What happens when the Comeback Kid crashes out of the Castilla y Leon bike race in Spain and the media have “nothing” to cover in the cycling world? Apparently, old stuff that is on a constant state of slow simmer begins to bubble to a boil.
As strbuk noted at the end of the previous post, it appears that Sir Lance is caught up in a bit of a tempest in a French teapot. What I find puzzling about this is that it’s taken a bit before Pierre Bordry and company dashed off a letter to the UCI inquiring/complaining about Lance’s “behavior.” To hear the story from Armstrong/Johan Bruyneel’s perspective, at least, there was no great tension or problem, they just wanted to be sure that the person showing up at Armstrong’s rented home was who he said he was, and that he had the authority to do what he was requesting.
Given who we’re talking about, the history of allegations against him and where this all happened, I can understand Armstrong and Bruyneel’s concern/paranoia. As Bonnie Ford reports for ESPN.com:
“Someone like Lance has to be careful,” Bruyneel said.
“At the end of the day, I can’t hide my feeling that this is a witch hunt. He was giving blood, urine and hair. What is he going to do, shave his head?”
On the point of whether the AFLD had the right to test Armstrong, being as he was in France, I believe they did. The hair sample is non-standard and I’m not sure that any results from that could be used against him anywhere outside of France, but the rest of it seems like a pretty straight-forward out-of-competition test. If AFLD has the authority to conduct out-of-competition tests on foreign athletes who are living/training/competing in France, they were within their rights.
It seems that a small breach of protocol may have occurred, in that AFLD’s collections agent didn’t have Armstrong in his sight the whole time. Instead, he waited outside until Bruyneel and Armstrong had verified that he was, in fact, legit.
“He was very friendly, we were very friendly,” Bruyneel told ESPN.com from a Spanish hospital where he was visiting his wife and newborn son. “I asked him to show us his documents and credentials, and he did.”
…
“I was on the phone for maybe 10, 12, 15 minutes,” Bruyneel said. “Lance took a shower and put on shorts and a T-shirt, and then he gave the samples, which took about an hour and a half.”
…
“There was never any feeling of tension, of ‘I have to get in,'” Bruyneel said. “It was always a very friendly conversation.”
Meanwhile, Pierre Bordry is playing this in a fairly circumspect manner. Bordry won’t comment on the contents of the report his agency sent to the UCI, or whether it represents an infraction. Over time, we’ll see how this all plays out. I’ve got to wonder if, tucked away at his Aspen home, Armstrong ever finds himself asking whether his return to cycling was worth the melodrama and accompanying tempests. In the meantime, he’s issued a pretty strongly worded statement about the whole kerfuffle, which can be found here.
Speaking of melodrama…
A familiar Armstrong nemesis shows up in the latest interview over at NYVelocity.com. For intrepid readers who wish to get a good glimpse of Michael Ashenden’s thoughts on EPO, blood doping, Lance Armstrong and Tyler Hamilton (among other things), take the time to read the interview. (Be warned: It’s lo-o-o-o-ng.)
Andy Shen certainly has produced a very wide-ranging and well written interview. Ashenden, the Australian anti-doping researcher, has a very clear — and very skeptical — point of view about Armstrong. It’s probably fair to say that he’s not a fan of Big Tex. Like any interview, not every question that could have been asked was asked. Exactly why Ashenden is speaking up again (other than because Shen asked for an interview), I’m not sure. I’ll be back with detailed commentary and analysis of the interview in a separate post.
Updates
As if this wasn’t predictable, The (London) Times Online and Yahoo Sports, among others, are reporting that the AFLD may impose some sort of as-yet-undefined sanction on Armstrong for not staying within their collection agent’s sight. According to the Yahoo Sports article:
AFLD said cycling’s governing body has given its permission to open disciplinary procedures against Armstrong, but did not say what the punishment could be.
AFLD president Pierre Bordry noted that the statement does not say that Armstrong is guilty of an infraction. AFLD is expected to make a decision on whether to proceed with sanctions after its nine-member ruling committee has considered the tester’s report.
Anyone want to take a guess what the panel’s result will be? Seems to me that Lance’s plans to race Le Tour may be as much affected by his recovery from the broken clavicle as by whatever sanctions the AFLD chooses to impose.
Meanwhile, over at The New York Times, George Vescey offers his take on l’affaire de collections agent. Vescey observes:
He [Armstrong] had to know it was coming, the French Foreign Legion coming over the hill, bearing a syringe, a paper cup and a cute little pair of scissors. He was a marked man ever since daring to win seven consecutive Tours, beating out assorted Europeans and Americans, some of whom would be tossed out for doping while Armstrong never quite tested positive for anything. The nerve.
Note: Thanks to strbuk for the assist, by pointing me to the Yahoo Sports and NYT articles.
Latest Updates
Turns out, a certain Mr. Pat McQuaid is bothered by how the AFLD has handled the Armstrong matter.
… McQuaid criticised the AFLD’s handling of the Armstrong case.
“The French authorities decided to make up a report on the testing procedure, forward it to the UCI, knowing the UCI have no jurisdiction on the case and at the same time that report has leaked to the press,” said the former Irish cyclist.
“I would have to question why that is the case.
“Normal proceedings between institutions such as national anti-doping agencies, the international federation and Wada are normally done in a professional and confidential way until a decision or sanction has been taken.
“In this case it was leaked to the press and I do find that disturbing.”
Trial by media? We don’t need no stinkin’ trial by media…
Over at CyclingNews.com, McQuaid says:
“I sent them a letter yesterday saying we don’t have jurisdiction in this matter,” confirmed McQuaid, backing up the assertion by the AFLD that the UCI said it was allowed to start a proceeding. “It is a French national affair under French law.
“At this point in time, it is up to the AFLD whether they want to progress with this or not. If they do, if they give a sanction, then I will ask our lawyers to look at the case as to whether a sanction would be applicable [worldwide] under UCI rules or not,” said McQuaid.
“We will wait and see what happens. As far as we are aware, he hasn’t broken either UCI or WADA rules,” he continued.
The AFLD is certain to contest this point…
Meanwhile, in a comment, Jeff points us to another story at CyclingNews.com that gives us an approximate timeline of when the AFLD might make a decision.
French Anti-Doping Agency AFLD is currently deciding whether or not to open a disciplinary procedure against Lance Armstrong. According to L’Equipe, it will take several weeks before the cycling world will know if the seven-time Tour de France winner will be sanctioned for delaying an anti-doping control some three weeks ago.
The decision to open or not to open disciplinary proceedings should be taken in “early May” according to the paper.
Of course, that’s when the AFLD expects to decide whether or not to open a case against Armstrong. If they do, then it will be sometime later that a final decision and/or sanction is handed down.
If you look at this from Lance’s perspective (and assume no foul motives, which many do not), it’s entirely likely that random crackpots might claim to be drug testers. I mean, now that the idea’s in my head it seems like a pretty good stalking method.
So if we accept that, what’s Lance to do with some stranger that might not be a real doping tester? Invite him in the shower? Not likely.
You could argue that Lance could’ve just waited 20 minutes to shower, but if the tester says it’s not a problem, who’s Lance to argue?
tom
Tom,
Right. From his perspective, that guy could be a stalker. And given everything, it seems perfectly reasonable for Armstrong to wait until he’s got reassurances that the tester really is who he says he is before submitting to the drug screening collection. If the tester said it was OK to go take a shower, and he wasn’t supposed to let that happen, that’s on the tester’s shoulders, in my opinion.
Hi Rant,
I tend to agree with your most recent assessment, except your characterization of the “tester”. The guy who showed up at Armstrong’s door is in a similar business as those who stop at certain homes to pick up pick up dog poop from lawns. Most are collectors. They collect urine and/or blood samples. In Fance, they also take hair samples. As for the AFLD guy, I prefer to think of him as a pooper scooper. With AFLD, you never know. It may get to that yet?
Toldyaso:
http://www.velonews.com/article/90386/the-french-anti-doping-agency-says-the-uci-has-given
Fun to follow LA on twitter. He’s latest: “Was winning the Tour seven times that offensive?!?”
Apparently.
Ain’t no stalker, but could be someone with an ulterior motive. THAT is why Ashendon’s arguments are specious – because protocol and chain-of-custody were violated. Ergo, results MUST be discounted. As much as I wanted OJ to be convicted, sadly, when the lab screwed up that case, well, the jury then got it ‘right’. It sucks. But Ashendon as a practicing scientist should know better, and as a result, his latest comments deserve censure or worse. I’m not trying to shut him up. I’m trying to punish him for violating his code of scientific ethics.
And no, Americans are not always the ‘victims’. I do think, however, that there’s something intrinsically flawed with Anti-Doping methodology with the federal controlled labs in Europe, and by extension, Australia (Europe West. Sorry, guys, love ya, but you’re Euro’s too, and you know it).
The whole ‘Innocent until provent guilty’ theme arises here, as well as the whole ‘preponderance of evidence’ vs. ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ for all accusations of transgressions.
And yes, L’equipe is guilty of a LOT more malfeasance than most of these athletes. Sory for any misspellings.
It seems that a post test complaint smacks too much of a technique to embarass the subject. The main questions are:
1) Does the AFLD have the right to conduct their own surprise test while a foreign athlete is within their country? (They should although it should be coordinated with the UCI)
2) Do they have the right to take more samples than are recognized by WADA? (probably not since the only use for them would be to try to embarass the subject. Although I do support the potential of hair as a long term indicator of drug use. I’d just like to see it validated)
3) Does the athlete, esp a celibrity athlete, have the right to verify the credentials of an unknown individual that wishes to insert items into his/her body and extract samples? (He/she better. this should be the bare minimum afforded an athlete)
4) While waiting for verification, does the athlete have the right to shower? ( I don’t see this as a problem since what is desired is on the inside of the body, not the outside.)
So where is the problem other than proving to the last two people on the planet that you are on a witch hunt, not a doping crusade.
Richard,
I don’t know what kind of malfeaseance has done L’Equipe.
May you give us some evidences?
Or are you speaking of the investigation’s work of Ressiot? A similar work than the watergate!
Maybe you are referring to the alleged leaks but you have no proofs ot that, so why not apply the “Innocent until provent guilty” ?
And to put L’Equipe in that current case you are way off because since Odile Armaury and his son have taken the leadership they have stopped doping investigation for L’Equipe.
Eightzero,
The feud between Lance and the French begun in 1999 when he was asked if he had a TUE for EPO and how he could explain his so big improvement especially after cancer on a rest day of TDF. After the Festina affair many reporters had learned about doping and EPO by reading research studies, by speaking with Festina, by Willy Voet… so difficult for them to not see the obvious. How could win a rider who never showed strong ability to ride and to climb before his illness on his 4 GT.
Jean,
I’m not 100% certain what you’re referring to vis-a-vis 1999 and the TUE for EPO. Are you referring to the dustup that occurred when Lance tested positive for some corticosteroids that were in a cream he was using for saddle sores? Or are you saying that the press was asking him about EPO use even before he won his first Tour?
Peletonjim,
1) Yes, France has one of the strongest anti-doping laws… that is why the tester have an agreement between a citizen and a policeman
2) See 1… French laws gives them that power.
3) In France we had cut the head of celibrities… the same law for everyone like in US!
4)Athlete have to stay under watch…because
athletes can absorb medicine to mask doping product
athletes can clean their bladder with clean urine by using a cather,
athletes can dilute their blood by transfusion or adjust some parameters,
and probably other things that I don’t know
The 3 possibilities are not myths,…
Whatever happened to the indictment of Ressoit (and by implication, his employer, L’Equipe), by a French Judge for his role in the forgery and wrongful prosecution of Cedric Vasseur, for which the policeman that forged Vasseur’s “confession” was sentenced to jail?
“How could win a rider who never showed strong ability to ride and to climb before…”
We had a similar problem here in the colonies. Turns out there were many crop failures, blights and mysterious illnesses in Essex, Suffolk, and Middlesex counties of colonial Massachusetts, between February 1692 and May 1693. We solved that problem in a place called Salem.
“In France we had cut the head of celibrities… the same law for everyone like in US!”
Indeed. I’m guessing you feel Floyd or LA are likely guilty of “conspiracy against the public liberty and the general safety.” Add “Louie XVI” to that phase and punch it in to google for a nice list of examples of due process.
Armstrong was correct to double-check the credentials of AFLD’s sample collector (pooper scooper).
There is a running dispute over whether the pooper scooper gave LA the okay to shower.
Regardless of what the pooper scooper agreed to or did not agree to, LA should have stayed in the direct sight of the pooper scooper. Those are the rules and LA, as one of the most (if not the most) tested athletes on the planet, should be well aware of his obligations once a pooper scooper establishes contact.
That was bad on both LA’s and Johan’s part. The question now will be, what will/should AFLD do?
20 minutes is a short period of time to take any action to defeat the tests. It’s possible, but highly unlikely.
What we have here is a bad poker game. Tex was out bluffed and made an error. Then again, it’s not AFLD’s mission/job to try to bluff an athlete into making a mistake wrt protocol during an already irregular OoC sample collection (pooper scoop). What will LA have to pay for this induced error???
I’m wondering if Jean C, or someone else, can answer Judge Bill Hue’s question?
I’m also wondering why all the apparent animosity between some of us from the states and some from France? Ben F charmed some key French folks into supporting us in the revolution that gave birth to our country. Many thanks! The United States gave support to France in both WW1 AND WW2 that kept France from becoming an unwilling province of Germany. For my part, maybe it’s AFLD’s superior attitude, which flies in the face of most logic, considering the corners it is documented to have cut, not to mention the corners it cut, which are undocumented? I don’t have a problem with the French. I love my children and they are approximately 25% of French heritage.
For the sake of everyone’s sanity, Frenchpersons who care need to get over the fact that the current crop of French cyclists are incapable of winning the GC at the nation’s grand tour. Attempting to discredit a seven time TdF Champion and doing a consummate hatchet job on a one time TdF Champion from the U.S., won’t change that fact.
If LA used epo in ’99, and there is no proof he did or didn’t (actually more evidence that he did not), then he was using what was available to all competitors at that edition of the tour. That Ashenden supports Kimmage’s contention that the ’99 edition of the tour would have been relatively clean w/o Armstrong is an example of a convenient alliance for fun, fame, and profit.
Contrast the following statements from Ashenden:
Re LNDD: “The laboratory, I’ve checked with the people who did the analysis, and I very carefully went through it with them. They’re absolutely 100% sure that these results are valid.”
Re Coyle’s research: “And categorically Coyle responded, “Yes I did. The same ergometer was used for all tests.” And, we had to take that at face value. When you question a scientist, they publish their response, and you are obliged to accept whatever they say. So we pretty much had to accept that. We still had reservations, but that was as much as we could know.”
This illustrates that Ashenden clearly has different standards as to what will satisfy him wrt credible evidence. To be clear, he interviewed lab personnel at LNDD, well after the fact, and was satisfied with their recollection of tedious technical material.
Let’s not forget the UCI commissioned investigation that found against LNDD and for Armstrong. Then there is also the minor issue of the IOC reprimanding Dick Pound for some on his bombastic statements about Armstrong.
It looks, sounds, and smells an awful lot like a witch hunt. I’m not sure if it is a witch hunt or not, but it’s at least a serial western vendetta.
The issue here seems to be the 20 minute shower. LA and JB say the scooper OK’ed this, and it would seem that M. le scooper says otherwise. LA hence has at least one witness to corroborate his version, although in all fairness, one cannot say JB is necessarily an impartial witness.
I wonder if LA might have deliberately put himself in LNDD’s sights, suspecting that something like this would happen. I believe that LA has a lot more resources than FL, financial and otherwise. If, and I will stress IF, AFDL did cross the line, I suspect that LA could put up one hell of a fight.
If LA merely wanted to re-start his career, he could have very easily skipped France. After all, there are people who are critical of him for having focused so narrowly on the TdF. So why not come back, skip le Tour and go for the Giro and/or Veulta? Or go after some classics? And why train in France? Surely there are plenty of other countries where he could train. But instead he goes to France, virtually daring them to do something.
On a different note, whatever the result of any tests of these samples, or any other tests conducted this year, no definite conclusions can be drawn about whether or not he doped in any of the 7 wins. That was then, this is now.
In Response to Jean C… Did you actually suggest that an athlete auto insert a catheter, to empty their bladder and fill it with ‘clean’ urine??! OMG/WTF!?
Have you ever see a catheter be inserted? Have you ever had one inserted? Have you ever gotten just a little soap in the distal opening of the urethra? Talk about pain! Now imagine pushing in 8 inches tubing and going past the urethral sphincter to void the bladder (Which would never empty completely, there is such a thing as post void residual) then attaching a mechanism to fill the bladder with heterologous urine (oh! maybe the urine ‘blank’ used in the Landis testing from Muppet Labs). Then removing the catheter. (all without screaming). Take a shower, towel off, get dressed and then pee on command as the urethra becomes narrowed due to inflammation from insertion of a foreign body.
I know that there are people with medical conditions who have to self-cath. But this is a gradual process and they are typically being cathed by a health care professional for a long while before taking on this responsibility.
Your statement assumes that Lance (or any athlete) carries around bags of sterile, ‘clean’ urine and the necessary works to perform this medical procedure, not to mention the time, place and privacy to do it safely… Then get on a bicycle the next day and ride for hours? Am I reading you clearly on this one?
Just because something is possible in the realm of infinity does not mean it is possible in real life.
Well said Jason.
Now, for AFLD fans and those interested in keeping score, here’s my initial count wrt “who done wrong”:
Armstrong:
1) Broke WADA code by leaving the direct sight of the pooper scooper for ~20 minutes after contact was established.
AFLD:
1) Broke WADA code due to the pooper scooper failing to produce standard & easily recognizable identification.
2) Broke WADA code because it issued communication about an OoC collection prior to knowledge of results from the collection (negative or non-negative).
3) Broke WADA code because it issued a press release regarding an ongoing investigation.
Given some time, I can cite the specific code broken if anyone has a serious dispute with “who done wrong”.
Anyone have any others to add to the list???
So far it’s three (3) wrongs AFLD and one (1) wrong Armstrong. Which wrongs do you think will receive the most press coverage and who do you think will be sanctioned???
Jason,
While I’m aware of some instances where others “helped” (more like forced in the case of the East German sports machine) athletes to perform such a switch, I can’t think of a single instance where an athlete has been proven to have done such a thing to beat a drug test on his or her own. While the switching of urine has been done in the past, as well as IV transfusions of saline solution to dilute blood, I think it’s stretching credulity to believe that Armstrong had either the time or the skill to do such a thing in the 20 or so minutes he was out of the collection agent’s sight.
Bill,
The only reference I’ve found so far is this one, which says the policeman involved got a suspended sentence, and doesn’t say anything about what judgment was made vis-a-vis Damien Ressiot or Dominique Issartel, the two reporters from L’Equipe. Maybe Jean C knows more. The two reporters were still under indictment, according to that web site, back in November 2006. Perhaps Ressiot’s muzzling and L’Equipe’s less vigorous pursuit of such stories lately is part of some sort of settlement. That’s pure speculation on my part, however.
Ressiot is not doing much on the doping beat these days, from what I can tell. But then again, he might just be working on some super-secret big story that will break on about July 3rd, right in time for the Tour.
William,
Very good point. Whatever happens this year with Lance’s tests really doesn’t prove one way or the other what he might have done in the past.
Jason, that was awesome! Muppet Labs! “BEAKER!”
Jean, I wouldn’t hire your goons to dispense pills at the looney bin. They’re not qualified. And Ashendon deserves censure for his claims and actions. You guys continue to try and smear Lance with trip-ups and untenable accusations, and you’ll continue to grind your teeth as you twist your waxed moustaches and say “Drat! Foiled Again!”
IT IS a cultural issue, Jean, and you’re on the wrong side of it. I DO care about fairness. FAIRNESS for ALL, with EACH case being ‘tried’ on its’ own merits. You’re clumping. Your culture is just as guilty of it in the sense of enforcement for this sport. And dude, it’s emasculating you.
Tut tut tut. Keep trying, you knuckle draggers.
I think this is a great example of “he said, she said” where both parties may be completely correct in their recollections, with neither seeing the reality.
It sounds a lot like the widely varied reports of the Landis re-testing, in fact. One side was greatly affronted by the others attempts to understand what was being done, thinking it (possibly) sabotage. The other views the first as participating in dubious practice, and wanting to make sure things are being done properly.
However, in my opinion, with so much at stake, Armstrong was an idiot in vanishing from the sight of a possibly-authentic tester. This may have been a fatal mistake in the circumstances.
Given the presumptions in doping cases, without tape to prove truth, he could be fucked by the AFLD with a national sanction. Should that happen, Lance would be faced with the prospect of trying to play political cards of value he hasn’t really tested, or give up.
Then we’ll be in the same situation as CONI and Valverde, where there will be question whether anyone else should respect and reciprocate with the sanction by a WADA-related Agency in a non-WADA role.
I also think this was badly handled by the AFLD, with lack of witness, or tape to validate their side of the story, and the announcement(s) seemed like someone pleased to have prey fall into a trap. But, in antidoping, there is nothing one can do about questionable behavior by the “good guys”.
To use the Al Capone analogy, this might be a “tax evasion” gotcha, having nothing to do with actual offenses, but suitable as a proxy — and I’m not saying anything about existence of actual offenses in the present or past by Armstrong.
TBV
Funny you should mention that, TBV. I was thinking the same thing as I was writing up the latest post. Great minds think alike, I guess. 🙂
Granted it was a lapse in judgement to disappear, even if the scooper said OK. However, let’s assume for the moment that Scoop did indeed OK Armstrong’s shower. Either he to is mentally challenged, lapse in his duties, or was setting LA up.
I find it rather unlikely there was confusion or differing memories as to whether or not it was OK to take the shower, unless there was some language problem. My understanding is that LA does speak French; I am sure that JB must. Hell, even I with my HS French over 40 years ago could understand “non!” If I was a diligent scooper, I’d raise a ruckus if the scoopee started to make himself scarce. Enough of a ruckus that there’d be no doubt I didn’t approve. But instead, Scoop twiddles his thumb while LA showers and JB checks out his bono fides, then they spend 90 minutes collecting samples. Now, I’ve provided both blood and urine samples for medical tests, and had plenty of hair cuts. All 3 could be done, along with that 20 minute shower, in less than an hour, except for one thing: probably the first stop before hitting the shower was the can. So LA took a leak and had to wait awhile to “reload”? That’s my guess. Or is Scooper claiming he had to wrestle and hog-tie LA and that’s what took so long?
Pardon me if I think something is rotten in Denmark here.
Somewhere I heard that (a) the guy has 15 years of experience doing tests, and is the one who trains other testers; and (b) he was saying “non!” throughout the whole thing. At least the latter part is his story.
I think the part about his experience level is pretty easy to validate, the second part far harder. I am inclined to believe he said /something/ that may have come off equivocalyl. For instance, “I am here to conduct a test, and it is up to you whether you want to leave my sight, I don’t care one way or another. Go ahead and take a shower if you want. You know the consequences”
“Look, I don’t know who you are, or whether I need to submit to this. I’m gonna take a shower while Johan checks it out.”
“It is up to you Monsieur.”
I think Armstrong wasn’t thinking, and has walked into the buzz-saw.
TBV
Rant
I was referring to all happened on that TDF which was the next after the Festina affair. That was a big scandal in France, and we got a lot of information about doping, EPO and its effects. So the French and their media became aware of it, difficult to sell same fantasy stories.
Before Lance tested positive, there were a rest day and as usual a meeting with press. Many questions about doping were asked to Lance since his performance were suspected of doping, it was already his 5th TDF, and he did often worse than a Chavanel. What would people say if Chavanel win the next TDF by beating Contador on climb, and destroying Leipheimer, Cancellara on ITT ?
Of course it was not good time at that press conference for Lance, he was asked if he had a TUE to use EPO, and he answered that he had no TUE for EPO and no TUE for everything on that TDF.
Unfortunately for him, 2 days later cames the nnoucement that he had tested positive at one of the first stage (maybe the prologue?) therefore a stage before that conference. Then UCI said that he had a TUE for a cream, especially when the alleged cream seems to be not very usefull for that kind of problem.
The problems that occured the following years didn’t help to give credibility to Lance : the 200 syringes and actovegin, the Bassons and Simeoni threats, the Ferrari’s revelation, …
I have found nothing about the final judgement, just something like that
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15282.
However, it that is the current case, Ressiot is not accused of forgery, he is accused to have protect his sources of information. I am not surprise if that kind of accisation had been dismissed.
Richard,
At least I’m not trying to hide the truth to people, I’m just giving rational explanations.
Why to never express a doubt about the innocence of Lance despite all of other doping cases, all other evidences, witnesses, testimonies, repentants, lies and clues?
As said Ullrich asked if he doped: “I did like others. if you can do 1 + 1 = 2 easy to connect the dots!” or smething like that.
Difficult to not understand his message.
What do you think of Ullrich’s words?
Jean,
I think I’ve got the timing down. Just so everyone else understands, when you say it was his 5th Tour, I’m assuming you mean the fifth one he raced in, not the fifth one that he won (which would have been in 2003).
TBV,
I hadn’t seen that item about the collector’s experience. But, I can also envision something like the scenario you suggest happening, too.
Jean, I don’t rely on innuendo and allegation to prove anything. A simple “He said, she said” doesn’t work.
You can suspect anything, just like I suspect that you’re actually a member of AFLD or LNDD, and that you have a vested interest in defending your colleagues. I can suppose that Lance probably did something which led to his initial cancer, but I can’t post up my version of logic and ergo, and posit that as fact.
Here’s the simplest fix. For guys like Lance and anyone else you and your NGB suspect or want to harrass repeatedly, I think having TWO Pooper Scoopers present would alleviate the problem we’re seeing here. It presents greater levels of official capacity, it increases the degree of observation and perception through another set of eyeballs and ears, as well as tongues and language, and it lowers anyone’s chances of malfeasance, misappropriation of collected materials, or mishandling of the same. There’s a reason why some of the athletes poked and pulled by WADA and other ADA’s chose to have SIMULTANEOUS samples drawn by their OWN staff, for later purposes of recording and possible refutation of evidence.
Not that any of that matters. In your system, your world, your own damned lab, YOUR results are irrefutable, regardless of whether your little girl lab techs were eyeballing the sine waves on the oscilloscope, whether they violated protocol, whether your damned hard drive was wiped at the most inconvenient of truth-times. Your NGB and ADA are so intent on catching, knowing that a catch means a guilty verdict, that they forget about the truth.
Locally, here in Dallas, you can actually witness the results of your style of justice and truth. So far about 20 men have been released from prison, finally cleared after 20 years of internment, for crimes they did not commit. DNA absolved them, but only after their lives had been taken from them in the most cruel of ways – witness testimony, not bare-handed fact. In YOUR system, you take the District Attorney’s approach from the 80’s… “Well, they’re probably guilty of something, so lock ’em up and throw away the key, deny their efforts at parole, deny them evidence, and tell them you’ll only let them out if they proclaim their guilt and beg a mea culpa.” I’m sure Judge Hue can enlighten us more about this deceit, as it’s made headlines in legal systems nationally and even globally, due to the racial profiling that is now being undone. The sad part about it is that the District Attorney who put all these men in prison for those crimes is dead. His family now has to deal with the shame.
My final comment about this is that you’re only going to piss Lance off even more. So be prepared when he “unleashes the furry” (sp intended, inside joke that he’ll laugh at when he reads this, and Jean, he IS reading this and every other report, trust me), and you’ll once again be left biting your gag ball as he ‘steals’ stages in your beloved race, and maybe hits the podium, and provides YOU with the proverbial “French Salute”, and dances away, clean as a whistle.
Richard,
I am not a member or even close from AFLD or every anti-doping entity. It’s a ashame because I would like to have some fun moment with Mrs Monteanu (? don’t want to search his correct name).
I am just a retired elite athlete, even if I am still competiting for fun.
It woud be fun if Lance (hello) read it, and better, if he wanted to write his own vision or version of the 99 facts.
I don’t think one of us is one the good side, and as you said, it’s cultural. You have an “english-saxon” behaviour and we have a latin behaviour.
We had the same kind of attitude in rugby when France was playing against britain nations, a lot of mis-interpretation of rules. Since there were more exchange of players between english, welsch, scottish and french team, many problems have disappeared.
To compare opinions and what happened in Salem doesn’t seem appropriate. However I can propose an opposite case where opinion could have stopped a disaster like the current Irak disaster. Probably it would not have happen if a lot of people has said “your truck as proof of WMD… it’s BS”
Il you want the sport and anti-doping entities at the same level of justice, money are required, and AD people would have the right to search in house, … of athletes after an AAF.
Personnaly, to have seen a lot of misery in Africa and Asian, I would prefer to use that money differently.
Jean, e-mail me directly off-list.
I’ll actually be in France this summer, in Annecy and at Ventoux, and honestly, it’d be my honor to actually ride with you so we could have this discussion as gentlemen and come to agreements on more than we dictate here and on TBV. You actually have a lot of fans on this side of the pond.
You know how to find me. I’ll even have my cell phone over there if you want that.
Ooohhh….How cool would it be to get LA to post here, and give us all “his own vision or version of the 99 facts.” Who would be next? Greg LeMond? Betsy Andreu? Levi Johnson?
Richard,
If you want rapidely to contact me you may use
http://viadresse.com/ecrire.php?num=88886666
(that may be usefull for Mr.Rant in case of an other problem)
I will contact you with your website later, it’s very late for me now…
bye
8-0, you KNOW Betsy’s salivating at this.
LeMond’s been quiet. Tooo quiet……
eightzero,
Once upon a time, Betsy left a comment to two on this site. Long, long time ago. But it’s been known to happen. Don’t think Greg has ever looked in on us, but you never know. I don’t know if Lance has ever read this site, either. I’m guessing not, but he’s been known as one who regularly scours the Internet, so …
Just few times after LNND was hacked it was reported that the hacker was linked with Floyd but I never had seen his name.
In fact by investigating LNDD hacking police had dound a bigger fish when they visited the hackers. Recently the 2 stories have been revealed.
Of course the LNDD case is much smaller than the other one but L’Express has given the name of Arnie Baker who is said to be the mysterious Mr Crépin.
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/greenpeace-revelations-sur-l-affaire-d-espionnage_754205.html
Jean,
If I’m following that story correctly, I find it a bit hard to believe. Arnie Baker was part of Landis’ defense team. They, and about a dozen other people or groups received the documents from the hacker, whoever he was. But my sources tell me that the documents were mailed from outside the United States. I’m not sure how he would have done that, given that he was giving various presentations in the United States at about the same time.
Baker used some of those documents in his Wiki Defense slide shows, but not until after stories by Sam Abt and others had already hit the press. The hacker did release some documents that appeared to come from LNDD, not related to the Landis case. There was much discussion of whether or not they were forgeries, but whether that was the case or not, I’ve never seen an article where the authenticity of the information within the documents was denied.
Arnie Baker may be many things. From what I understand, he’s a pretty good physician, and a well-respected cycling coach. He’s written a number of books and articles on bike racing and training techniques. But I have my doubts that he’s a hacker who has the skill to have actually broken into LNDD’s computer network and found those documents, or the original information that was then put onto forged LNDD stationery.
I suspect that someone’s taken the information about Baker using some of the hacker’s documents in the Wiki Defense slide shows, and somehow misunderstood or misconstrued that into the story you linked to.
That said, I’ll contact him and see what he has to say. When I hear back from him, I’ll let you know.Update: I contacted Arnie Baker, and his comment on the suggestion that he might be the hacker was this: