# Armstrong only allowed CIRC to ask certain questions



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Armstrong and CIRC: Questions were limited, reduction in lifetime ban thought unlikely | CyclingTips



> Although Lance Armstrong recently gave the impression that he was fully cooperative with the Cycling Independent Reform Commission, telling the BBC that he gave full details in two meetings with the independent body, it appears that version of events may be misleading.
> 
> ...
> 
> However CyclingTips understands that the impression given is a misleading one. According to multiple sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Armstrong’s lawyers imposed strict controls on the questions that CIRC was able to put to the Texan.


Typical Armstrong, does something small then makes it seem like he was the saving grace of CIRC.


----------



## obed (Jan 12, 2014)

I always trust folks who give an opinion based on what someone they will not name said. Posing an argument is always easier when you do not have to reference the source. It may not be "yellow' journalism, but it is cheap... sort of like the news rags by the cash register in the grocery store.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Let's be honest, Lance is on what will likely be the losing side of the biggest court case of his life. If I was his lawyer, I would have done the same thing. Lance has done enough damage as it is.

The question is- if the timing was different, if the case was resolved, would Lance have been more forthcoming? Could he have added much to what is already known through various sources- enough to warrant a reduction in his sanction? Somehow, I doubt it.

Will he just go away now that he's pretty much perma-banned? Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> Let's be honest, Lance is on what will likely be the losing side of the biggest court case of his life. If I was his lawyer, I would have done the same thing. Lance has done enough damage as it is.
> 
> The question is- if the timing was different, if the case was resolved, would Lance have been more forthcoming? Could he have added much to what is already known through various sources- enough to warrant a reduction in his sanction? Somehow, I doubt it.


Right, but now we have Lance parading around claiming he's gone in and answered all of CIRC's questions when other have not even talked to CIRC. The report isn't out and we don't know who has/hasn't talked to CIRC and he's using this void to claim he's doing the morally right thing while others are doing nothing. The real difference is that the others don't make press releases when they talk to CIRC.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I don't think too many people will see his meeting with CIRC and all of the earth-shattering revelations that he laid out as "part of the solution". If they do, they deserve to remain duped.

If he sees the refusal of CIRC to recommend a reduction in his ban as unjust, he could always take the matter to CAS. Somehow I don't think he will. If he's trying to influence public opinion, he won't have significant success there either. Instead of trying to win a PR war, he needs to save his money, because I predict he may have some large bills due in the near future.


----------



## crankout (Mar 3, 2015)

Part of the problem is that in every successive interview he provides, he just digs himself a bigger hole.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

Here's the scenario that would have reduced his ban and possibly allowed him to keep TdF win or two.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

isn't it normal for lawyers to talk to producers or in this case the CIRC investigators to let them know what may be off limits due to ongoing legal proceedings?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> isn't it normal for lawyers to talk to producers or in this case the CIRC investigators to let them know what may be off limits due to ongoing legal proceedings?


No...


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Big-foot said:


> Here's the scenario that would have reduced his ban and possibly allowed him to keep TdF win or two.
> 
> View attachment 304217


If he hadn't insisted on fighting initially they would have only taken 2-3 wins. This is well documented in the book Wheelmen.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No...


Of course not, it's only Armstrong lawyers that do that.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> Of course not, it's only Armstrong lawyers that do that.


for a second there, I actually believed you phrased it as a question above because it was an actual question. 
nah, just kidding.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

den bakker said:


> for a second there, I actually believed you phrased it as a question above because it was an actual question.
> nah, just kidding.


It was until Dr. F made that definitive answer that no lawyers prevent questions from being asked when their client is going through legal proceedings.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

love4himies said:


> isn't it normal for lawyers to talk to producers or in this case the CIRC investigators to let them know what may be off limits due to ongoing legal proceedings?


My clients don't talk to anyone, period, during ongoing legal proceedings. everything is off limits because anything can come back to bite you on the ass. If they choose to ignore my advice, they sign a document stating that they're doing it over my advice.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> My clients don't talk to anyone, period, during ongoing legal proceedings. everything is off limits because anything can come back to bite you on the ass. If they choose to ignore my advice, they sign a document stating that they're doing it over my advice.


Do your clients then tell everyone that they answered all questions that were asked? That's the difference.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

From the Peloton magazine article here:

/CIRC Report: Doping, Cycling, the UCI

"Did USADA make a scapegoat of Lance Armstrong? It appears to the CIRC that the doping practices of Lance Armstrong were not any different to those of many other riders. CIRC has had the opportunity to interview a lot of other riders and team personnel who have confirmed that the peloton was for a long time doping infested and that more or less identical doping practices were adopted throughout the peloton. All of this is of course no excuse or justification for Lance Armstrong’s behavior and there cannot be a shadow of a doubt that such behavior warrants a harsh sanction. However, equal treatment is a fundamental principle on which the fight against doping and its acceptance by all stakeholders is based."

So I guess that kind of puts the "level playing field" counter-argument to rest.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

And further to the link oldchipper attached:



> 41) Did the UCI conceal a positive test by Lance Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse? On the basis of the information in its possession, the CIRC can conclude that Lance Armstrong did not test positive for EPO or any other doping substance during the 2001 Tour de Suisse. CIRC has not found any indication of a financial agreement between Lance Armstrong and Hein Verbruggen or, as would follow from the absence of evidence of a positive test, of any attempts by UCI to conceal a positive test by Lance Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.
> 
> CIRC has not found any evidence of corruption in relation to a positive test by Lance Armstrong during the Tour de Suisse in 2001, as alleged by Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis in their affidavits to USADA as part of the Reasoned Decision. CIRC considers that it is unfortunate that such serious accusations can be made public, without UCI first being consulted and the allegations being thoroughly investigated.
> 
> 42) Is it true that Armstrong helped finance the Vrijman Report, which in 2005 investigated reports of the American retrospectively testing positive for EPO at the 1999 Tour? CIRC has not found any evidence to corroborate the above-mentioned allegations that Lance Armstrong helped to finance the Vrijman Report. Lance Armstrong made a commitment to pay USD 100,000 to UCI for the fight against doping and, among other things, for the purchase of a Sysmex XT-2000i machine before the publication of the article in L’Équipe that ultimately gave rise to Emile Vrijman’s mandate.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

And not surprising:



> 47) Was their similar treatment two years later for Lance Armstrong? According to data provided by UCI during the 1999 Tour, Lance Armstrong was one of 26 riders who tested positive for corticosteroids. They all provided a medical certificate that was authorized by [UCI doctor] Lon Schattenberg. For three of these riders, the CIRC established that…no medical prescription was declared at the time of the control…. On one occasion, a medical prescription was clearly faxed days after the doping control had taken place. Not one of these three riders was sanctioned by UCI.
> 
> 48) What should have happened in the Brochard and Armstrong cases? Disciplinary proceedings should have been opened by UCI against both Laurent Brochard and Lance Armstrong following their positive tests for prohibited substances on the basis that they did not declare the use of a medicine justifying that substance on their doping control form. This is regardless of the fact that they subsequently produced a prescription explaining that use after testing positive.





> 52) Why did Armstrong sometimes get preferential treatment from the UCI? There are numerous examples that prove that Lance Armstrong benefited from a preferential status afforded by the UCI leadership. These favors were granted to him because he was considered the greatest cyclist and moreover the people’s hero as a cancer survivor. As one source summarizes, “… The primary concern was the commercial and international development of cycling and the arrival of Lance Armstrong was an extraordinary opportunity, a real success story, and the UCI closed its eyes to the rest.” Another source considered that within UCI, Lance Armstrong was considered “the illustration of the success of professional cycling and that if he fell, everyone would fall with him.”


For the above, I hold the UCI more responsible than Lance as they were the ones who were in authority.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Thought this was interesting:



> 5) What is the status of the therapeutic-use exemption, or TUE? Today there appears to be concern among riders about the way in which TUEs are used for corticoids and insulin in particular, and the extent to which they are being abused. … In general, there was a feeling that it is too easy to obtain a TUE; one rider who had doped reported that he was told to ask for a TUE for triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort) claiming that he had tendonitis; he had no problem obtaining the TUE.


One rider in particular comes to mind when I read this.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

love4himies said:


> For the above, I hold the UCI more responsible than Lance as they were the ones who were in authority.


I don't. Lance took advantage of the fact that the UCI didn't want any negative press on their biggest new star- especially post-Festina. Lance became a figure "larger than cycling", which gave him influence far above that of ordinary professional cyclists. As that last quote illustrates, he was too big to fail. I'd say the blame falls pretty evenly all around.

Again, if someone has to take the hit, Lance is as good a person as any. That doesn't mean that others shouldn't follow him down that path, it just means I think they made the right call to get the ball rolling. If they want to reduce the ban to a mere 50 years, I could support that in the interests of being fair.

Again, Lance is toxic to any sport he participates in now. That may change in the future, but for now no sport deserves him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> It was until Dr. F made that definitive answer that no lawyers prevent questions from being asked when their client is going through legal proceedings.


The issue is that Lance lied about how open his participation was



> "They asked him about everything
> "There is no agreement and that was never discussed. We never asked for one,"


He also lied to the CIRC. 

At this point we would be fools to expect anything different


----------



## jaggrin (Feb 18, 2011)

Armstrong may suck as a human being but a lifetime ban IMHO is ridiculous. Vinokorouv was busted while competing, never admitted wrongdoing, fought it all the way and got two years. Now he runs a team, maybe not for much longer but nevertheless wasn't banned for life. From the CIRC report current riders say between 20%-90% are still doping, using anything they can get their hands on to improve performance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jaggrin said:


> Armstrong may suck as a human being but a lifetime ban IMHO is ridiculous. Vinokorouv was busted while competing, never admitted wrongdoing, fought it all the way and got two years. Now he runs a team, maybe not for much longer but nevertheless wasn't banned for life. From the CIRC report current riders say between 20%-90% are still doping, using anything they can get their hands on to improve performance.


I agree, Vino should be gone. The challenge is the rules do not allow for sanctions without evidence. USADA had 27 witnesses. Until recently they have not had anything close to that level of evidence on Vino

The good news is they are actively pursuing Vino and Riis and both should be addressed in the coming weeks.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

the CIRC shows that Lance's claims of a "Level Playing Field" are complete nonsense. The UCI protected and enabled not just his doping but his smearing of anyone who questioned the myth. It is disturbing




> “CIRC finds that certain former presidents initiated a special relationship with Lance Armstrong and failed to establish a more distant relationship, which would have been more prudent given his status as an athlete and because of the suspicions of doping that persisted.”





> “Several sources, notably UCI staff and former UCI staff, reported that the UCI leadership had on several occasions “defended” or “protected” Lance Armstrong or taken favorable positions towards Lance Armstrong indicating that he had received preferential treatment. Among the explanations given to the CIRC was the UCI’s promotion of a “celebrity rider” after the Festina scandal.”





> “The CIRC has also gathered information demonstrating that Lance Armstrong sought the assistance of UCI on several occasions and made use of his privileged relationship with the UCI leadership to his own advantage.”





> “the UCI chose business to be the priority for the sport. The primary concern was the commercial and international development of cycling and the arrival of Lance Armstrong was an extraordinary opportunity, a real success story, and the UCI closed its eyes to the rest.”


The part on the Virjman report is disturbing. Armstrong's lawyers wrote most of the report then used it to attack WADA.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

can we just blank out the UCI? Now that they have been shown to be in on the mess, we'll maybe get some actual house cleaning. 

Lance opened up the American market, he was good for business and the sport already had a black eye. They turned their backs on lots of cheating (as they still do), but had a few sacrificial lambs so it looked like they were doing something. Just as they are doing now. Hmmmmm Brad and Froome opened up the English market considerably.........
it's like wrassling


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

OldChipper said:


> From the Peloton magazine article here:
> 
> /CIRC Report: Doping, Cycling, the UCI
> 
> ...


fanboi........
even if his cheating was more sophisticated (which this showed is doubtful) cheating is cheating. Robbing 2 banks is no different than robbing 10, you are still a bank robber. "Well my bank robber didn't knock off as many so he's less of one..." seems silly.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The issue is that Lance lied about how open his participation was
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course he did. I assume once again you were a fly on the wall while he was being questioned? Were you also a fly on the wall when his lawyers talked to CIRC to discuss what was "off limits"? Do you know if any of the "off limit" topics were pertinent to the outcome of the CIRC investigation?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_On the basis of the information in its possession, the CIRC can conclude that Lance Armstrong did not test positive for EPO or any other doping substance during the 2001 Tour de Suisse._

WHAT?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> fanboi........


Wilcockson might be the ultimate fanboi. He wrote 5 books on Armstrong, including "Lance: The Making of the World's Greatest Champion". 

He is now in Cover your A$$ mode after years of pushing the myth


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wilcockson might be the ultimate fanboi. He wrote 5 books on Armstrong, including "Lance: The Making of the World's Greatest Champion".
> 
> He is now in Cover your A$$ mode after years of pushing the myth


Kelly Slater is the World's Greatest Champion, check his stats against anyone.
Had Lance died or never recovered we'd have "Jan Ullrich World's Greatest Champion" written in German. As we have seen, riders were dirty, the system was dirty, the officials are/were dirty. 20-90% now, just confirms it was a gesture to the public "we cleaned up now" kind of how Festina was before Lance.

it's all about (selling) the bike


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Kelly Slater is the World's Greatest Champion, check his stats against anyone.
> Had Lance died or never recovered we'd have "Jan Ullrich World's Greatest Champion" written in German. As we have seen, riders were dirty, the system was dirty, the officials are/were dirty. 20-90% now, just confirms it was a gesture to the public "we cleaned up now" kind of how Festina was before Lance.
> 
> it's all about (selling) the bike


Not exactly. Unlike the US media, that ignored lance's doping for over a decade, the German media crucified Ullrich. 

One thing the report makes clear, nobody got the same level of service and protection as Armstrong.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not exactly. Unlike the US media, that ignored lance's doping for over a decade, the German media crucified Ullrich.
> 
> One thing the report makes clear, nobody got the same level of service and protection as Armstrong.


agreed, again Lance was good for business. But had he died and Jan had won those 6 or 7 (or 8) TdFs the German Media would have had a different relationship with him. He'd have been a rock star and probably had his own Pastry Line.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> agreed, again Lance was good for business. But had he died and Jan had won those 6 or 7 (or 8) TdFs the German Media would have had a different relationship with him. He'd have been a rock star and probably had his own Pastry Line.


The German media started dismantling Ullrich long before lance won the Tour. German's don't like slackers, especially slackers with talent

After he won the 1997 Tour he went on a winter long bender. Gaining a bunch of weight and showing up at training camp looking like the Michelin man. The German Press was relentless. It only got worse as over the years he would repeatedly get fat over the winter, get injured trying to get in shape, get arrested for drunk driving, test positive for party drugs.

With or without Lance the German media destroyed Jan from 1998 onward.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> One thing the report makes clear, nobody got the same level of service and protection as Armstrong.


As far as what we know of right now, this seems to be the case. 

It's of my opinion that Verbruggen was very much developing the "business" side of the UCI and he did that without ethics. He saw Armstrong as a "new market" AND as an added bonus he was a cancer survivor. If there was any other rider that fit that bill, Verbruggen would have done the same and I'm 99.9% sure that that rider would have taken all the same advantages as Lance did.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> As far as what we know of right now, this seems to be the case.
> 
> It's of my opinion that Verbruggen was very much developing the "business" side of the UCI and he did that without ethics. He saw Armstrong as a "new market" AND as an added bonus he was a cancer survivor. If there was any other rider that fit that bill, Verbruggen would have done the same and I'm 99.9% sure that that rider would have taken all the same advantages as Lance did.


Nope. 

Verbruggen ran the UCI for 9 years prior to Lance winning the Tour. There is no indication that during that time he gave any rider anything remotely close to the level of protection Armstrong got.

Lance, and his co-conspirators (Weisel, Och, Stapleton) took Hein's natural greed and exploited it better then anyone.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

It seems that all riders got protection. Armstrong may have been protected more than others. 

It seems that all riders doped. Armstrong may have doped better than others. 

It seems that some riders got punished. Armstrong may have been punished more than others.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Wow:



> Despite the use of doping in cycling for over a century, it is difficult to quantify how
> prevalent the problem was, due to the reluctance of participants to speak fully and
> truthfully about doping, and the lack of objective and comprehensive data from even 20
> years ago. However, according to a 1994 report on EPO use in Italian professional cycling,
> ...


Does that make it a level playing field?

edit: That is on pg 34 of the CIRC report.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Wow:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course not

One guy said 90% dope. One guy. Others said 20% and even more had this response



> A common response to the Commission, when asked about teams, was that probably 3 or 4 were clean, 3 or 4 were doping, and the rest were a “don’t know”


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

atpjunkie said:


> fanboi........
> even if his cheating was more sophisticated (which this showed is doubtful) cheating is cheating. Robbing 2 banks is no different than robbing 10, you are still a bank robber. "Well my bank robber didn't knock off as many so he's less of one..." seems silly.


Tygart fanboi...

And how were the rest not bankrobbers too? Crucifying one person won't cleanup the sport. Ya gotta crucify ALL the bankrobbers. Otherwise they can just believe they can go on robbing banks and make a deal with the prosecution if they get caught.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> One guy said 90% dope. One guy. Others said 20%


Others? 

One guy said 20%. One guy. 

Why exaggerate?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> It seems that all riders got protection. Armstrong may have been protected more than others.
> 
> It seems that all riders doped. Armstrong may have doped better than others.
> 
> It seems that some riders got punished. Armstrong may have been punished more than others.


Cookson said something similar



> "I think it's fair to say that Lance was given exceptional treatment but then again he was an exceptional offender. So I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for Lance Armstrong in that respect."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Others?
> 
> One guy said 20%. One guy.
> 
> Why exaggerate?


Starting with the stalking already? The fact is there are several parts of the report that have participants indicating that 90% is not a valid number. 



> A common response to the Commission, when asked about teams, was that probably 3 or 4 were clean, 3 or 4 were doping, and the rest were a “don’t know”


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

local hero said:


> others?
> 
> One guy said 20%. One guy.
> 
> Why exaggerate?


zing!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Armour: Lies of Lance Armstrong keep coming

Lance is going have to come up with a new talking point because the "Level Playing Field" stuff isn't working anymore


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> It seems that all riders got protection. Armstrong may have been protected more than others.
> 
> It seems that all riders doped. Armstrong may have doped better than others.
> 
> It seems that some riders got punished. Armstrong may have been punished more than others.


I wonder if Tyler and Floyd got popped because the UCI / Europeans didn't want too many Americans doing well. One was enough.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

OldChipper said:


> Tygart fanboi...
> 
> And how were the rest not bankrobbers too? Crucifying one person won't cleanup the sport. Ya gotta crucify ALL the bankrobbers. Otherwise they can just believe they can go on robbing banks and make a deal with the prosecution if they get caught.


well that would be if you were actually serious about it
but have a little dog and pony show, make people feel better and back to business as usual


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

When a person is being questioned as part of an investigation and that person also has legal exposure in a separate related matter they are not going answer questions that might implicate them as being liable in the other matter. Such conduct is standard or acceptable. That person or their attorney may or may not raise with the investigative body the issue of no response or "off limit" questions of which they will not answer. It just depends on a variety of issues whether or not they do that in advance or formally as opposed to simply not addressing it except by refusing to answer during their interview, depo, or examination. 

There are certain times when the investigator or interviewer does want to know such details in advance so as not to get muddled down in those areas unless it's absolutely key to what they are seeking.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Local Hero said:


> It seems that all riders got protection. Armstrong may have been protected more than others.
> 
> It seems that all riders doped. Armstrong may have doped better than others.
> 
> It seems that some riders got punished. Armstrong may have been punished more than others.


makes you wonder, did any top tour contender get busted during that era other than Floyd (who was Post Lance Era)? Giro / Vuelta guys, yes. Tour Honch's were busted years after, can anyone think of one who was busted during Armstrong's reign? 
2006 Basso, Beloki, Valverde, Mancebo and Jan were barred due to Puerto (but that wasn't at the Tour) as was Astana. Vino in 2007 but again, post Lance like Rasmussen, whowithdrew for lying about his whereabouts. 
I'm wondering if while they were turning a blind eye to Amrstrong, they went easy on everybody as not to be hypocrits


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> I wonder if Tyler and Floyd got popped because the UCI / Europeans didn't want too many Americans doing well. One was enough.


The fattest chicken wing on the speculation buffet. If that were the case why did Hein not have Armstrong busted in '99? Why did the Euro press keep shtum at the press conference after Lance's cortisone positive? Why not throw out U.S. Postal at the earliest opportunity? Why have _any_ cheating Americans around town when there were plenty of cheating Frenchmen, Spaniards and Belgians? Lance had gone when Floyd 'won' and there were still bikes to sell and money to be made. Do you honestly think Hein and McQuaid gave a hoot about which flag was flying on the gravy train? Floyd got popped because he was stupid. Tyler because he was careless/unlucky. 
Stupidity and carelessness, there's enough literature around to support that argument.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

sir duke said:


> The fattest chicken wing on the speculation buffet. If that were the case why did Hein not have Armstrong busted in '99? Why did the Euro press keep shtum at the press conference after Lance's cortisone positive? Why not throw out U.S. Postal at the earliest opportunity? Why have _any_ cheating Americans around town when there were plenty of cheating Frenchmen, Spaniards and Belgians? Lance had gone when Floyd 'won' and there were still bikes to sell and money to be made. Do you honestly think Hein and McQuaid gave a hoot about which flag was flying on the gravy train? Floyd got popped because he was stupid. Tyler because he was careless/unlucky.
> Stupidity and carelessness, there's enough literature around to support that argument.



Armstrong brought the American Market. He was already established as 'the guy'. It was a great narrative, his whole story, and bikes were flying off the racks. I was just wondering if they didn't want a US dynastic hold on the event, kind of like "One Yank is enough, we don't need hegemony" especially in Europe and their sport. Now that it has become clear how much the authorities were in on it I'm wondering how much was going on, how much they were handling, and how they orchestrated it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

For those who think that UCI would have protected any star like they did Lance you only need to look at Pantani. In 1999 he was the biggest star in the sport. He was tossed out of a certain Giro Victory with a slightly too high Hct. 

Meanwhile Armstrong gets back dated TUEs, visits to the Swiss lab, and his lawyers get to write the Virjman report


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> For those who think that UCI would have protected any star like they did Lance you only need to look at Pantani. In 1999 he was the biggest star in the sport. He was tossed out of a certain Giro Victory with a slightly too high Hct.
> 
> Meanwhile Armstrong gets back dated TUEs, visits to the Swiss lab, and his lawyers get to write the Virjman report


Pantani wasn't from the right continent or come back from almost certain death.

This is why: And personally, I think had the UCI had a different president, Lance would not have had the privileges he enjoyed.

Pg 92 Circ report:



> With the inclusion of professional cycling in the Olympic Games, revenue from the IOC
> and television rights started to increase dramatically. *Hein Verbruggen, with his business
> experience, understood that a celebrity rider would make cycling more attractive to
> broadcasters and consequently to sponsors. Lance Armstrong arrived at the perfect time:
> ...


and this is how Verbruggen was able to do it: (page 8 of the CIRC report)




> From the late 1980s, UCI grew rapidly as an institution. It vested extensive powers in the
> office of president, which created an entity run in an autocratic manner without
> appropriate checks and balances. Internal management bodies appear to have been
> devoid of any real influence and the governance structure was such that if the president
> wanted to take a particular direction, he was able to do so almost unchallenged.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Of course not
> 
> One guy said 90% dope. One guy. Others said 20% and even more had this response


I think that's a response to doping today. 

Doping back in Lance's day:

Pg 34 of the CIRC report:



> Despite the use of doping in cycling for over a century, it is difficult to quantify how
> prevalent the problem was, due to the reluctance of participants to speak fully and
> truthfully about doping, and the lack of objective and comprehensive data from even 20
> years ago. However, according to a 1994 report on EPO use in Italian professional cycling,
> ...





> The introduction of
> EPO into the peloton and the absence of an EPO test were real games changers to the
> sport of road cycling. Doping became the norm in the peloton, not only to increase
> performance but also just to keep up with the rest of the peloton. Doping became
> ...


Comment on today's peloton: (pg 56)



> One respected cycling professional felt that even today, 90% of the peloton was doping,
> although he thought that there was little orchestrated team doping in the manner that
> teams had previously employed. Another put it at around 20%. Many people simply
> stated they “didn’t know” who was clean and who was not. A lot of these discrepancies
> may be caused by the definition of doping being used by individuals (see above).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Pantani wasn't from the right continent or come back from almost certain death.


So you are modifying your position, Only American's would get the same level of protection as Lance?

Floyd Landis?
Tyler Hamilton? 

It appears you do not know Pantani's story. He collided head-on with a car during Milano–Torino. Had multiple fractures to the left tibia and fibula. It almost ended his career and caused him miss most of the 1996 season. 

When he won the Giro-Tour the viewership numbers were crazy. 13,000,000 people in Italy tuned in. 5,000,000 people in Spain.....yet the UCI tossed him out of the Giro and he was excluded from the Tour.

Level playing field? Not even close.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So you are modifying your position, Only American's would get the same level of protection as Lance?
> 
> Floyd Landis?
> Tyler Hamilton?
> ...



Ummmmmmmm, not me saying that it's the CIRC report is saying that. You obviously didn't read the report or my quotes from it. I even highlighted it in red for you.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> For those who think that UCI would have protected any star like they did Lance you only need to look at Pantani. In 1999 he was the biggest star in the sport. He was tossed out of a certain Giro Victory with a slightly too high Hct.
> 
> Meanwhile Armstrong gets back dated TUEs, visits to the Swiss lab, and his lawyers get to write the Virjman report


I agree that Armstrong got away with a lot. But let's not pretend that the UCI was strict with everyone else. Dirty riders getting caught was the exception, rather than the rule.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Ummmmmmmm, not me saying that it's the CIRC report is saying that. You obviously didn't read the report or my quotes from it. I even highlighted it in red for you.


It appears you missed your own post



love4himies said:


> Pantani wasn't from the right continent or come back from almost certain death.


Again, Tyler, Floyd, both American's. Both did not get anything close to the protection Lance got. Nothing even close.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> I agree that Armstrong got away with a lot. But let's not pretend that the UCI was strict with everyone else. Dirty riders getting caught was the exception, rather than the rule.


I am not pretending the UCI was strict with everyone else, they were not. But the UCI's treatment of Pantani, Ullrich, Landis, and Hamilton etc. was nothing like what they gave to Armstrong.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

This is interesting: Pg75



> It is interesting that riders are also aware of the general pressure to keep sponsors in the
> sport, not just their own team’s sponsor, but more widely. *The Commission was told that
> sometimes riders would agree to lose stages to another rider whose sponsor might have
> been considering withdrawing from cycling.* In this way, the sponsor would have a stage
> ...


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you missed your own post
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Tyler, Floyd, both American's. Both did not get anything close to the protection Lance got. Nothing even close.


Ummmmm, no I didn't. I was repeating what was in the CIRC.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

This is almost an admission that there is no definitive proof through the Biological Passport that the athlete was doping when there is an adverse finding.



> The ABP has been one of the most significant developments in the fight against doping.
> However, as discussed further in the section on UCI’s anti-doping policies, there are many
> occasions when the medical experts reviewing ABPs are unable to reach a conclusion as
> to whether or not an abnormality has been caused by doping. Interviewees from NADOs,
> ...


This brings to mind Johnathon Tiernan-Locke who states it was due to a hangover which caused severe dehydration. Has appropriate testing been done to eliminate severe dehydration as a possible cause for an adverse finding?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> This is almost an admission that there is no definitive proof through the Biological Passport that the athlete was doping when there is an adverse finding.
> 
> 
> 
> This brings to mind Johnathon Tiernan-Locke who states it was due to a hangover which caused severe dehydration. Has appropriate testing been done to eliminate severe dehydration as a possible cause for an adverse finding?


No it isn't. The thresholds for the ABP are high. More studies are needed to bring those thresholds down. 

There are plenty of studies on dehydration and blood values, none of them would explain JTL absolutely insane values.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

love4himies said:


> This is almost an admission that there is no definitive proof through the Biological Passport that the athlete was doping when there is an adverse finding.
> 
> 
> 
> This brings to mind Johnathon Tiernan-Locke who states it was due to a hangover which caused severe dehydration. Has appropriate testing been done to eliminate severe dehydration as a possible cause for an adverse finding?


Can a dehydrated person finish 19th in the world championships? 

Two year ban confirmed for Tiernan Locke as rider decides not to appeal | CyclingTips



> It concluded that there was no scientific evidence to show a reduction in plasma volume after alcohol consumption; in fact, the report suggested it might even be elevated. It added that if alcohol-induced dehydration had indeed been a significant factor, that the mean cell volume (MCV) of the red cells would have been reduced. However the report states that MCV was “well within normal parameters.”
> 
> In terms of the suppressed reticulocyte levels, Professors Schumacher and D’Onofrio said that there was no scientific evidence to show that acute alcohol intoxication affects reticulocytes in healthy people. It adds that “even the most extreme damage to bone marrow cells, by myelosuppressive chemotherapy, causes only a gradual decrease of reticulocytes over 7 – 10 days, not an immediate severe reduction in reticulocyte levels as implied by Dr. Hampton’s thesis.”


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

deviousalex said:


> Can a dehydrated person finish 19th in the world championships?
> 
> Two year ban confirmed for Tiernan Locke as rider decides not to appeal | CyclingTips


It was the day after the sample was taken, so could one day make a difference? I'm thinking yes, but only due to my performances the day of and a day after a hangover, but I don't have any proof. Plus, each body is different, so it would be hard for to say definitely one way or another, there are always outliers in every study.

BTW, I'm not saying he did or didn't dope as I don't know, it was just the comment from the CIRC report that labs and NADO believe there needs to be more science behind the ABP. That tells me there is *some doubt* as to whether non doping can cause adverse results.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

deviousalex said:


> Can a dehydrated person finish 19th in the world championships?
> 
> Two year ban confirmed for Tiernan Locke as rider decides not to appeal | CyclingTips


hungover the day before worlds. welcome to lalaland. bonus points if he said he drink jack daniels. just for historical humour.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

“We are unable to dismiss as implausible the evidence that Mr. Tiernan-Locke did in fact imbibe a substantial amount of alcohol during the evening of 20 September,” it states. “However we do not accept the evidence that he was in a state of severe dehydration when he gave the blood sample at 0830 on 22 September. It is inconceivable that a professional rider, selected for the first time to ride for his country at a senior level in the world championships, would not have ensured that by the time he arrived in the team hotel at Maastricht he was fit to race and had ensured that he had taken on sufficient water to deal with any hangover which he was still experiencing.”


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

atpjunkie said:


> makes you wonder, did any top tour contender get busted during that era other than Floyd (who was Post Lance Era)? Giro / Vuelta guys, yes. Tour Honch's were busted years after, can anyone think of one who was busted during Armstrong's reign?
> *2006 Basso, Beloki, Valverde, Mancebo and Jan were barred due to Puerto (but that wasn't at the Tour) as was Astana. Vino in 2007 but again, post Lance like Rasmussen, whowithdrew for lying about his whereabouts.
> I'm wondering if while they were turning a blind eye to Amrstrong, they went easy on everybody as not to be hypocrits*


It makes it easier for people to believe a no-hoper who came back from cancer and started winning the Tour was a clean racer beating other clean racers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> makes you wonder, did any top tour contender get busted during that era other than Floyd (who was Post Lance Era)? Giro / Vuelta guys, yes. Tour Honch's were busted years after, can anyone think of one who was busted during Armstrong's reign?


Pantani was excluded from the 1999 Tour and also the 2001 Tour when an empty Syringe was found in his room. What happened when a two USPS staff members where caught on tape dumping a bag of 160 syringes? Nothing

Igor González de Galdeano was 2nd in the Vuelta, He beat Armstrong in the Midi libre TT and almost matched him in the mountains. At the Tour he wore yellow for 7 days and finished 4th. He was excluded from the Tour the following year for being _suspected_ of doping. 

Raimondas Rumšas was 3rd to Lance at the Tour. Tested positive, wife caught with drugs

Tyler Hamilton was on fire in 03/04. Winning Liege, beating Armstrong by over a minute in the DL Ventoux TT.....then suddenly he is getting a visit from the UCI to warn him about his blood values. He is then target tested for months. 

Not exactly the same treatment as Lance eh?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Was it mandatory for Armstrong to go to CIRC?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> Was it mandatory for Armstrong to go to CIRC?


What the hell could they do if he told them to go pound sand? Order up a firing squad?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> For those who think that UCI would have protected any star like they did Lance you only need to look at Pantani. In 1999 he was the biggest star in the sport. He was tossed out of a certain Giro Victory with a slightly too high Hct.
> 
> Meanwhile Armstrong gets back dated TUEs, visits to the Swiss lab, and his lawyers get to write the Virjman report


Pantani was busted at the Giro. My point was the Tour specifically. DiLuca was busted at the Giro as well. Guys got popped at the Vuelta, no major Honch's busted in the Lance Era. Contador was busted after.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pantani was excluded from the 1999 Tour and also the 2001 Tour when an empty Syringe was found in his room. What happened when a two USPS staff members where caught on tape dumping a bag of 160 syringes? Nothing
> 
> Igor González de Galdeano was 2nd in the Vuelta, He beat Armstrong in the Midi libre TT and almost matched him in the mountains. At the Tour he wore yellow for 7 days and finished 4th. He was excluded from the Tour the following year for being _suspected_ of doping.
> 
> ...


again not my point. Pantani got excluded for his Giro bust (52 H Crit in 99). 2001 he got it for a syringe at the Giro. Again, nothing at the Tour.

I'm wondering if Tyler got popped because they didn't want an American hegemony over the sport. 

Rumsas, not busted at the tour. Busted at the border. My point (again) during Lance's era, did any major leader get nailed for dope during the tour? What I am wondering is, if they were turning a blind eye to Lance, were they turning a blind eye to everyone out of guilt? What I'm seeing the Tour seems to be dirtier than the Giro or the Vuelta.

this isn't an equal treatment POV. It's more an inquiry into how dirty the Tour and the UCI were. The Tour is the big deal still, I can see how they wouldn't want it tarnished by doping scandals. Makes me feel bad for Pantani and DiLuca because the Giiro seemed more strict as far as testing


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> I'm wondering if Tyler got popped because they didn't want an American hegemony over the sport.


Hard to keep up with the conspiracy theories. 

Rumsas' wife was arrested in France on the last day of the Tour. Regardless you can try to isolate the season into the 3 weeks of the Tour but we all know that the season is much more then those three weeks and the testing for all the events, prior to the 2005 season, was under the UCI umbrella 

It is hard to ignore that while Lance was getting advanced notice of surprise out of competition testing Ullrich was getting nailed by the same testing, resulting in a suspension. 

When Mayo and Hamilton smoked Armstrong on Ventoux at the DL one gets a warning letter about synthetic hemoglobin and the other gets target tested. 

Throughout the season Armstrong's rivals were nailed while Lance skated by


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hard to keep up with the conspiracy theories.
> 
> Rumsas' wife was arrested in France on the last day of the Tour. Regardless you can try to isolate the season into the 3 weeks of the Tour but we all know that the season is much more then those three weeks and the testing for all the events, prior to the 2005 season, was under the UCI umbrella
> 
> ...


I have no issue with that. Once again it isn't the point I am trying to make. Just drop your damn hard on for Lance, this isn't all about him, he's a giant douche, great. What I am looking at is what appears to be a far more systemic failure of testing / busting at the sports BIGGEST event. Rumsas' wife was popped by the police NOT the TdF officials. I'll grant you that Lance was getting special treatment, that's a waste of what I am looking for. What I am looking at is a lack of doping busts by officials in the biggest race (read as marketing event) of the season. Lance got a pass, again he was helping cycling explode in America. He was frigging great for sales and increasing the world wide cycling brand. How come authorities during this doping era were catching major guys at the other 2 GTs but not this one? Why is the sport taking these bad PR hits in other events but never @ the tour? Lance related? Probably, because the Tour is what most the US audience watches. Most American newbies probably have no idea who DiLuca or Paolo Savoldelli were. Hell, most probably didn't know there were doping busts @ the Giro, most don't even know what the Giro is. Lance, and by default the Tour were great for business. I'm thinking they were hush on a lot to preserve that.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

atpjunkie said:


> Lance, and by default the Tour were great for business. I'm thinking they were hush on a lot to preserve that.


That is exactly what the CIRC report states and why Verbruggen protected Lance. Verbruggen was a business man (marketing if I remember correctly) first, ethics second. That enabled Lance to build an empire that became too big to loose and he was going to do what ever it took to protect that empire. There are not too many humans that would not do the lawsuits he did to protect the truth from coming out. He knew there wasn't definitive proof of his doping that passes the court's level of proof required to loose.

Verbruggen should be banned from the sport for life. He is just as guilty as the rest of the pack.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> I have no issue with that. Once again it isn't the point I am trying to make. Just drop your damn hard on for Lance, this isn't all about him, he's a giant douche, great. What I am looking at is what appears to be a far more systemic failure of testing / busting at the sports BIGGEST event. Rumsas' wife was popped by the police NOT the TdF officials. I'll grant you that Lance was getting special treatment, that's a waste of what I am looking for. What I am looking at is a lack of doping busts by officials in the biggest race (read as marketing event) of the season. Lance got a pass, again he was helping cycling explode in America. He was frigging great for sales and increasing the world wide cycling brand. How come authorities during this doping era were catching major guys at the other 2 GTs but not this one? Why is the sport taking these bad PR hits in other events but never @ the tour? Lance related? Probably, because the Tour is what most the US audience watches. Most American newbies probably have no idea who DiLuca or Paolo Savoldelli were. Hell, most probably didn't know there were doping busts @ the Giro, most don't even know what the Giro is. Lance, and by default the Tour were great for business. I'm thinking they were hush on a lot to preserve that.


Again with the personal attacks. 

Fear of the French police is a key factor. After Festina, and the criminalization of doping in France many in the sport were freaked out. Armstrong, Livingstong, Jalabert, and others moved out of the country. While Armstrong hired Motoman to drive drugs around France most teams took nothing into the country in fear of getting caught. Telekom drove over the border to Frieburg to do transfusions, ONCE drove across the border into Spain to do the same. 

Most years the ASO would warn that team hotels, cars, and staff would be targeted. Police got Frigo, Rumsas, and others at the Tour but it isn't like this also did not happen at the Giro. The syringes that kept Pantani out of the 2001 Tour were the result of a Police raid during the Giro earlier that year. There were also Police raids at the 2002 and 2004 Giro.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Again with the personal attacks.
> 
> Fear of the French police is a key factor. After Festina, and the criminalization of doping in France many in the sport were freaked out. Armstrong, Livingstong, Jalabert, and others moved out of the country. While Armstrong hired Motoman to drive drugs around France most teams took nothing into the country in fear of getting caught. Telekom drove over the border to Frieburg to do transfusions, ONCE drove across the border into Spain to do the same.
> 
> Most years the ASO would warn that team hotels, cars, and staff would be targeted. Police got Frigo, Rumsas, and others at the Tour but it isn't like this also did not happen at the Giro. The syringes that kept Pantani out of the 2001 Tour were the result of a Police raid during the Giro earlier that year. There were also Police raids at the 2002 and 2004 Giro.


it's not a personal attack. I am looking at a much bigger picture and I tire of the myopia around a single rider. As you have stated the ASO was warning teams. We know (again as you again stated) teams were cheating and crossing borders to do so. In all that time, 7 tours not one major tour contender went down. How many contenders / winners went down during that era at the Giro / Vuelta? Numerous, including one of Lance's Captains Roberto Heras. So what we have is what appears to be the biggest organizations in the sport having a gag order at their biggest event. We all know doping went on at the tour, as it did at every GT. What doesn't fit, is the lack of busts when compared to the other events.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> it's not a personal attack. I am looking at a much bigger picture and I tire of the myopia around a single rider. As you have stated the ASO was warning teams. We know (again as you again stated) teams were cheating and crossing borders to do so. In all that time, 7 tours not one major tour contender went down. How many contenders / winners went down during that era at the Giro / Vuelta? Numerous, including one of Lance's Captains Roberto Heras. So what we have is what appears to be the biggest organizations in the sport having a gag order at their biggest event. We all know doping went on at the tour, as it did at every GT. What doesn't fit, is the lack of busts when compared to the other events.


You did not read my posts did you? 

Police action got Frigo and Rumsas at the Tour. Police action got Frigo and Pantani at the Giro. Police action at the Giro got DiLucca and Casagrande excluded from the Tour. These were not positive tests. 

The first full season that WADA was in charge of testing was 2005. Prior to this few top riders tested positive as there was little OOC testing and they were smart enough to not bring drugs into France. 

Did Lance get special treatment? Clearly. Pantani, Ullrich, Hamilton, Landaluze None of them got the level of protection he received from the ASO and UCI.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Lance is done, history. Nothing that happens to him at this point will affect the future of cycling. I am looking for problems within the system that will stop it from improving today and tomorrow


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Lance is done, history. Nothing that happens to him at this point will affect the future of cycling. I am looking for problems within the system that will stop it from improving today and tomorrow


I agree, he is done. Now it is important that the sport reforms in order to insure that such extreme preferential treatment by a governing body does not happen again. 

Cookson has already announced some reforms with more to come. 

The UCI announces further anti-doping measures following CIRC report and recommendations

I also expect more reforms in the licensing process once the Astana CAS case is done


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

mpre53 said:


> What the hell could they do if he told them to go pound sand? Order up a firing squad?


Which is why limiting the questions seems like a good compromise.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree, he is done. Now it is important that the sport reforms in order to insure that such extreme preferential treatment by a governing body does not happen again.
> 
> Cookson has already announced some reforms with more to come.
> 
> ...


much like MLB during their steriod era, I think the powers that be will continue to turn a blind eye as long as business is good


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> much like MLB during their steriod era, I think the powers that be will continue to turn a blind eye as long as business is good


Bingo. This will be the inherent problem with all sports. 

With cycling, shouldn't we take note that Contador has "won" 8 grand tours and was able to keep 6. Seems that it's business as usual.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> Bingo. This will be the inherent problem with all sports.
> 
> With cycling, shouldn't we take note that Contador has "won" 8 grand tours and was able to keep 6. Seems that it's business as usual.


which indicates that 'preferential treatment' isn't the sole domain of a single athlete. Once again, that notion feeds into the 'we got the bad guy, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move on' mentality of a corrupt organization who tosses some meat to the wolves and continues as it always has. 
Again, we should look to riders from emerging markets (like england, or Asia for example) who may be getting the same treatment because they are good fr business there.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atpjunkie said:


> which indicates that 'preferential treatment' isn't the sole domain of a single athlete. Once again, that notion feeds into the 'we got the bad guy, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move on' mentality of a corrupt organization who tosses some meat to the wolves and continues as it always has.
> Again, we should look to riders from emerging markets (like england, or Asia for example) who may be getting the same treatment because they are good fr business there.


No arguments here. The year they strip Lance is the year Sky gets 1st and 2nd in the tour and almost got themselves the green jersey as well. Clean riding.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> No arguments here. The year they strip Lance is the year Sky gets 1st and 2nd in the tour and almost got themselves the green jersey as well. Clean riding.


Sky reminds me of US Postal/Discovery way too much.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

love4himies said:


> Sky reminds me of US Postal/Discovery way too much.


Yes, but more polite, less ruthless, and more money. The cycling world also has US Postal to thank with regard to behavior and perception. Astana doesn't quite seem to care.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Once again, that notion feeds into the 'we got the bad guy, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move on' mentality


Nice strawman. I have yet to see anyone actually claim this.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nice strawman. I have yet to see anyone actually claim this.


not anyone on the forum
the powers that be

and road cycling explodes in England....

follow the money


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> not anyone on the forum
> the powers that be
> 
> and road cycling explodes in England....
> ...


The powers that be? Which powers are this? the guys who just releases a report that said some key folks think that 90% are doping and TUE and Cortisone are being abused.

Sorry, I am not up to date on the latest conspiracy theories. The UCI is ignoring the doping of a Colombian, Australian, and a Kenyan in order to sell bikes in the UK?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The powers that be? Which powers are this? the guys who just releases a report that said some key folks think that 90% are doping and TUE and Cortisone are being abused.
> 
> Sorry, I am not up to date on the latest conspiracy theories. The UCI is ignoring the doping of a Colombian, Australian, and a Kenyan in order to sell bikes in the UK?


Who busted Lance? The USADA. Without that he'd still be the greatest tour rider of all time. The guys who released a report that "our system is dirty as hell and complicit on all the crap that has gone on"
What I am saying is, I'm guessing the sport has been keeping a lid o things for their own economic interests


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Who busted Lance? The USADA. Without that he'd still be the greatest tour rider of all time. The guys who released a report that "our system is dirty as hell and complicit on all the crap that has gone on"
> What I am saying is, I'm guessing the sport has been keeping a lid o things for their own economic interests


What does USADA have to do with road cycling exploding in England? 

When has USADA said anything close to 'we got the bad guy, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move on'?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What does USADA have to do with road cycling exploding in England?
> 
> When has USADA said anything close to 'we got the bad guy, everything is fine, nothing to see here, move on'?


What I am saying is if the USADA hadn't done what it did, Lance would till have his titles
He was never busted by any of the European Groups. What I am saying is the UCI, ASO, etc... may be hushing all kinds of things because they are 'bad for the Sport'

Lance's rise caused an explosion of road bike sales in the US
Brad and Froome are having a similar effect in England
Sky and Discovery seem to operate very similarly
I find all these coincidences a little creepy
This is smelling more like the WWE every day


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> What I am saying is if the USADA hadn't done what it did, Lance would till have his titles
> He was never busted by any of the European Groups. What I am saying is the UCI, ASO, etc... may be hushing all kinds of things because they are 'bad for the Sport'
> 
> Lance's rise caused an explosion of road bike sales in the US
> ...


Sky and Disco operate similarly? You may have a point. When Levi went to Disco in 2007 Johan told him they could not risk a team program and Levi had to do it on his own. It was too risky. Do you really think Sky are running a program that even Johan thought was too risky 7 years ago?

Sky hired Lienders and Froome got a TUE for Cortisone. Hardly the rolling pharmacy that was USPS. Froome is doping but I think he is doing it on his own, not as part of a team program. 

McQuaid and Verburggen were corrupt crooks, but that does not mean Cookson is.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Froome is doping but I think he is doing it on his own, not as part of a team program.


How certain are you of this? Not trolling, just wondering. I don't remember you stating that about Froome before.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sky and Disco operate similarly? You may have a point. When Levi went to Disco in 2007 Johan told him they could not risk a team program and Levi had to do it on his own. It was too risky. Do you really think Sky are running a program that even Johan thought was too risky 7 years ago?
> 
> Sky hired Lienders and Froome got a TUE for Cortisone. Hardly the rolling pharmacy that was USPS. Froome is doping but I think he is doing it on his own, not as part of a team program.
> 
> McQuaid and Verburggen were corrupt crooks, but that does not mean Cookson is.


Sky dominates Tour, 2 riders on podium
their pace sheds many GC honch's yet they have a handful of doms left still pedaling tempo
When people ask how they do it "marginal gains"
I'm not talking about how they are running it. I'm talking about the similarities in the domination.
I'm sure Sky learned a lot. Probably more compartmentalized and done 'without their knowledge'. I'm sure Froome or Brad isn't sharing their blood fridges with their team mates


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

burgrat said:


> How certain are you of this? Not trolling, just wondering. I don't remember you stating that about Froome before.


I have talked at length with several people working on the team. When Froome went nuts at the 2011 Vuelta I have heard that at least two of the Sky team doctors were freaking out. They figured he must be doping and had no idea what he was using. They were very concerned he was going to get caught as the jump in form was so massive.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> Sky dominates Tour, 2 riders on podium
> their pace sheds many GC honch's yet they have a handful of doms left still pedaling tempo
> When people ask how they do it "marginal gains"
> I'm not talking about how they are running it. I'm talking about the similarities in the domination.
> I'm sure Sky learned a lot. Probably more compartmentalized and done 'without their knowledge'. I'm sure Froome or Brad isn't sharing their blood fridges with their team mates


With the exception of 2012 Sky's team has been very weak. 2013 Froome was consistently isolated. The reality is they spent tens of millions and have had 2 riders with results, 3 if you count the erratic Port. "Marginal Gains" only works for a few guys

Compare that to the 2004 USPS team. Stage 20, 9 guys on the front, shredding the entire field. That was serious top fuel racing


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

burgrat said:


> How certain are you of this? Not trolling, just wondering. I don't remember you stating that about Froome before.


I would think a big take home lesson from US Postal/Disco is to never screw/bully a guy who has lots of dirt on ya, keep your mouth shut and don't bring down everyone with ya because you got caught, dope in private so nobody else can talk. I think team programs are simply a better kept secret. 

The whole US Postal/Disco fiasco has simply created a smarter doper. I think the biggest red flag is that only lower level pros are getting caught while the top of the heap are still golden.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

spade2you said:


> I would think a big take home lesson from US Postal/Disco is to never screw/bully a guy who has lots of dirt on ya, keep your mouth shut and don't bring down everyone with ya because you got caught, dope in private so nobody else can talk. I think team programs are simply a better kept secret.
> 
> The whole US Postal/Disco fiasco has simply created a smarter doper. I think the biggest red flag is that only lower level pros are getting caught while the top of the heap are still golden.


Agree. Any rider doping today would be a fool to share it with anybody else. Too many have been found out by tattletales.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> The whole US Postal/Disco fiasco has simply created a smarter doper. I think the biggest red flag is that only lower level pros are getting caught while the top of the heap are still golden.


Lower level guys like Di Lucca, Santambrogio, Ballan, and Kreuziger?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Agree. Any rider doping today would be a fool to share it with anybody else. Too many have been found out by tattletales.


Yup.....which why the idea that Sky is running a USPS doping program is a bit absurd.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lower level guys like Di Lucca, Santambrogio, Ballan, and Kreuziger?


DiLucca was well past his prime and a little stupid. 

Santambrogio may have been on his way up. He didn't test positive when he was on BMC. 

Ballan took how many years to convict? A little past his prime. BTW, I think I read that he's ban has been shortened. Yay. 

Kreuzinger had some decent results. Plenty of people still finish ahead of him. Makes ya wonder about those fellows. Liquigas, Astana, and Saxo. These teams didn't have a systemic doping program. Riiiiight.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> DiLucca was well past his prime and a little stupid.
> 
> Santambrogio may have been on his way up. He didn't test positive when he was on BMC.
> 
> ...


Hard to keep up with the rules.....so big name riders (Grand Tour/Classic winners or top 10) also test positive but they need to be old or have a long unpronounceable name? Does the UCI have a list of rules about who it is OK to sanction or do you think it is just a sticky note in the break room?

Liquigas is no longer in the sport and Slipstream did not bring over any of their doctors. ADD has been targeting Riis/Saxo for several years, their report comes out this week. If they have a program they have a giant set of balls. 

Astana.....That might be USPS II


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hard to keep up with the rules.....so big name riders (Grand Tour/Classic winners or top 10) also test positive but they need to be old or have a long unpronounceable name? Does the UCI have a list of rules about who it is OK to sanction or do you think it is just a sticky note in the break room?
> 
> Liquigas is no longer in the sport and Slipstream did not bring over any of their doctors. ADD has been targeting Riis/Saxo for several years, their report comes out this week. If they have a program they have a giant set of balls.
> 
> Astana.....That might be USPS II


Obviously Liquigas is no longer a team, but they had their share of dopers and results. 

Looking back the last couple of years, it would appear that Saxo, Sky, Astana, and Movistar have a heck of a lot of GT wins/podiums.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Obviously Liquigas is no longer a team, but they had their share of dopers and results.
> 
> Looking back the last couple of years, it would appear that Saxo, Sky, Astana, and Movistar have a heck of a lot of GT wins/podiums.


which seems to be roughly the highest budget teams to pay for the best riders? missing one or two teams not giving two bits about GTs but only those apparently small monuments.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yup.....which why the idea that Sky is running a USPS doping program is a bit absurd.


Oh I still think they are doping, Wiggins, not so much, but Froome and the gang, yes. I just don't think individuals are being open with one another on exactly what they are doing. Blabbing to everybody what you are doing has no correlation on whether you are doping or not.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Oh I still think they are doping, Wiggins, not so much, but Froome and the gang, yes. I just don't think individuals are being open with one another on exactly what they are doing. Blabbing to everybody what you are doing has no correlation on whether you are doping or not.


https://youtu.be/t5cKTNyBj0o?t=3m39s


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Oh I still think they are doping, Wiggins, not so much, but Froome and the gang, yes. I just don't think individuals are being open with one another on exactly what they are doing. Blabbing to everybody what you are doing has no correlation on whether you are doping or not.


Froome and the gang? If "The Gang" is on what Froome is on then why is it not working for them? For the amount of money Sky puts into the team they get much from "The Gang"


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> https://youtu.be/t5cKTNyBj0o?t=3m39s


That's it, I was wrong, no dope found in the bus, they are clean. 

Love the Dyson, I need one of those for my fifth wheel.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Froome and the gang? If "The Gang" is on what Froome is on then why is it not working for them? For the amount of money Sky puts into the team they get much from "The Gang"


Money doesn't make you faster, just lets you buy the best, ummm, advisers and trainers, you know like Postal and Ferrari. *sigh*, it's just not a level playing field out there, too bad.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

spade2you said:


> I would think a big take home lesson from US Postal/Disco is to never screw/bully a guy who has lots of dirt on ya, keep your mouth shut and don't bring down everyone with ya because you got caught, dope in private so nobody else can talk. I think team programs are simply a better kept secret.
> 
> The whole US Postal/Disco fiasco has simply created a smarter doper. I think the biggest red flag is that only lower level pros are getting caught while the top of the heap are still golden.


agreed
be more discreet
do it in isolation
don't be an a hole
It's like the mob, you have to worry about getting ratted out by members of the family


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> which seems to be roughly the highest budget teams to pay for the best riders? missing one or two teams not giving two bits about GTs but only those apparently small monuments.


I'm trying to remember which teams used that excuse in the past. :idea:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I'm trying to remember which teams used that excuse in the past. :idea:


Excuse? not really. keep trolling, self proclaimed troll.


----------

