What You See Isn't What You Get

[CyclePro]

One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing who
has been at the center of various doping controversies for several years,
makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
(until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor since
convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is the same
athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood doping. This
is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged his team to get
on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro cyclists. It smells
like week old fish sitting on the dock.

[Bob Schwartz]

CyclePro > wrote:
> One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing who
> has been at the center of various doping controversies for several years,
> makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
> significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
> Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
> (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor since
> convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is the same
> athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood doping. This
> is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged his team to get
> on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro cyclists. It smells
> like week old fish sitting on the dock.

Whatever anyone thinks of the dope Nazis, it has been made clear
that their top priority is catching people. No matter what it
takes. Read the Hamilton and Bergman decisions and tell me that
isn't true.

Bob Schwartz

[CyclePro]

"Bob Schwartz" > wrote in message
...
> CyclePro > wrote:
>> One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing
>> who
>> has been at the center of various doping controversies for several years,
>> makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
>> significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
>> Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
>> (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor
>> since
>> convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is the
>> same
>> athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood doping.
>> This
>> is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged his team to
>> get
>> on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro cyclists. It
>> smells
>> like week old fish sitting on the dock.
>
> Whatever anyone thinks of the dope Nazis, it has been made clear
> that their top priority is catching people. No matter what it
> takes. Read the Hamilton and Bergman decisions and tell me that
> isn't true.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>

One of the reasons that WADA was set up was because of corruption and/or
potential corruption within national sports governing bodies. For any
sports governing body to accept a monetary donation relating to drug testing
from one of its athletes subject to testing is ethically dubious and
certainly does not add to the credibility of either party. This is even
more so, as here, when the monetary donation is not disclosed to the public
when made. Hamilton and Bergman have nothing to do with this particular
conflict of interest. But you knew that.

[Bob Schwartz]

CyclePro > wrote:
> One of the reasons that WADA was set up was because of corruption and/or
> potential corruption within national sports governing bodies. For any
> sports governing body to accept a monetary donation relating to drug testing
> from one of its athletes subject to testing is ethically dubious and
> certainly does not add to the credibility of either party. This is even
> more so, as here, when the monetary donation is not disclosed to the public
> when made. Hamilton and Bergman have nothing to do with this particular
> conflict of interest. But you knew that.

Good point.

Bob Schwartz

[[email protected]]

are you talking about Lance Armstrong? why don't you just say so?
are you afraid he's gonna sue you? Lance is bulletproof, period, if you

think anyone in a position of power is gonna let him get busted you're
wrong, they may
throw tyler to the dogs to make a point, but Lance is too big
and makes too much money for too many people - think about the trickle
down effect, L.L. Bean is making money off Lance, OLN, the Tour,
hotels filled with Americans all over France, drug companies, Nike,
Trek,
cancer charities, Johan Bruyneel, Journalists, Osipow, Bob Roll,
Subaru, the list goes on and on. Lance is putting bread on the table
for many people.
You think a little doping is gonna get in the way of all that MONEY.
Some journalists may dig deep enough to dig up some rumours,
but again, why are they doing it? for the money.

Armstrong is not Hamilton or Bergman - who are sponsored by
pedals and jelly beans, he's too big to bust, it would ruin the
profitibility of the sport.
Indurain was the same way.

Just enjoy the show, why get all bitter about it? The world of
cycling is just like the real world.

[Bob Schwartz]

wrote:
> Armstrong is not Hamilton or Bergman - who are sponsored by
> pedals and jelly beans, he's too big to bust, it would ruin the
> profitibility of the sport.

And what makes you think WADA or the USADA cares about the
profitability of cycling? The USADA doesn't have a problem
with crapping on the top figures of track and field and that's
a way bigger money generator than cycling.

If WADA could get their hooks into baseball they'd rip the
sport to shreds.

Bob Schwartz

[[email protected]]

yes, i think WADA may be different, but they aren't gonna
get a chance to get their hooks into Armstrong.
I think Armstrong is protected in a way other athletes,
including higher paid, more profitable baseball
players aren't.
There are many A list baseball and football players,
like arod who make 30 million, but how many
Lance's are there in cycling?
One.
It's a moot point anyway, the guy isn't gonna
test positive ever under any agency or dope testing
authority, he never has and never will.
People with an interest in cycling will always
be in charge of dope testing, the actual handling
of the **** and blood, and people with
an interest in cycling are interested in keeping
the sport profitable, keeping it clean
is a pipe dream.
Drug testing occurs so athletes can say
"i've never tested positive" and to keep
gross abuse (ala festina 98) at bay,
not to actually catch Armstrongs or
Ullrichs.
Just my thoughts on the subject, could
be completely wrong,
Mike

[tschulen]

"CyclePro" > wrote in message
link.net...
> One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing
> who has been at the center of various doping controversies for several
> years, makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
> significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
> Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
> (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor
> since convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is
> the same athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood
> doping. This is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged
> his team to get on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro
> cyclists. It smells like week old fish sitting on the dock.
>
>

Where have you been? Lance has been saying for years (including the Lance
Comercial last year) That he's been donating money to these organizations.
As far as what has happened to other team mates, Name one rider in the pro
peloton who's not guilty by association.

-T

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> are you talking about Lance Armstrong? why don't you just say so?
> are you afraid he's gonna sue you? Lance is bulletproof, period, if you
>
> think anyone in a position of power is gonna let him get busted you're
> wrong, they may
> throw tyler to the dogs to make a point, but Lance is too big
> and makes too much money for too many people - think about the trickle
> down effect, L.L. Bean is making money off Lance, OLN, the Tour,
> hotels filled with Americans all over France, drug companies, Nike,
> Trek,
> cancer charities, Johan Bruyneel, Journalists, Osipow, Bob Roll,
> Subaru, the list goes on and on. Lance is putting bread on the table
> for many people.
> You think a little doping is gonna get in the way of all that MONEY.
> Some journalists may dig deep enough to dig up some rumours,
> but again, why are they doing it? for the money.
>
> Armstrong is not Hamilton or Bergman - who are sponsored by
> pedals and jelly beans, he's too big to bust, it would ruin the
> profitibility of the sport.
> Indurain was the same way.
>
> Just enjoy the show, why get all bitter about it? The world of
> cycling is just like the real world.

I hate to tell you, but if Lance tests positive at a USADA/WADA/UCI lab,
then he's gonna get hit. USADA would love to wear that feather in their
cap. Don't you see what USADA is doing to the stars of track & field?

When USADA (or a WADA certified lab that the UCI uses) tests a sample, it
doesn't say "Lance Armstrong" written on the urine or blood sample. So
how would the lab tech know whose it was in order to cover it up?

Also, all of those people in that list you name have no relationship to
each other and not even the slightest influence on the outcome of a drug
test. So, while the list is quite extensive, I'm not sure it's too
compelling.

Did you attend The University of Oliver Stone or something?

Take care,

Magilla

[CyclePro]

"tschulen" > wrote in message
...
>
> "CyclePro" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing
>> who has been at the center of various doping controversies for several
>> years, makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
>> significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
>> Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
>> (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor
>> since convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is
>> the same athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood
>> doping. This is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged
>> his team to get on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro
>> cyclists. It smells like week old fish sitting on the dock.
>>
>>
>
> Where have you been? Lance has been saying for years (including the Lance
> Comercial last year) That he's been donating money to these organizations.
> As far as what has happened to other team mates, Name one rider in the pro
> peloton who's not guilty by association.
>
> -T
Tell us specifically which commercial he revealed money donated to the UCI
for drug testing and research. I do recall those commercials in which he
said he was on his bike for six hours a day.

[MagillaGorilla]

wrote:

> yes, i think WADA may be different, but they aren't gonna
> get a chance to get their hooks into Armstrong.
> I think Armstrong is protected in a way other athletes,
> including higher paid, more profitable baseball
> players aren't.
> There are many A list baseball and football players,
> like arod who make 30 million, but how many
> Lance's are there in cycling?
> One.
> It's a moot point anyway, the guy isn't gonna
> test positive ever under any agency or dope testing
> authority, he never has and never will.
> People with an interest in cycling will always
> be in charge of dope testing, the actual handling
> of the **** and blood, and people with
> an interest in cycling are interested in keeping
> the sport profitable, keeping it clean
> is a pipe dream.
> Drug testing occurs so athletes can say
> "i've never tested positive" and to keep
> gross abuse (ala festina 98) at bay,
> not to actually catch Armstrongs or
> Ullrichs.
> Just my thoughts on the subject, could
> be completely wrong,
> Mike

Hey I got news for you, Mikey: Lee Harvey Oswald was the
only shooter back in November '63.

Take care,

Magilla

[MagillaGorilla]

tschulen wrote:

> "CyclePro" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing
> > who has been at the center of various doping controversies for several
> > years, makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
> > significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
> > Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
> > (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor
> > since convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is
> > the same athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood
> > doping. This is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged
> > his team to get on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro
> > cyclists. It smells like week old fish sitting on the dock.
> >
> >
>
> Where have you been? Lance has been saying for years (including the Lance
> Comercial last year) That he's been donating money to these organizations.
> As far as what has happened to other team mates, Name one rider in the pro
> peloton who's not guilty by association.
>
> -T

Dude has never stated he paid hush-money to the UCI to cover up dope tests
until now. And then he tried to spin it by saying it was an in-kind donation.

Personally, I think that money would have been better spent had it been paid
to his live-in fainting maid Mike Anderson.


Thanks,


Magilla

[[email protected]]

yes, you're right. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I think stuff
goes
on behind the scenes.
I also think powerful people have a little more
protection than less powerful people.
I don't believe in drug testing, I know it
doesn't work - they can't test for designer
drugs, which is what stars would use.
The people they bust are busted because they
mess up and are on the trailing edge of drug use -
Johnson using Winstrol, a 70's drug, and Hamilton
blood doping, are good examples.
I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an expert.
So you don't have to believe any of it.

[[email protected]]

then what's up with the black helicopters circling my compound?
The pages I've cut out of cyclesport and velonews and pasted to
my walls have revealed to me the truth about doping....
more to come.

[gds]

wrote:
> yes, you're right. I'm a bit of a conspiracy theorist. I think stuff
> goes
> on behind the scenes.
> I also think powerful people have a little more
> protection than less powerful people.
> I don't believe in drug testing, I know it
> doesn't work - they can't test for designer
> drugs, which is what stars would use.
> The people they bust are busted because they
> mess up and are on the trailing edge of drug use -
> Johnson using Winstrol, a 70's drug, and Hamilton
> blood doping, are good examples.
> I'm not a scientist, and I'm not an expert.
> So you don't have to believe any of it.

And Tyler wasn't a star? Or Ben Johnson? Or MarcoPantani? Or Marion
Jones? Or Richard Virenque, Or... .

Sure, by definiton if these folks get caught they "messed up" because
their whole plan is to not get caught. But plenty of stars are being
caught.

[Endocrine]

wrote:
> yes, i think WADA may be different, but they aren't gonna
> get a chance to get their hooks into Armstrong.
> I think Armstrong is protected in a way other athletes,
> including higher paid, more profitable baseball
> players aren't.
> There are many A list baseball and football players,
> like arod who make 30 million, but how many
> Lance's are there in cycling?
> One.
> It's a moot point anyway, the guy isn't gonna
> test positive ever under any agency or dope testing
> authority, he never has and never will.
> People with an interest in cycling will always
> be in charge of dope testing, the actual handling
> of the **** and blood, and people with
> an interest in cycling are interested in keeping
> the sport profitable, keeping it clean
> is a pipe dream.
> Drug testing occurs so athletes can say
> "i've never tested positive" and to keep
> gross abuse (ala festina 98) at bay,
> not to actually catch Armstrongs or
> Ullrichs.
> Just my thoughts on the subject, could
> be completely wrong,
> Mike
>

If the guy is leaving the sport anyway, and the gravy train ends this
July, why not give him a kick in the ass on his way out the door, ala
Musseuw.

That way, the six (or seven) don't really count.

[[email protected]]

CyclePro wrote:

> One of the reasons that WADA was set up was because of corruption
and/or
> potential corruption within national sports governing bodies. For
any
> sports governing body to accept a monetary donation relating to drug
testing
> from one of its athletes subject to testing is ethically dubious and
> certainly does not add to the credibility of either party. This is
even
> more so, as here, when the monetary donation is not disclosed to the
public
> when made. Hamilton and Bergman have nothing to do with this
particular
> conflict of interest. But you knew that.

Luftmensch,

Yeah. So write to your buddy Dick Pound, the self-appointed ethical
guardian of the IOC and conscience of the sporting world, and point
out that he made a Enron-sized boo-boo, or at least that he should
have told LANCE to wait until after retirement. But don't bother
turning this into another chapter in the revised Walsh book.

To put it another way, consider when one of my A students happens
to invite me for a vacation at the family's retreat in Provence
(and believe me, this happens all the time at state schools) with
ostensibly no quid pro quo for final grade. Maybe she should have
known better, but obviously the ethical burden of the decision
is on me.

Ben
The ethical burden of the decision to grade fairly
after taking the vacation, that is.

[PouPou]

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
...
> CyclePro wrote:
>> "tschulen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Where have you been? Lance has been saying for years (including the
>>> Lance Comercial last year) That he's been donating money to these
>>> organizations. As far as what has happened to other team mates, Name
>>> one rider in the pro peloton who's not guilty by association.
>>>
>>> -T
>> Tell us specifically which commercial he revealed money donated to
>> the UCI for drug testing and research. I do recall those commercials
>> in which he said he was on his bike for six hours a day.
>
> Not a commercial, but scroll about 3/4 of the way down:
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2004/interviews/?id=lance_armstrong041
>
> " I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out
> of competition controls. I have donated money to the UCI over the years to
> increase [drug controls]."
>
> Jeff

Still a conflict of interest, then and now. Now that his ex-domestique got
nailed, it gives it a different perspective. Question for you and others in
the cycling press--where were you all on this issue last March?

[amit]

PouPou wrote:

> Question for you and others in
> the cycling press--where were you all on this issue last March?


dumbass,

jeff just gave a link with that quote in it. apparently now this is a
big deal half a year after hamilton was popped ?

[David Parsons]

"MagillaGorilla" > wrote in message
...
....
> When USADA (or a WADA certified lab that the UCI uses) tests a sample, it
> doesn't say "Lance Armstrong" written on the urine or blood sample. So
> how would the lab tech know whose it was in order to cover it up?
>
> Also, all of those people in that list you name have no relationship to
> each other and not even the slightest influence on the outcome of a drug
> test. So, while the list is quite extensive, I'm not sure it's too
> compelling.
....

You seem to believe that WADA is some respectable organization with
transparent operations. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Below are a few paragraphs from the USADA vs Hamilton decision (2005-04-18)



Dr. Davis' testimony makes it clear that an objective and quantitative
approach can be used in this case. Given this admission, such an objective
approach should be required. UCI v. Hamburger CAS 2001 1A/3/3, 18-19.



An objective and quantitative approach is also consistent with the very
foundation of sound scientific practice - objective, reproducible results.
This is not obtainable with the WADA Criteria's subjective approach. Nothing
demonstrates the problem with the subjective Testing Method like what
happened with Mr. Hamilton's Athens Olympic Games blood test.



The truth is Mr. Hamilton did not test positive at the Athens Olympic Games.
The laboratory analysis report dated August 22, 2004 and signed by the
Laboratory

Director ruled Mr. Hamilton's sample to be negative.19 The Athens laboratory
was not incompetent. It passed all proficiency testing before the Athens
Olympic Games.20



Nevertheless, on September 16, 2004, almost a month later, the IOC formed an
external expert group that ruled Mr. Hamilton's Athens sample was positve.21
This group of experts apparently consisted of individuals paid for
developing the Testing Method and individuals who knew the sample belonged
to Mr. Hami1ton. Two of the cardinal rules of drug testing are that the
individual doing the analysis (1) should not have a vested interest in the
outcome, and (2) should not know the identity of the individual providing
the sample. So, if this subjective Testing Method is so reliable and is an
"I know it when I see it" type of test, why did it take an expert committee
to rule that Hamilton's sample was positive one month after the Athens
Olympics? There have been a number of bizarre and inappropriate occurrences
related to this Testing Method in Mr. Hamilton's case. This is in example of
just one of them.



It should also be noted that Mr. Hamilton's Vuelta sample, the sample in
question in this case, had a significantly lower reading of second RBC
populations then the Athens' sample Therefore, it could logically be
concluded that the Athens Laboratory would also have ruled the Vuelta sample
negative. If an IOC accredited laboratory trained in the Testing Method
could rule Mr. Hamilton's sample negative, how can this panel be comfortably
satisfied that Mr. Hamilton tested positive? These inconsistencies and
problems illustrate the need for objective criteria.

[PouPou]

"amit" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> PouPou wrote:
>
>> Question for you and others in
>> the cycling press--where were you all on this issue last March?
>
>
> dumbass,
>
> jeff just gave a link with that quote in it. apparently now this is a
> big deal half a year after hamilton was popped ?

Schmuck,
Reporting on conflicts of interest with Armstrong won't get you your daily
ration of bread if you're in the cycling press. It took fans writing to
VeloNews to make the point that it smelled of payoff and conflict of
interest. Why is that? Walsh's book combined Hamilton's downfall and
history with Postal may have changed some perceptions amongst the fans.
Clean the smegma from your eyes and keep your focus on Mr. Clean. He's
going to have a very interesting year.

[amit]

PouPou wrote:

> Reporting on conflicts of interest with Armstrong won't get you your
daily
> ration of bread if you're in the cycling press.

dumbass, if anything that is precisely the reason it's a story at the
moment.

> It took fans writing to
> VeloNews to make the point that it smelled of payoff and conflict of
> interest. Why is that? Walsh's book combined Hamilton's downfall and

> history with Postal may have changed some perceptions amongst the
fans.

dumbass, all of this is old ****ing news. hamilton was popped seven
months ago -- why didn't you, or anyone else give a **** then ?

also dumbass, i claim no ****ing insight into whether armstrong doped
or not -- i just hate to see the spread of brian lafferty disease.

[MagillaGorilla]

Bob Schwartz wrote:

> CyclePro > wrote:
> > One of cycle sport's top, non-retired athletes, subject to drug testing who
> > has been at the center of various doping controversies for several years,
> > makes a quiet, unreported (until this week) monetary donation of a
> > significant sum to "aid" in the fight against drug use in his sport.
> > Conflict of interest? Bribe? This is the same athlete who kept secret
> > (until the truth came out in the press) his relationship with a doctor since
> > convicted of sporting fraud involving doping allegations. This is the same
> > athlete whose former domestique has been found guilty of blood doping. This
> > is the same athlete whose former team mate has stated urged his team to get
> > on a doping program so as to be competitive with Euro cyclists. It smells
> > like week old fish sitting on the dock.
>
> Whatever anyone thinks of the dope Nazis, it has been made clear
> that their top priority is catching people. No matter what it
> takes. Read the Hamilton and Bergman decisions and tell me that
> isn't true.
>
> Bob Schwartz
>

What good is reading the decision if you can't evaluate the evidence for
yourself? I didn't see any evidence - all I saw was that one arbitrator
vehemently disagreed with the other two.

Thanks,

Magilla

[[email protected]]

maybe, but belgians accept the fact that cyclists dope (what
was the figure, like %80 think the all cyclists dope?)
americans, generally, are pretty invested in the idea in
the idea that Lance is clean.
So, i think the future of american cycling - at
least part of it - is dependant on a clean image of Lance,
hard working, american as apple pie, and on his
bike 6 hours a day...
I think the TDF and the UCI are probably pretty happy
to get one of the largest most affluent economies in the
world to get interested in the sport of cycling.

speaking of conspiracy theories, does anyone remember
Pascal Richards "retirement" - wasn't there some kind
of back room deal to get him out of the sport as quickly
as possible after he was found positive? They didn't want
a dirty Olympic champion?

[Robert Chung]

amit wrote:
> i just hate to see the spread of brian lafferty disease.

Which one, in particular?

[Donald Munro]

amit wrote:
> also dumbass, i claim no ****ing insight into whether armstrong doped
> or not -- i just hate to see the spread of brian lafferty disease.

Laffertitis ?

[Kurgan Gringioni]

wrote:

<snip>

> Just enjoy the show, why get all bitter about it? The world of
> cycling is just like the real world.



Dumbass -


Clearly, you haven't figured it out yet. He's bitter about the real
world too.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:06:36 -0400, MagillaGorilla
> wrote:

>Dude has never stated he paid hush-money to the UCI to cover up dope tests
>until now. And then he tried to spin it by saying it was an in-kind donation.

An in-kind donation? I hadn't heard that it was not money afterall.
What, he donated a bunch of wrist bands?

Since I go through this stuff on a regular basis, I doubt any donation
that goes through the regular channels will be determined to be
unethical. The presumption - and requirement - is that UCI, WADA,
USADA or any similar organization should have the necessary controls
in place to receive a donation from anyone and have it recorded
properly and not impact an individual testing. You'd have to own the
organization and their auditors and at the end of the day, LA is not
all that big. Practically every non-profit over 4 or 5 million annual
has donors with far more influence and money than Armstrong. And those
are local non-profits. You have an exaggerated sense of what cycling
is.

If the claim is that a LA donation went to an individual outside of
the normal channels and it wasn't recorded properly on the books as a
donation, then you have an argument.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...