,111111111
QUICK STEP 3,333333
OMEGA PHARMA – LOTTO 3,444444444
BMC RACING TEAM 3,555555556
CAISSE D’EPARGNE 3,555555556
TEAM HTC – COLUMBIA 3,555555556
ASTANA 4,333333333
TEAM RADIOSHACK 4,444444

french did well as expected


----------



## ChilliConCarnage (Jun 1, 2006)

I was also pleasantly suprised that Cancellara showed up under the "0" ranking. Dave Z was also a "0".

But this list was created in response to the test that was taken two days before the race started, so it would not have any indication of riders who manipulated blood values during the race.

To me, the most embarrasing numbers belong to the HTC "High Road" team, as they rank third worst of all the teams.

I'm also pleased that not one Garmin rider appeared in the suspicious 5-10 categories.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

ChilliConCarnage said:


> But this list was created in response to the test that was taken two days before the race started, so it would not have any indication of riders who manipulated blood values during the race.



Yes & no, that test was the last test but it was based on their biopassport data which would have been being collected for some time before the race. Presumably ever since the biopassport started.

It begs the question of why if riders are getting ratings of 9 or 10, they've not been prosecuted under the biopassport rules?


----------



## Gee3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Most shocking thing though is how clean Cancellera appears, and the modest level of suspicions most of the protagonists fall under.


Why is that shocking? Because people still can't believe he can win the Classics he did last year? 

The UCI should be wholly embarrassed this list leaked out. Maybe they'll finally investigate L'Equipe and find out who the rats are. Unless of course they already know... #accidentallyonpurpose


----------



## Gee3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> It begs the question of why if riders are getting ratings of 9 or 10, they've not been prosecuted under the biopassport rules?


Spot on!! Why aren't they being banned from the start list? 

Did I miss it though? Did they give the parameters as to why each rider got the scores they did? I'd like to see why Popo scored a 10 and why others got high scores.


----------



## Gee3 (Jan 31, 2006)

olli said:


> team average
> 
> COFIDIS, LE CREDIT EN LIGNE 0,444444
> BBOX BOUYGUES TELECOM 1,555555556
> ...


And just for comparison purposes, here are the 2010 UCI team rankings:

1. Team Saxo Bank
2. Liquigas-Doimo
3. Astana
4. Rabobank
5. Team Katusha
6. Team HTC-Columbia
7. Garmin-Transitions
8. Omega Pharma-Lotto
9. Caisse d'Epargne
10. BMC Racing Team
11. Team RadioShack
12. Cervélo TestTeam
13. Euskaltel-Euskadi
14. Lampre-Farnese Vini
15. Team Sky
16. Quick Step
17. Androni Giocattoli
18. Ag2r-La Mondiale
19. Bbox Bouygues Telecom
20. Cofidis


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Gee3 said:


> Why is that shocking? Because people still can't believe he can win the Classics he did last year?


Of course, when was the last time a rider showed superior performances without ending up busted for doping?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Very interesting list. Obviously a strong correlation between high numbers and position in the results. Cancellara is the most dramatic outlier in terms of performance vs rating. Other than him there are really no top riders in the 0-1 range.

Evans and Millar being grouped with LA, Sammy Sanchez, etc. at 4 is interesting. I didn't expect Nocentini to be up at 8 either - he must be on the DIY program.

Menchov is probably wishing Ricco had been invited to the Tour now.

The article did bring up a good point about keeping the passport info from the riders for 3 months rather than giving it to them more or less real time as they do currently. It wouldn't keep riders from conducting an even more elaborate private testing program to manage their readings but it would make them pay for it rather than getting it for free.

So when do we get the list for this year's Giro? ;-)


----------



## Gee3 (Jan 31, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Of course, when was the last time a rider showed superior performances without ending up busted for doping?


Then bust his @ss already if he's guilty! He only seems to be guily in public opinion. Until there is actual proof instead of hearsay no one can really say anything. And playing connect the dots is also purely speculation.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Gee3 said:


> Then bust his @ss already if he's guilty! He only seems to be guily in public opinion. Until there is actual proof instead of hearsay no one can really say anything. And playing connect the dots is also purely speculation.


No don't bust his ass. His Biopassport numbers apparently look quite clean yet he still dominated, hence I find that quite surprising.


----------



## Smoothy (Jul 6, 2006)

If pro's were getting benched by their team for heresay and guilt-by-association, what do Team Managers do about something backed by data such as this list??? Case in point: ff the anecdotes were enough for BMC to sideline Ballan, isn't Brunyeel in a pickle about keeping Popo on active duty??


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Smoothy said:


> If pro's were getting benched by their team for heresay and guilt-by-association, what do Team Managers do about something backed by data such as this list??? Case in point: ff the anecdotes were enough for BMC to sideline Ballan, isn't Brunyeel in a pickle about keeping Popo on active duty??


"Anecdotes" Did not sideline Ballan, taped conversation of him talking about drugs with his doping doctor did.

RS keeps Popo riding for the same reason Levi is riding the ToC


----------



## are (Feb 5, 2005)

I think it's amazing - in a good way - that Horner is so far down the list.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

are said:


> I think it's amazing - in a good way - that Horner is so far down the list.


Wasn't horner a late add? He might not have had time to get with the program.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

are said:


> I think it's amazing - in a good way - that Horner is so far down the list.


Horner is my book is a true champion. He finished 10th overall on GC, he paced Lance when Lance crashed (causing Horner to sacrifice time), and scores zero on the chart. Oh yeah, and last year he was race age 39!!!


----------



## rogger (Aug 19, 2005)

Gee3 said:


> Why is that shocking? Because people still can't believe he can win the Classics he did last year?
> 
> The UCI should be wholly embarrassed this list leaked out. Maybe they'll finally investigate L'Equipe and find out who the rats are. Unless of course they already know... #accidentallyonpurpose


Investigate L'Equipe? What for, doing their job?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

You think that's bad? 
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...endent-Observer/WADA_IO_Report_TDF2010_EN.pdf
especially page 18-19. 
One could get the nasty idea that UCI uses the list as a warning list who _not_ to test. Not saying that is the case


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

fornaca68 said:


> Horner is my book is a true champion. He finished 10th overall on GC, he paced Lance when Lance crashed (causing Horner to sacrifice time), and scores zero on the chart. Oh yeah, and last year he was race age 39!!!


So, to summarize: Armstrong, Evans, Millar, Vande Velde (all 4s) and Ballan, Contador, Wiggins and Vino (5's) are all about at the same level of suspicion then? Interesting...


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

55x11 said:


> So, to summarize: Armstrong, Evans, Millar, Vande Velde (all 4s) and Ballan, Contador, Wiggins and Vino (5's) are all about at the same level of suspicion then? Interesting...


BINGO!


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

There are really few surprises after going through the list. What the UCI should do is publish this list monthly for all riders in the ProTour (or whatever they call it these days). Even during Winter. Simple as that. You will see an almost end to the riders falling in the 6 through 10 scoring. No other sport would dare do anything like this. You would see even more riders falling into the 0 and 1 categories, and a minority in the 2, 3 and 4 categories. Do it, UCI!!!


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Wiggo scored a 5. Would love to have seen how he would have scored right before the 2009 TdF when he finished 4th overall on GC. Maybe Vaughters was quite pleased with Team Sky poaching him at the end of 2009.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

fornaca68 said:


> Wiggo scored a 5. Would love to have seen how he would have scored right before the 2009 TdF when he finished 4th overall on GC. Maybe Vaughters was quite pleased with Team Sky poaching him at the end of 2009.


But...but...but...I'll I heard during the 2009 TDF was how he was a great track racer and by dropping some pounds he could easily turn himself into a GC rider...and do it clean. He was clean by most people assumptions...and may still be, but it's highly unlikely.

Myself...I kind of wondered how a track racer could turn himself into one of the top climbers in the world in just a year or two. Kind of like Armstrong going from more of a classics racer who was to big to be a GC contender to probably the top climber in the world with the power to out TT the TT guys  

At this time...I'd guess Garmin was pretty happy to let him go to Team SKY.


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

Wookiebiker said:


> But...but...but...I'll I heard during the 2009 TDF was how he was a great track racer and by dropping some pounds he could easily turn himself into a GC rider...and do it clean. He was clean by most people assumptions...and may still be, but it's highly unlikely.
> 
> Myself...I kind of wondered how a track racer could turn himself into one of the top climbers in the world in just a year or two. Kind of like Armstrong going from more of a classics racer who was to big to be a GC contender to probably the top climber in the world with the power to out TT the TT guys
> 
> At this time...I'd guess Garmin was pretty happy to let him go to Team SKY.


Vaughters is smoking a cigar right now, leaning back on a comfy chair, reading _L'Equipe_, and smiling -- smiling because he unloaded Wiggo with no reputational issues to Garmin, and his team is the cleanest non-French team in the European peloton. But not all is perfect in Garmin land. He's gotta figure out how Millar and CVV ended up each with a 4 score.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

fornaca68 said:


> But not all is perfect in Garmin land. He's gotta figure out how Millar and CVV ended up each with a 4 score.


Well, I could tell you how...but there are too many: Innocent until proven guilty people on this forum


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

what a corrupt, corrupt sport!


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Wookiebiker said:


> Kind of like Armstrong going from more of a classics racer who was to big to be a GC contender to probably the top climber in the world with the power to out TT the TT guys


So - what are you insinuating? Come on, spell it out.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

55x11 said:


> So - what are you insinuating? Come on, spell it out.


That LA is magical and revolutionary. Just like the iPad.


----------



## tdi-rick (Oct 2, 2007)

_"It is based on the rider’s biological passport and the final blood tests they underwent before the Grand Depart in Rotterdam. Each rider is given a score of between zero and ten. *According to L’Equipe, the large majority of riders received scores of four or less but a score of from six to ten apparently indicated that the possibility of doping was "overwhelming"* "_

from here http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-defend-the-creation-of-an-index-of-suspicion


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Does anyone know where we can access detailed info on the biopassport program, what values are tracked, and who scores what?

The list is really interesting to me, great info.

I'll pose some interesting questions:

1. Is there now a "sweet spot" in doping where your values and abnormalities are low enough to not wave red flags all over the place, but you still have an effective doping program? 

2. Do some teams or riders have such effective doping programs that they are running on rocket fuel, but still only show up as maybe a little suspicious? While other riders end up with real high values not because they are doping more, but just don't have as effective or sophisticated of a doping program so as to avoid detection?

I do think it would be hard for people to dope and have a zero suspicion score. Maybe it is possible, but it would seem very, very hard. That is good news and would suggest there are some really quality cyclists who don't dope. Or maybe, in the alternative, maybe there are some really good steroids out there now that are not detectable (like the cream and the clear once were not detectable) and some time trial riders can throw down massive power (but still not be that great at going uphill because they have so much heavy muscle). 

I am really worried about the allegations that the biopassport is used by the UCI to actually warn riders. That theory might have serious legs to it. 

I find all this stuff really interesting. Hopefully one day we will have answers and doping will go away. Of course that is wishful thinking, but I can still wish for it.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Gatorback said:


> Does anyone know where we can access detailed info on the biopassport program, what values are tracked, and who scores what?
> 
> The list is really interesting to me, great info.
> 
> ...


These articles might answer some of your questions:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2009/04/30/is-the-ucis-passport-program-working/


> The bio-passport approach departs from traditional testing in two significant ways. First, the bio-passport measures only basic biological parameters like hemoglobin and reticulocyte count and endocrinological (hormone) profiles. Instead of hunting cause – the specific drug that might make a rider’s values to fluctuate, authorities look at effect – what the fluctuations themselves might mean. Because the passport is a complementary test, samples are also still subject to traditional anti-doping tests.
> 
> Second, a rider’s test results are all entered in a longitudinal data file that allows scientists to compare a rider’s results against past ones and his known biological averages. Previously, anti-doping scientists could not consider data from more than one test, making it impossible to look for changes or patterns that might indicate doping. These two changes offer a potent tool for sports officials to use in rooting out doping, because they may help in detecting doping methods for which a traditional test has not yet been devised, such as autologous blood doping, or designer steroids and EPO biosimilars that do not show up on existing tests.


http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2010/bio-passport-5-questions-michael-ashenden


> NYVC: Does that then favor the more sophisticated riders, who can push the limits of the Passport knowing that they won't trigger a positive?
> 
> MA: Yes. This has always been the case - the most sophisticated dopers use cutting-edge products that aren't detectable (i.e., autologous transfusion), and/or learn ways to avoid testing positive by masking strategies (i.e., adding proteases to urine, or dodging the DCO for 20 minutes). One advantage we have, and which I am pleased is being actively pursued now by the UCI, is that the rider won't know if their 'below the threshold' profile is deemed suspicious by us experts. As I said, we see things that lead us to suspect the rider is doping but which don't yet exceed the necessary thresholds to pursue a sanction. Those riders might float along mathematically dodging the Passport, but be high on our list of suspects. And here I must take a leap of faith - that more focused testing will one day catch them unprepared.


http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/4...d-some-riders-are-side-stepping-controls.aspx


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Gee3 said:


> Spot on!! Why aren't they being banned from the start list?


Same reason a nobody gets 2 years for clenbuterol and a somebody gets nothing.

Why have rules if they aren't applied equally?


----------



## RollingRook (Apr 25, 2006)

I am curious how this scale works. Is it linear or logarithmic like the Richter scale? Also info about positives frequency among the scale will be very interesting. Surely such information exists. Now that the worst has leaked out, the most sensible thing UCI can do is to publish it.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Still amazes me how uncomfortable people are with lying. Millar was about the only rider in the quotes on cyclingnews to say I don't take dope. The rest all talked about their values as if they had no idea whether they had doped or not.

Hondo "One can only say on my behalf that my levels were consistent and inconspicuous.” So I guess he's clean but has a multiple personality disorder.

Cavendish and McEwen both went with the best defense is a good offense approach.

Manuel Quinziato “L’Equipe makes me sick. Is this the way we’re thanked for all the controls we’ve accepted to do?” Wonder what thanks he'd want for not doping?

Nocentini “I ride for a team which is careful about these things. And anyway, I only had two tests done,” ...and even Ricco only tested positive on 2 out of 20.

Van den Broeck “There is nothing wrong with my blood values. Before the Tour I was checked about five times. At the Tour also repeatedly, which makes sense if you are in the top ten. I have no such problem.” 

This is my favorite, because he doesn't even act like he doesn't know, just that the results will be more acceptable going forward:
Omega Pharma-Lotto team doctor Jan Mathieu “Between Paris-Nice and Liege-Bastogne-Liege, we had no blood monitoring. So we are in the safe zone and will all be around 0."

The Science of Sport has an article on the rating with links to prior articles on the passport system for more info on the details and issues with it.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/05/ucis-suspicion-score.html


----------



## DiegoMontoya (Apr 11, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Of course, when was the last time a rider showed superior performances without ending up busted for doping?


Greg Lemond.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

The UCI boots USADA out of TOC. Apparently the UCI had a problem with USADA's plan to do targeted tests - shocker! 



> I am really worried about the allegations that the biopassport is used by the UCI to actually warn riders. That theory might have serious legs to it.


+1, sure looks like that's the case. I mean if the biopassport isn't used for targeting riders, then it functions just like you said - as an early warning system for dopers, so they get their values fixed for the next "random" test.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

terzo rene said:


> Still amazes me how uncomfortable people are with lying. Millar was about the only rider in the quotes on cyclingnews to say I don't take dope.


This is distressing to me personally. If I believed anyone visa vi doping, it was Millar. 

As far as stuff about the UCI, that's an organization that exists to perpetuate itself. It's value to cycling seems pretty limited (at least as far as road racing goes).


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

AdamM said:


> The UCI boots USADA out of TOC. Apparently the UCI had a problem with USADA's plan to do targeted tests - shocker!
> 
> 
> 
> +1, sure looks like that's the case. I mean if the biopassport isn't used for targeting riders, then it functions just like you said - as an early warning system for dopers, so they get their values fixed for the next "random" test.



My opinion of the UCI continues to drop. I've gone from being not quite sure about its leadership's motives to now being highly, highly skeptical and suspicious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> what a corrupt, corrupt sport!


Later this week even more evidence of the sports corruption.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

The UCI cares about doping in the exact way the NFL cares about concussions, namely, as much as it has to.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

The uci did a great job of attempting to neutralize the leak by busting all Sram riders with another technical "violation" ruling (tt shifters b4 Giro)

It seems that the uci will continue to "manage" the doping results to keep the doped riders from getting nailed. 

And the hits just keep coming.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

hampsten88 said:


> No more corrupt then any other pro sport...cycling is just not a sport favored by the media.


Check back here in a week and let us know if you still feel that way


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Check back here in a week and let us know if you still feel that way


< tingling with anticipation! I'd love for this to finally come to some sort of head. And after all this let the axes fall where they may.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

The theory I think makes sense is that the story here has little to do with doping. McQuaid saw to this leak to embarass some specific teams (cough cough Radio Shack). Johan, JV and others have been all over McQuaid about the race radios and the breakaway series. 

L'Equipe loves to publish this stuff. Their poor little forlorn French teams appear to look squeaky clean and it also helps steal some of the spotlight from the Giro.

Floyd Landis probably had the funniest tweet I have seen in a while when he congratulated Radio Shack for winning both team competitions in the 2010 TDF.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

Wookiebiker said:


> Well, I could tell you how...but there are too many: Innocent until proven guilty people on this forum


The way I understand the scale, 0-4 basically means you are in the clear. Once you become a five you're in the suspicious category.

Of course on the Cyclingnews.com doping forum. Zero is a bigger number than 10. It's like when your odometer resets LOL. The people over their are completely unhinged.

The whole thing was a mechanism to drive testing during the Tour. 

It may be that Lance rode clean last spring. He was under way too much scrutiny. Too risky.

Also, a really meticulous doper can mask this well enough to keep the bio passport values looking legit.

The dude who tested positive for Clenbuterol was a like a 5. This system obviously has some real seams.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

DZfan14 said:


> The dude who tested positive for Clenbuterol was a like a 5. This system obviously has some real seams.


Absolutely. Data obtained well ahead of the tour should of course be able to predict what would be taken 2 weeks into the tour.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

den bakker said:


> Absolutely. Data obtained well ahead of the tour should of course be able to predict what would be taken 2 weeks into the tour.


Not sure what you're rolling your eyes at. My comment or the strangeness of the method. It wasn't supposed to predict anything. It was supposed to guide the testing effort.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Check back here in a week and let us know if you still feel that way


Tease!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

hampsten88 said:


> Obviously your knowledge of corruption in pro sports is limited to cycling if you really think cycling is worse.


Certainly many large organizations have some corruption however corruption is often increased when power is centralized. FIFA is a good example. The UCI is even more centralized then FIFA. McQuaid is elected by the national Feds. This means the head of the Burkina Fasso Cycling Federation has as much power as the head of the Italian, French, or Belgium Fed. Riders, Teams, manufactures, organizers have zero votes and zero power. This can lead to corruption but also to the often absurd fights that McQuaid has picked over the last 5 years. 

Contrast this to the NFL or MLB, teams, players all have unions that have some input. Can you image Barry Bonds paying Bud to make a positive go away? 

Over the next few weeks and months the conflicts of interest and harassment of critics will be made public.... unfortunately it may do little good.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Later this week even more evidence of the sports corruption.


Is this "the big one" you've been telling us about every day since you started here?


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Is this "the big one" you've been telling us about every day since you started here?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Later this week even more evidence of the sports corruption.



- Wow. Now there is a breaking news-flash "Dr.".............


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Is this "the big one" you've been telling us about every day since you started here?


I know this is hard for you but baiting me is not going to change things. The media is still going to expose the truth the Feds are still going to file charges. The only thing uncertain is the timing.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The only thing uncertain is the timing.


Didn't you just say "later this week"?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

hampsten88 said:


> Unions actually can make the corruption worse as they get involved from the side of trying to make sure their members are getting paid well and promoting the leagues.
> 
> Anyone thinking cycling is worse then other pro sports has their head buried in the sand.


Helping athletes get paid better and promoting the sport is a bad thing? The "everyone else is doing it" is not the best excuse. 

Perhaps the best thing that will come out of this will be the exposing of the UCI and Dr. Ferrari as exactly what we always thought they were. Crooks. Hopefully the next few days will provided even further public evidence of this toxic element that has infected the sport.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The "everyone else is doing it" is not the best excuse.


Far from it, but it's hard to punish everyone fairly. Making an example out of Lance seems fun, but it's hardly solving the problem. Furthermore, it's only punishing him while you're dealing with a peloton that may have had ~50% using some sort of banned product. It was also going on well before Lance. So for fairness, I'd think we need to examine and punish them, too. 




Doctor Falsetti said:


> Perhaps the best thing that will come out of this will be the exposing of the UCI and Dr. Ferrari as exactly what we always thought they were. Crooks. Hopefully the next few days will provided even further public evidence of this toxic element that has infected the sport.


No doubt about that. I'm just surprised he hasn't been bugged or closely monitored. It would seem to be an easy catch, much like a cop who hangs out by bars near closing time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

hampsten88 said:


> No, not in itself, but the methods that are used to achieve these goals can be very bad things.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please provide evidence of other sports being as corrupt as cycling, thanks:thumbsup: 

My position is not ever changing, but I can see why you would want to spin it that way. I mention Ferrari because in the next few days there will a lot of new info out about him and his operation. He is far from my only target. 

Watch the CBS evening news tonight and 60 minutes this Sunday.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

Hamilton speaks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wiz525 said:


> Hamilton speaks.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html


Tyler Confirms that Lance failed a test in 2001 and the UCI took care of it. Yet more evidence the UCI is a mess.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tyler Confirms that Lance failed a test in 2001 and the UCI took care of it. Yet more evidence the UCI is a mess.


Vanishing-Twin-Tugboat-Tyler? Yeah, ok.
I really liked Tyler, who didn't? But I have these trust issues with him.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

hampsten88 said:


> Yep, exactly what I expected from you, non-answers, talking in circles,blatantly lying, ignoring certain things, trying to imply I said things I did not, trying to imply you knew things. You are a big talking fraud who is just vague enough that you can claim to have said things or implied things.


Hmm, strong words. Bordering on "overly aggressive posting" one could say.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tyler Confirms that Lance failed a test in 2001 and the UCI took care of it. Yet more evidence the UCI is a mess.


Actually he confirmed that Armstrong told this story. We still don't know if it was actual fact or Armstrong had some sort of motivation to lie to them about it (e.g. to encourage them to continue to dope under the impression that they were "protected").


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Actually he confirmed that Armstrong told this story. We still don't know if it was actual fact or Armstrong had some sort of motivation to lie to them about it (e.g. to encourage them to continue to dope under the impression that they were "protected").


60 Minutes will have more on this Sunday (if it gets past legal). 2 other media outlets are chasing it as well. This will not go away


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Later this week even more evidence of the sports corruption.


Wow, looks like that prediction was spot on. Thanks Doc:thumbsup:


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Hey, at least I got to watch how the NSA screwed up big time in missing clues for 9/11. Now they are putting an NSA on trial for treason because he blew the whistle on their egocentric stupidity


----------

