# Armstrong pays UCI for drug testing



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

> Lance’s Anti-Doping Fight
> Lance Armstrong has always fought to defend himself against slurs on his reputation as a clean athlete but less well known is his fight against doping itself behind the scenes. UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".


http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088

Why a secret? What did he pay for, or better yet what priviledge did he receive?


----------



## Scot_Gore (Jan 25, 2002)

From my read, it wasn't a secret, it was anonymous. He made a contribution to cause he cared about, namely, getting drug screening better in cycling and somebody leaked it. 

If you gave a bunch of money for the new Planned Parenthod Clinic in your neighborhood because you cared about the issues Planned Parenthood works on you might not want the cornerstone brick emblazoned with your name because some of your neighbors might have strong feelings about such an action and it could effect your peaceful co-exsistance in the community. 

So, Armstrong gave a bunch of money to the people who have been kicking his colleagues that he works with on a daily basis out of their jobs over the last few years. Perhaps he was worried that some people might have a strong reaction to such an action and slam on those brakes just as he dropped in behind them in a fluid peleton.

Make sense ? 

I wouldn't assume sinnister intent

Scot


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

But, UCI anti-doping is there to police the sport and its riders. Lance is one of its riders.

Not to tar Lance or any rider with the same brush, but isn't this like the mob paying off the cops? You know, a benefit picnic and the proceeds go to the police association.

Why would I pay the organization to has a mandate to police me more money? Funny.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Spunout said:


> Why would I pay the organization to has a mandate to police me more money? Funny.


I can think of lots of reasons why you would want to pay the organization policing you money. The bigger question, to me, is what does it say about an organization that would accept it.


----------



## Jdawg (Dec 6, 2004)

I posted this the other day on another board, and about died laughing when the lance haters started in. It was quit irrationally comical.

How is there a conspiracy here? He is the top Dawg, and he is having to ride against some pretty talented and probably doped individuals year in and year out. So give extra money to better the standards. I don't think the UCI is hurting for money, and we all know Lance is tested on a level that no one else is. 

I swear, this guy cant get a break from anyone.

Do you honestly think he would be putting his life in danger by doping? Honestly? Ask yourself that and think about all he has been through. It would take one sadistic SOB to do something like that.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Since EPO aided his recovery from cancer, why would he feel it was so toxic to carry on taking it? After all, as his doctor famously said, taking EPO under the right conditions is no more harmful than drinking orange juice.

What will be interesting is to see is if his rivals at the Tour are as intolerant of him peeing on the doping bonfire as he was of Simeoni...


----------



## peterpen (May 5, 2004)

*DOPING FORUM nmnm*

ok, I said nm but if you really want to know. hell yeah I honestly think Armstrong would dope - as long as he thought he wouldn't get caught, I think he'd do whatever it takes to win the TDF. I don't think he's stupid enough to use EPO or other now-testable PED's, but if anyone's got the resources to develop the next-gen stuff, it's Armstrong. This smells like a well-planned PR move to me.
And if you think just because Armstrong had cancer he would never dope, I've got a bridge to sell you. He's seen the miracles drugs can work on the body first hand. Dude doesn't thank Jesus for saving him from cancer (not that he should by any means,) he thanks Bristol-Myers Squibb.
FWIW, I'm not convinced he did/does/will dope (and I never will be unless I see it with my own eyes) but it's absurd to dismiss the possibility out of hand. The reason why Armstrong has won 6 TDF's is because 1) best team 2) genetics 3) he's willing to push himself harder than his competitors. For a professional cyclist 'pushing himself' can mean a lot of things. Doesn't necessarily mean 'pushing himself' includes doping, but unless you're with him 24/7/365 you can't dismiss the possibility.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

asgelle said:


> I can think of lots of reasons why you would want to pay the organization policing you money. The bigger question, to me, is what does it say about an organization that would accept it.


Very true. The donation was not anonymous, it was private. Did he direct the donation to the test that caught Tyler? Did he suggest that testing focus somewhere else?

Why would the UCI accept it? Hell, I am a UCI member. I can write my national association and ask for details.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Hi B-Girl what about Lance's Medical waivers???*



Bianchigirl said:


> Since EPO aided his recovery from cancer, why would he feel it was so toxic to carry on taking it? After all, as his doctor famously said, taking EPO under the right conditions is no more harmful than drinking orange juice.
> 
> What will be interesting is to see is if his rivals at the Tour are as intolerant of him peeing on the doping bonfire as he was of Simeoni...


Does anyone know what Medications Lance has UCI waivers for? 

I bet you would find it very interesting.

Where can we find out about this or is it confidential like his donation?


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

*On RBR the s**t gets deep...*

Lets face it,if someone wins they are doping.If someone uses their own money to fight against those who ARE doping,they are doping too.

Landis beat Armstrong ysterday.He must be doping.However,Lance probably wasn't doping....yesterday.

Boonen has been doing great lately....doping.

I swear,it seems that there is a large number of people on here that have nothing positive to say about the sport that they "claim" to love so much.If you really think that it takes using drugs and illegal activity to be a champion in this sport why do you bother?

Lance in particular has been tested so many times on a regular basis.Yet,some people think that he still uses drugs to have what he has.Can you imagine how many people would be involved at this point if he were?How many people would have that knowledge and could get paid way more than Lance could ever hope to pay them off if they came out with solid evidence.

I guess the world needs people that think this way.These must be the same people that think aliens visit us every day and the Government is covering it up.  

Get a grip and a life people.


----------



## free_jazz (Sep 4, 2004)

...so Lance paid off the UCI then? Kind of like Reagan outspending the Soviets in arms.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*I'm gonna get my tin foil hat*

love the conspiracy theorists. couldn't be he maybe is clean and wants to help clean up the sport.

nahhhhhhhhh

he's buying them off


like I said if you look at it logically, if he is/was cheating he'd have retired last August.
the return on investment at this point (post 6 TdF's) is not worth the risk of ruining the legacy.


----------



## giovanni sartori (Feb 5, 2004)

This board with its Lance haters is getting as ridiculous as the Politics board where everything a Democrat does is automatically bad and everything a Republican does is automatically bad depending on your leanings there isn't any independant thought or analysis. News is just taken in and made to fit whatever judgement you've already made. Lance gets ripped for not riding all year round, well maybe he could emulate the greats like Merckx who did but then again, Merckx was a doper but that's never mentioned.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Merckx doped, as did Anquetil and, I've no doubt Indurain and Hinault. As have thousands of other riders who were caught and who knows how many others who weren't - after all, Millar and Virenque would never had been caught had they not had to spill their guts because they never tested positive...

Even staunch Armstrong fans questioned his actions regarding Simeoni - what better piece of PR than to give money to the UCI and then have this 'secret' donation handily leaked to the press.


----------



## daneil (Jun 25, 2002)

Spunout said:


> http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088
> 
> Why a secret? What did he pay for, or better yet what priviledge did he receive?


What I don't get is why is everyone thinking that this is such a huge secret. As far as I can remember this is not the first time that LA has donated to the UCI to increase its testing and doping controls.


----------



## Jdawg (Dec 6, 2004)

giovanni sartori said:


> This board with its Lance haters is getting as ridiculous as the Politics board where everything a Democrat does is automatically bad and everything a Republican does is automatically bad depending on your leanings there isn't any independant thought or analysis. News is just taken in and made to fit whatever judgement you've already made. Lance gets ripped for not riding all year round, well maybe he could emulate the greats like Merckx who did but then again, Merckx was a doper but that's never mentioned.


But it’s so cool to hate Lance. Come on man; get with the program would ya?

It gets ridiculous doesn’t it?


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

daneil said:


> What I don't get is why is everyone thinking that this is such a huge secret. As far as I can remember this is not the first time that LA has donated to the UCI to increase its testing and doping controls.


That was the first thing to make me laugh about some of the others responses."Secret"...yeah,I know some of the people around here THINK they are special.However,if it is being discussed here on an internet forum it is far from secret.


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*dayum*

Lance on EPO, Bianchi Girl your such a wash....get some new material or something original please. 

Really, I mean I can admit the possibility he might use something but your head is so far out there you can't even think about he might just NOT be on drugs at all. You jump at every chance. Further more it has started to define how you look at the sport and every rider that wins - Bianchi, it is a sad sad perception so you might wanna take a look at what axe you have to grind and maybe let it go......


Thanks!


----------



## mgp (Feb 3, 2004)

The Lance-haters on this forum remind me of people who were REM fans in the 80's. All of the sudden their little band got pupular and they were no longer uber-cool by dropping the name of this unknown little band from Athens. So they became REM haters in an attempt to rise above the masses. It's very amusing, yet oh so predictable.


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

mgp said:


> The Lance-haters on this forum remind me of people who were REM fans in the 80's. All of the sudden their little band got pupular and they were no longer uber-cool by dropping the name of this unknown little band from Athens. So they became REM haters in an attempt to rise above the masses. It's very amusing, yet oh so predictable.


That pretty much outlines how the Lance haters think.His name isn't trendy to "name drop" with anymore so they find some other,lesser known rider to ramble on about.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

If you read Armstrong's books, he clearly states he used EPO in its correct pharmaceutical application in order to recover from cancer - after all, that is one of its uses. So, yes, gasp, shock, horror, Armstrong used EPO. 

His donation is old news - his great buddy Hein Verbruggen made mention of this a year ago? Armstrong simply confirms in the Eurosport interview (which I have actually seen, as I suspect many of you have not) that, yes, he did make that donation.

Again, I wonder why you are so defensive Carbon, that you feel the need to attack me personally in defence of your hero. Argue with the facts at your disposal, but this 'oh the Armstrong haters this, that and the other' is a lame argument. Be logical, why don't you and refute any arguments made logically. For example, why do _you_ think he made the donation? Why do _you_ think he is clean? Rather than making personal insults, why not defend your hero with the arsenal of facts you have at your disposal?


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*please*

Bianchi your all wrong

Of course he used EPO during cancer treatment. It's CANCER WTF~! His life was on the line and it is IRRELEVANT now.

I attack you (hardly but nice style of word use blah) because you display as much ignorance as someone who thinks doping doesn't exist at all. 

Only you point fingers in every direction like with no evidence and are so arrogant as tot hink there is no way you could be wrong. In short, that is idiocy. 

And to think the donation was made on behalf of Lance to make an effort to buy himself innocence from drug tests is pure pure stupidity. 

My dear, when you talk like that it makes me think you are nothing more than a crackhead

Oh and my biggest fact is that he has NOT been caught with anything other than an affinity for blonds which I can't blame him for. Basic commonsense ( something you are terribly short on) says that after going through cancer, one might think twice before doping. By the way, he was a phenomenal athelete before and after cancer even when he was racing and winning with cancer.

Let me guess he was using EPO before cancer right Bianchi ya cracka jack. Sure, he had tumors in his brain and chest but EPO led him to win the World Champship Du Pont and everything else.........make sure you clean the screen before your next base hit on that pipe girl =D


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> If you read Armstrong's books, he clearly states he used EPO in its correct pharmaceutical application in order to recover from cancer - after all, that is one of its uses. So, yes, gasp, shock, horror, Armstrong used EPO.


I guess by your ignorant logic I am a steroid freak.I got bit by a wasp onc and it was prescribed to me........



> is a lame argument. Be logical, why don't you and refute any arguments made logically. For example, why do you think he made the donation? Why do you think he is clean?


Lame arguement?See the first paragraph of you last post.

You saying "logical arguement" makes me roar with laughter.I have yet to see ANYTHING you have posted here what I would consider logical.

Why would anyone think he is clean.I mean,hell,he has never been caught so many times.


----------



## all doped up (Nov 14, 2004)

*Accept it Carbon, they all do it at some point*



CARBON110 said:


> Bianchi your all wrong
> 
> Of course he used EPO during cancer treatment. It's CANCER WTF~! His life was on the line and it is IRRELEVANT now.
> 
> ...


----------



## bhobson24 (Feb 6, 2005)

CNN is reporting that Lance Armstrong may be stripped of his 6th Tour de France title

In a random check for banned substances, 3 were found in Armstrong's hotel room.

The 3 substances banned by the French were:

(1) Toothpaste

(2) Deodorant

(3) Soap

The French officials also found several other items during a body cavity search which they had never seen before including a testicle and a backbone...

Nothing agaisnt the French, just found this and thought it to be funny. Perfect for the topic!


----------



## 4bykn (Jan 28, 2001)

Thanks for lightening this thread a bit...it really needed it!


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*well*

All DOped Up I know a ton of Pros and it does happen but not like the people here think to that degree. I am surprised as any about TH. But be careful how you explain it to your 10 year old son. Don't paint the worlds as if it is all oysters and no pearls. We do have CLEAN heros and you don't have to look far


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

Back to the original question: Is it a conflict of interest to pay money to the organization that governs your profession? That polices YOU? The payment was above normal dues and contributions. 

The UCI was very stupid to accept it, IMHO.


----------



## cannondale_boy (May 6, 2004)

*Trek_boy*



CARBON110 said:


> Bianchi your all wrong
> 
> Of course he used EPO during cancer treatment. It's CANCER WTF~! His life was on the line and it is IRRELEVANT now.
> 
> ...


Carbon,
I told you to watch your blood pressure...
Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick.................


----------



## CARBON110 (Apr 17, 2002)

*lol*



cannondale_boy said:


> Carbon,
> I told you to watch your blood pressure...
> Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick.................


Cannondale luv'r,

I know I know, but between my new ladys' affections I am quite relaxed =D

By the way, you ever think about owning a bike that doesn't dent like a soda can =))

Hope you had a great weekend and got lots of riding in....be safe out there amigo


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*direction of the money*



Spunout said:


> Back to the original question: Is it a conflict of interest to pay money to the organization that governs your profession? That polices YOU? The payment was above normal dues and contributions.
> 
> The UCI was very stupid to accept it, IMHO.


Lance gives money to testing authorities, and testing authorities give him breaks/advance knowledge on the tests. That explains why he's never tested positive.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Just like those 'clean' riders Virenque, Museeuw, Millar, Zulle ad nauseam who never tested positive either?

Since this vilification has emerged from me asking a simple question, I'll ask it again - what makes you R.Rice and you Carbon so convinced that Armstrong would not use drugs after having chemo? My supposition was that the observe could be equally held to be true. I am accused of being illogical, talking out of my butt etc etc. Yet you're conviction is based on what? Never testing positive - Millar, Museuuw, Virenque, Zulle however many others never tested positive either, so this may not be the most foolproof way to test a rider's absolute innocence. Beyond that, it is based on instinct, your gut feeling, a conviction that your hero wouldn't do that. I have a good friend who survived breast cancer and uses recreational drugs - she wants to enjoy her life, life it to the maximum, should I condemn her for doping, for putting harmful and toxic substances into her body? Surviving cancer doesn't make her a saint - just a normal human being getting on with it.

What I'm saying, if you'd take your blinkers off for a second, is that actually we are all as irrational in our convictions as each other. My belief that a cancer survivor would actually take drugs is based onn a personal experience that is _not transferable but has coloured my opinion_, yours probably based on the fact that the man is a sporting hero, that you have the exact opposite experience with friends or family who have had cancer etc etc. But instead of abusing me personally for some perceived sleight, I am interested to know why you hold the firm convicitions you hold.


----------



## R.Rice (Aug 23, 2004)

Bianchigirl said:


> I am interested to know why you hold the firm convicitions you hold.


It is really simple for me.He is tested regularly and has never been popped for anything.They have stored old blood samples to test with newer technology.It all comes up clean.

As for the other riders you listed,you must have missed the part about them admitting that they doped because they knew they were about to be had anyways.It really isn't that hard to grasp.

I think some people just can't deal with the fact that there are people that really do work that hard and really excel and don't have to break any rules or laws doing so.Must come from a lack of self confidence.I guess it makes you feel better when you realize athletically you don't have what it takes so everyone who does must be on something.

So,tell me,who is your doper this week?I know you are witch hunting someone.Let me guess.Basso?Since he shelled your boy Cunego like a b1tch.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

Basso did show the typical "gas bus" symptom today.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*Visit*



divve said:


> Basso did show the typical "gas bus" symptom today.



cyclingforums.com, doping forum, "armstrong has been tinkered with."
I agree with limerickman


----------



## ttug (May 14, 2004)

*Latitude etc etc*

Longfellow, this then is a tragedy:

It was the schooner Hesperus,
That sail'd in the wint'ry sea,
And the skipper had ta'en his little daughter
To bear him company.

Blue were her eyes, as the fairy flax,
Her cheeks like the dawn of day,
And her bosom white as the hawthorn buds
That open in the month of May.

The skipper he stood beside the helm,
With his pipe in his mouth,
And watch'd hov, the veering flaw did blow
The smoke now west, now south.

Then up and spoke an old sailor,
Had sailed the Spanish Main,
"I pray thee, put into yonder port,
For I fear a hurricane.

Last night the moon had a golden ring,
But tonight no moon we see."
The skipper he blew a whiff from his pipe,
And a scornful laugh laugh'd he.

Down came the storm, and smote amain
The vessel in its strength;
She shudder'd and paus'd like a frighted steed,
Then leap'd her cable's length.

"Come hither! come hither! my little daughter,
And do not tremble so,
For I can weather the roughest gale
That ever the wind did blow."

"Dear father! I hear the church bell ring,
Oh say what may it be?"
" 'Tis a fog bell on a rock-bound coast,
We must steer for the open sea."


----------



## CFBlue (Jun 28, 1999)

Bianchigirl said:


> I have a good friend who survived breast cancer and uses recreational drugs - she wants to enjoy her life, life it to the maximum, should I condemn her for doping, for putting harmful and toxic substances into her body? Surviving cancer doesn't make her a saint - just a normal human being getting on with it.


This is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your friend using rec drugs for personal enjoyment is NOTHING like what is being discussed. Your friend is not using drugs for the sole intent of becoming better, faster, stronger in an athletic competition. Unless she is in a race to smoke more pot than the rest of the world, her case has no bearing on this discussion. Your friend's case would be more likened to meatheads in the gym who use anabolic agents to get big and buff. They do not compete, they just want to look "good", ie cosmetic and aesthetic purposes only. NOT for powerlifting competitions. Using drugs for the sake of using drugs and using drugs for competition are completely different scenarios. So kindly leave your friend out of this.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

I never said she was using drugs as PEDs - my point was that a popular defense of Armstrong, as a cancer survivor, is that he would never use PEDs because he has undergone chemotherapy. My point, which you seem to have either missed entirely or wilfully ignored, is that just because people have undergone chemo doesn't mean they don't do bad stuff to themselves.


----------



## Mel Erickson (Feb 3, 2004)

*Two words*

Achems Razor


----------



## gcaz (Mar 24, 2005)

peterpen said:


> ok, I said nm but if you really want to know. hell yeah I honestly think Armstrong would dope - as long as he thought he wouldn't get caught, I think he'd do whatever it takes to win the TDF. I don't think he's stupid enough to use EPO or other now-testable PED's, but if anyone's got the resources to develop the next-gen stuff, it's Armstrong. This smells like a well-planned PR move to me.
> And if you think just because Armstrong had cancer he would never dope, I've got a bridge to sell you. He's seen the miracles drugs can work on the body first hand. Dude doesn't thank Jesus for saving him from cancer (not that he should by any means,) he thanks Bristol-Myers Squibb.
> FWIW, I'm not convinced he did/does/will dope (and I never will be unless I see it with my own eyes) but it's absurd to dismiss the possibility out of hand. The reason why Armstrong has won 6 TDF's is because 1) best team 2) genetics 3) he's willing to push himself harder than his competitors. For a professional cyclist 'pushing himself' can mean a lot of things. Doesn't necessarily mean 'pushing himself' includes doping, but unless you're with him 24/7/365 you can't dismiss the possibility.


One thing to remember -- WADA keeps old samples. WADA samples are kept for a _minimum_ of eight years (the statute of limitations under the WADA code for taking action against an athlete) and WADA reserves the right to re-test any sample for as long as it's stored. (http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/rm_guide.pdf)

Therefore, if Lance (as many suggest) is just "ahead of the testing curve," WADA just needs to pull a couple of samples from a couple of years ago and re-run the toxicology screens with the newly testable substances included and -- WHAM! -- an entire career flushed down the toilet.

Would Lance take such a risky route? I can see if you're a domestique barely hanging on and needing your contract each season to stay afloat, desperation (and a WTF mentality) might set in. But LA? I guarantee the doping cops would love the PR of taking down someone of LA's stature, and going through old samples would be one way to do it. A 3rd string domestique, however... that's like MLB's suspension of a bunch of A-ballers: not the career-making bust a dope cop is looking for.

Lance has got to be interested in his legacy, at this point, probably more so than another TdF win. Plus his continued economic success now depends on LA as a brand rather than a bike rider. Having a positive dope test would seriously tarnish (if not destroy) that. Can you imagine sponsors beating down the door of Tyler Hamilton at this point (regardless of the merits or lack thereof of his defense)? Unless Lance is an absolute mental patient, I can't see him risking everything to the doping labs catching up to him for current or past use.


----------



## divve (May 3, 2002)

Not so simple. That depends on how it's stored. Look at Tyler and how he lucked out during the Olympics.


----------

