Drugs in sport - Where we've been, where we are at.

Remove this Banner Ad

Slartibartfast said:
Any chance Walsh does know Froome is on the gear but does not have enought evidence to say as such like he did with Armstrong.
Click to expand...
no, he knows he is on the gear, he wrote the memoir of Froome last year, he was prolly paid one million GBP to ghost it. That will buy a 10th floor three bedroom apartment in that Rialto building.

the money will serve to keep him quiet.

you are within your rights to ask me about the definition of "knowledge" and "evidence"... but we will be engaging in semantics, you know what I am talking about, and I am clear there is no smoking hypodermic

so, no, i am not talking about the American philosopher Edmund Gettier's justified true belief definition, I am merely speaking of a layperson fan of cycling and the heuristic lens, I am speaking rhetorically, yet the algorithm is deductive.
 
Last edited:
blackcat said:
no, he knows he is on the gear, he wrote the memoir of Froome last year, he was prolly paid one million GBP to ghost it. That will buy a 10th floor three bedroom apartment in that Rialto building.

the money will serve to keep him quiet.

you are within your rights to ask me about the definition of "knowledge" and "evidence"... but we will be engaging in semantics, you know what I am talking about, and I am clear there is no smoking hypodermic

so, no, i am not talking about the American philosopher Edmund Gettier's justified true belief definition, I am merely speaking of a layperson fan of cycling and the heuristic lens, I am speaking rhetorically, yet the algorithm is deductive.
Click to expand...
Are you sure Walsh understood your email? Maybe he thought he was agreeing with something else entirely :p
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Max Headroom said:
Are you sure Walsh understood your email? Maybe he thought he was agreeing with something else entirely :p
Click to expand...
he knew. (I get your point on my inscrutable scribblings)


but this was context of Wiggins riding top10 in the Giro, and he had a breakout, never being a classification rider. He was also not a well credentialled timetrialist in his first 15 years in the pro peloton going back to Linda McCartney in about 1998 and 1999. He had done jack s**t in chrono's before about 2010.

no, Walsh knew what I said. It was only about two sentences, and as much as it may be too difficult to believe, it was clear, cogent, coherent and had clarity. I wish I never deleted the email.

most of this blackcat shwarze katze character on FigBooty is shtick. as meds will attest medusala
 
blackcat said:
he knew. (I get your point on my inscrutable scribblings)


but this was context of Wiggins riding top10 in the Giro, and he had a breakout, never being a classification rider. He was also not a well credentialled timetrialist in his first 15 years in the pro peloton going back to Linda McCartney in about 1998 and 1999. He had done jack s**t in chrono's before about 2010.

no, Walsh knew what I said. It was only about two sentences, and as much as it may be too difficult to believe, it was clear, cogent, coherent and had clarity. I wish I never deleted the email.

most of this blackcat shwarze katze character on FigBooty is shtick. as meds will attest medusala
Click to expand...
I figured, it was just a opportunity too good to pass up sorry!

I am surprised, I thought his integrity had been proven. I suspect you are past being surprised at anything nowadays though.....
 
Max Headroom said:
I figured, it was just a opportunity too good to pass up sorry!

I am surprised, I thought his integrity had been proven. I suspect you are past being surprised at anything nowadays though.....
Click to expand...
Max, my first premise in cycling, and it may well be confirmation bias, heck, it is confirmation bias, that everyone in cycling at the pointy end of the field, in classics, classification at everyrace from HeraldSunTourandabove, in deep field sprints in strong tours, on selective climbs, in sprinters and climbers jerseys in the Grandtours, ... you will be on the gear. There is zero value judgement, someone said on cyclingnews forum, a domestic pro in America, who prolly rode for 10k American a season, and had to bunk on beds, would not have even paid rent, he said, good guys dope, bad guys dont dope, good guys dont dope, bad guys dope, yeah cannot judge someone based on their character thru the lens of doping in cycling. it matters naught.

the populace have been so socially engineered that they associate doping = inferior character, doping = dangerous, doping = bad and poor example for the kids. it is mostly an anglophone puritanical thang, but here is the paradox, the French prolly have cracked down more on their cyclists, the Brits dominate cycling now and give their athletes the wide berth to dodge the control protocols, and in N American professional sport, if you think their physiques are real and natural, I can't help you.

whether or not I have or would dope, is neither here nor there. personally, my opinion is, not for me, this is panem et circenses, bread and circuses, this is not real life. I like to watch cycling because it is not real, but the best part is the doping politics.

professional sport is not sport, its entertainment.


oh... forgot to end my point. If someone is now existing in the pointy end of the field and is in cycling, the major indictment is now being part of this strata that I find guilty almost beyond any reasonable doubt. But i dont seek to deprive them of their liberty.
 
Last edited:
blackcat said:
I had an email from him around 2010 when Wiggins was riding high in GC in the Giro and said Wiggins was BS and he said he agree'ed. I got his email off Betsy Andreu.

So Walsh is just another liar and gatekeeper and out for himself. He knows Froome is full of it, he could talk(write) in code without saying Chris Froome is charging.
Click to expand...

Nailed it again - The same David Walsh who went after Armstrong with a cobra's venom which got him fame and infamy, buy yet claims Sky is a paragon of virtue - Money does strange things to people, ask Culbert.

Actually we should attend the Jump Media package 'London 17' to attend the IAAF World Athletics Championship - Great value at $6499 with access to the inner sanctum.
 
blackcat said:
Max, my first premise in cycling, and it may well be confirmation bias, heck, it is confirmation bias, that everyone in cycling at the pointy end of the field, in classics, classification at everyrace from HeraldSunTourandabove, in deep field sprints in strong tours, on selective climbs, in sprinters and climbers jerseys in the Grandtours, ... you will be on the gear.
Click to expand...
And as you've pointed out before - also those not at the pointy end (only I can't find a post quickly).

Recent case in point ... with some cross-over interest against both the EFC and GWS sagas in how this was dealt with and decided on.

http://www.usada.org/tim-root-receives-doping-sanction/

USADA announced today that Tim Root, of Boise, Idaho, an athlete in the sport of cycling, has received a four-year sanction for refusing to provide a urine sample to a doping control officer. Root was selected to submit a sample as a result of being among the top finishers in his event at the 2016 Anderson Banducci Twilight Criterium in Boise, Idaho.

Root was subject to testing because the event was sanctioned by USA Cycling, which maintains the RaceClean Program that works to fight doping at the amateur level of cycling. The goal of the RaceClean Program is to increase testing and education at the amateur level to provide greater doping deterrence, and this USA Cycling program is executed through member funding, donations, and local association partnerships.

Root, 49, refused to provide a sample upon being selected by a doping control officer during an in-competition test on July 16, 2016. Evading sample collection, or refusing or failing to submit to sample collection, without compelling justification is an anti-doping rule violation under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code.

Root’s four-year period of ineligibility began on November 2, 2016, the date on which his sanction was imposed. In addition, Root has been disqualified from all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to July 16, 2016, the date he refused to submit a sample, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
Root, 49, refused to provide a sample upon being selected by a doping control officer during an in-competition test on July 16, 2016. Evading sample collection, or refusing or failing to submit to sample collection, without compelling justification is an anti-doping rule violation under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code.
Click to expand...

this makes me think of this, probably apocryphal, anecdote.

the probably apocryphal anecdote goes as thus:
Marcelo Rios the Chilean tennis player in the late 90s and thru the early- to mid naughties, he was in the changing rooms, now Rios I think got to number one in the world, in the years around Lleyton's number one, prolly just after, the sport was at an inverted apogee, he said Andre Agassi he of the power lifter trainer Gil Reyes and a fan of the Mexican food restaurant on Toorak Road near Dunstall's old bar Saloon.

anyway, he says, testers came in to get a sample from AA, and AA ran out an said he had an AA meeting... (ok, this is my blackcat BS, artistic license)

Agassi ran out, saying someone was trying to kidnap his baby with Steffi Graf. Someone was trying to kidnap his baby. He could not even do the accent of Merryl Streep innit
skilts
 
USADA boss Travis Tagart is in Oz for an anti-doping intel transfer with ASADA . He was on Lateline on Friday night. Did a bit of tough talking but also backed plenty of the existing system. You can watch the interview and/or read the full transcript at link below.

He gets introduced as the bloke who caught Lance and they show an interview Lance recently gave but Armstrong starts off with his usual BS. He still has plenty of the $150m he earned from cycling.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4573972.htm
....
Armstrong spoke about the scandal earlier this year:

LANCE ARMSTRONG (March): It's been a rough couple of years for a lot of reasons, whether it's... whether it's from our family's perspective, whether it's from my own personal perspective or whether it's a financial or a legal perspective. That's what I mean: it has just been a complete, colossal meltdown.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Travis Tygart, welcome to Australia. Welcome to the program. Firstly, Lance Armstrong. He said earlier this year that his entire life, whether it be financial, personal, legal, has been a "complete, colossal meltdown". Do you have any sympathy for him?

TRAVIS TYGART, USADA: Oh, well, of course. I mean, we hope the best for him, quite honestly. I mean, his sanction is in place. Our case is over. We did our best to expose what was going on in the sport of cycling and tried to change that culture that was corrupt at the time. And to some extent he was a rider just like everyone else and participated in some of the same doping that others did. So, of course we want the best for him. And hopefully he gets to a point where he can be a positive contributor to society again.

MATT WORDSWORTH: He still has some criticism of USADA. Even now he says it's inefficient; that it's not catching enough and that you needed a story and you were going after a big whale, but you haven't cleared the pool. Is that fair?
TRAVIS TYGART: Listen, there are some easy, convenient sound bites that athletes who have been caught will say to try to justify why they were caught or other reasons behind it. But at the end of the day our job is to fairly approach each and every case in a principled fashion to ensure that those that abide by the rules, who are victims to others who rob them when others dope: that their rights are protected. And we do that whether it's a global icon like a Lance Armstrong or a Marion Jones, or a weekend warrior that happens to fall under our jurisdiction. And that's incumbent upon us to be just as fair in that process as we expect athletes to be when they compete.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4573972.htm

about taking anti-doping authority away from sports and giving more power to the NADAs.

MATT WORDSWORTH: There is a push to change the system: to take the drug testing authority more from the sporting bodies, the international sporting bodies, and more towards your USADAs and your ASADAs and your WADAs. Can you explain what that change means?

TRAVIS TYGART: Yes. I'll tell you. We had a couple of weeks ago in Bonn, Germany 16 to 20 NADAs (national anti-doping agencies) come together: anti-doping leaders from around the world. And we said, "You can't have the fox guarding the hen house." If you think about it, sport is really good at promoting themselves and what you see on TV is wonderful and fans in the seats is fantastic. But they can't police themselves. It is contrary to their interests in promoting. So our position is: you have to remove sport from policing itself to ensure fairness; and that the promotion, the profit side of the sport doesn't get in the way of the policing side of it.

MATT WORDSWORTH: So would you also apply that to the NFL, the NBA and our own football codes?
TRAVIS TYGART: Absolutely. Listen...
MATT WORDSWORTH: They shouldn't be running their own drug-testing programs?

TRAVIS TYGART: Listen: having had to have made difficult decisions when global icons - Marion Johns, Lance Armstrong - cheat: it is a tough, tough decision. You hate it, because you know you will crush some people's dreams. It's their decision to cheat that requires us to hold them accountable, but if we had the president of UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale), for example - the international cycling president - on our board, I don't think the same outcome would have happened. So you have to remove any interests to stop those who are there to do the job to enforce the rules fairly against any and all athletes, whether high-profile or not.
Click to expand...

and he discusses the TUE issues, Wiggins etc although he plays a straight bat about health and privacy issues

MATT WORDSWORTH: I want to move on to a slightly more grey area at the moment: therapeutic use exemptions (TUE).This is where an athlete gets an exemption to use a banned substance because it is treating an honest medical condition. But do you think they're being abused?

TRAVIS TYGART: Listen, I think the rules have been discussed and they are in place and it strikes an extremely fair balance between the need of some athletes - a very small number of athletes - to obtain medical permission to use a substance, a medication that they need. So, for acne, for birth control, for asthma: I mean, how are we possibility going to deny someone the ability to use that? As long as it doesn't increase their performance or give them a performance advantage - and it's legitimate. And I think when the rules are followed, they're robust and it strikes an absolutely fair balance in that regard.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Just in recent weeks, through hacking of organisations like yourself, we've seen the TUE records of very high-profile athletes: our own Emily Seebohm; Sir Bradley Wiggins being probably the most high-profile. He used a product called triamcinolone acetonide. What would that possibly do to enhance your performance?

TRAVIS TYGART: Well, it is for a medical purpose. I mean, let me be crystal-clear: the Russians have illegally hacked through this affiliated group with Russia, The Fancy Bears, and put out on the internet both Australian athletes, US athletes, German athletes, athletes from around the world, who did everything right. They followed the rules that were in place. They disclosed - think about it - their medical records to the anti-doping authority. It's essentially the police - and they've done absolutely nothing wrong.

MATT WORDSWORTH: So to be fair to Sir Bradley Wiggins: he says he has suffered from allergies for a long time and this treatment treats his allergies. But some also say it's a performance-enhancing product and it was taken in each time a matter of three, four days before the Tour de France and 12 days before the Giro d'Italia. And he never told anybody at the time. Do you think, at least, these things should be made public so that everyone is aware?

TRAVIS TYGART: Listen, I think it's unfair to athletes to make their medical situations public. I think they do disclose it, as I just said, to the police.

MATT WORDSWORTH: But in a 2015 report into doping by the Cycling Independent Reform Commission, one rider is quoted as saying that he believed or they believed 90 per cent of TUEs were used for performance-enhancing purposes. That must be chilling testimony for you?

TRAVIS TYGART: Well, listen, I know that's not the case in the US. I mean, I don't see UCIs. And the case you cited was: UCI used to grant its own permissions. Now, the rules as of first of the year of 2015: those have to be done by independent panels and reviewed by the global regulator, the World Anti-Doping Agency. So I think that's in the past. And if you think about it, you would have to be a fool to run the risk of disclosing to the cops that you are trying to commit a crime, when they can prosecute you based on the information that you are bringing to their attention. So I think it's been way blown out of proportion. I think, you know, it was intentionally done to divert conversation away from what was clearly intentional and state-run doping by the Russian sports system and Government to create this kind of diversion from that issue, which has affected performance in a huge way........
Click to expand...
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
USADA boss Travis Tagart is in Oz for an anti-doping intel transfer with ASADA . He was on Lateline on Friday night. Did a bit of tough talking but also backed plenty of the existing system. You can watch the interview and/or read the full transcript at link below.

He gets introduced as the bloke who caught Lance and they show an interview Lance recently gave but Armstrong starts off with his usual BS. He still has plenty of the $150m he earned from cycling.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4573972.htm
....
Armstrong spoke about the scandal earlier this year:

LANCE ARMSTRONG (March): It's been a rough couple of years for a lot of reasons, whether it's... whether it's from our family's perspective, whether it's from my own personal perspective or whether it's a financial or a legal perspective. That's what I mean: it has just been a complete, colossal meltdown.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Travis Tygart, welcome to Australia. Welcome to the program. Firstly, Lance Armstrong. He said earlier this year that his entire life, whether it be financial, personal, legal, has been a "complete, colossal meltdown". Do you have any sympathy for him?

TRAVIS TYGART, USADA: Oh, well, of course. I mean, we hope the best for him, quite honestly. I mean, his sanction is in place. Our case is over. We did our best to expose what was going on in the sport of cycling and tried to change that culture that was corrupt at the time. And to some extent he was a rider just like everyone else and participated in some of the same doping that others did. So, of course we want the best for him. And hopefully he gets to a point where he can be a positive contributor to society again.

MATT WORDSWORTH: He still has some criticism of USADA. Even now he says it's inefficient; that it's not catching enough and that you needed a story and you were going after a big whale, but you haven't cleared the pool. Is that fair?
TRAVIS TYGART: Listen, there are some easy, convenient sound bites that athletes who have been caught will say to try to justify why they were caught or other reasons behind it. But at the end of the day our job is to fairly approach each and every case in a principled fashion to ensure that those that abide by the rules, who are victims to others who rob them when others dope: that their rights are protected. And we do that whether it's a global icon like a Lance Armstrong or a Marion Jones, or a weekend warrior that happens to fall under our jurisdiction. And that's incumbent upon us to be just as fair in that process as we expect athletes to be when they compete.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4573972.htm

about taking anti-doping authority away from sports and giving more power to the NADAs.



and he discusses the TUE issues, Wiggins etc although he plays a straight bat about health and privacy issues
Click to expand...

I am a friend of Betsy Andreu, but I have done a complete volte face, and I do think Armstrong has been railroaded and now if I have ethical concerns, my pitchfork is entirely pointed by the likes of Tygart.

Armstrong is no saint, he is an utter prick, but he had some brilliant advisors, some of that has rubbed off on him, and he aint a complete dimwit. I am not a fan of Tygart, in this instance, my loyalty lies with Lance.

and yes, Froome did use a motor on Ventoux. It has yet to come out if Lance did or did not use a motor. I would like to see his racing in the 1998 vuelta, and if his cadence in the chrono and the mountain finishes was similar to what it would become the next year. That in itself, is very indirect, circumstantional... but I believe this is the case Greg and Kathy Lemond have made against Lance. and that he used a motor too. buckle yourselves in, cycling never ceases to give the funnies, the absurd, you can't make this s**t up if you tried, and for chrissakes, blackcat has tried /thirdperson
 
blackcat said:
I am a friend of Betsy Andreu, but I have done a complete volte face, and I do think Armstrong has been railroaded and now if I have ethical concerns, my pitchfork is entirely pointed by the likes of Tygart.....
Click to expand...
What has Armstrong been railroad with?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RussellEbertHandball said:
What has Armstrong been railroad with?
Click to expand...
everyone got an easy deal supergrassing on Lance and turning States. those who came forward struck deals that were painless to them, tho they had participated in the worst excesses.

Lance was only playing by the rules the peloton intself had laid out.

Yes, his team, Stapleton, Gorski, Wiesel, Knaggs, they gamed it with the UCI chair Hein Verbruggen. But the sport was already a corrupt mess before Lance had gone to the continent.

He may be a shitty individual, evidence points to him being this, but he was one of many, prolly you could say, thousands, and in no fear of hyperbole, who had participated in the sham. Not merely doped, that would be in the hundreds of thousands of pro and amateur cyclists over the last half century, but in participating in this current morass cycling finds itself in, a word that would fit a dictionary definition of corruption, it would be thousands.

so why is Armstrong hung out to dry. In my mind, this in itself is corrupt. There was no universal treatment of his sins, where everybody's sins are treated equally.

And I understand some layperson jurisprudence philosophy and why they will give a deal to a witness.

Well, in this case, I think it went beyond that, and stunk to high heaven.
 
blackcat said:
everyone got an easy deal supergrassing on Lance and turning States. those who came forward struck deals that were painless to them, tho they had participated in the worst excesses.

Lance was only playing by the rules the peloton intself had laid out.

Yes, his team, Stapleton, Gorski, Wiesel, Knaggs, they gamed it with the UCI chair Hein Verbruggen. But the sport was already a corrupt mess before Lance had gone to the continent.

He may be a shitty individual, evidence points to him being this, but he was one of many, prolly you could say, thousands, and in no fear of hyperbole, who had participated in the sham. Not merely doped, that would be in the hundreds of thousands of pro and amateur cyclists over the last half century, but in participating in this current morass cycling finds itself in, a word that would fit a dictionary definition of corruption, it would be thousands.

so why is Armstrong hung out to dry. In my mind, this in itself is corrupt. There was no universal treatment of his sins, where everybody's sins are treated equally.

And I understand some layperson jurisprudence philosophy and why they will give a deal to a witness.

Well, in this case, I think it went beyond that, and stunk to high heaven.
Click to expand...
He and his doctors coped it, well 2 of them have life bans,and the 3rd has 8 or 10 years - can't remember.

That's the price for leadership. You drive the program, you get all the credit and you cop the blame for the defeats. His teammates were the donkeys, they got the donkey share of the spoils and they coped the donkey share of the punishment. Lance could have co-operated but he refused.

He screwed over plenty to get what he wanted. For me its Bad Flamming Luck. he knew the rules. If he didnt have such an ego he would have got away with it because he wouldn't have made a comeback. but the arrogant prick couldn't help himself. So BFL.
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
If he didnt have such an ego he would have got away with it because he wouldn't have made a comeback. but the arrogant prick couldn't help himself. So BFL.
Click to expand...

didnt Shirl and the Skyhooks have a song ego is not a dirty word

no doubt Armstrong was guilty, but how guilty? For the sins of the entire peloton?

And I use the term "sins" firmly tounge in cheek. This is doping in sport, which is like the siamese chimera to sport.

Armstrong deserved two years. Yeah, he got away with lifelong doping. But so did most of the others in the peloton. Well, I said " he got away with lifelong doping" well, almost.

Also, I dont agree with Greg and Kathy Lemond, if Armstrong had used a motor when he came back, I think he would have been closer to Contador and Andy Shleck and pantsed Wiggins.

I wonder why Wiggins has not come out and pointed the finger at Froome for the motor on Ventoux and the other places he has used it. hill climbs, finishing climbs, that is what I mean by places.

I am not saying Armstrong should skate free. He deserves a punishment. But Floyd's qui tam lawsuit about defrauding the US gov't and their non-gov't org of US Postal out of ~35 million or whatever.

First thing I thought was, Armstrong deserves jail. That was where my impulse went.

And it was entrenched when Bill Clinton's counsel, no, his advisor who was also the counsel and managed him thru the shitstorm that was Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr, Mark Fabiani is the lawyers name.

Fabiani then became a gun for hire, and is one of Armstrong's counsel.

He got Clinton involved to tell the LA Attorney and Fed prosecutor Andre Birotte to back off the Amstrong fraud and racketeering case the the Fed investigator Jeff Novitsky had compiled on Armstrong, the case was by all reports rock freekin solid
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/27/why-did-federal-prosecutors-drop-their-lance-armstrong-case/


Then he(Jeff Novitsky) goes to work for the UFC on bigger money. The UFC chief Dana White and those majority owners the Vegas casino owners the Feretta brothrs, sell(s) out to those Saudi interests for billions on the back of the credibility that new drug testing enforcement brought legitimacy and "integrity" the codeword of all sports embroiled in doping and corruption.

Andre Birotte gets a promotion, maybe not DC, but somewhere in LA, a plum job in some gov't operation.



Can you see how incestuous and institutionally corrupt this is. It may not qualify as corruption qua corruption.

The athletes who did the supergrass and states witness are then left to their own devices. Vaughters skates and is scot free.


Armstrong pays the piper for everyone. I WAS for throwing the book at him and locking him up. The money and the spoils and rewards thing, this would be just a reactionary envy (from my pov, not speaking for others)...

Lance deserved an appropriate punishment. Nothing less, nothing more. Seemed he took the reactionary brunt of all those with their hearts broken as to the corruption and ways of the world, when their eyelids were pulled back and exposed to the realism of the world, much like the liberals being disenchanted with the current POTUS elect election. Well, did they care for the downtrodden and those no invested in the liberal economy class urban society, prolly not.

sport is just entertainment. Armstrong was punished beyond any valid level.

But guys like Walsh are massive frauds too, why dont they go after Froome and Cancellara and others for use of a motor.
 
Blackcat - I can add the following - Once USADA nailed Armstrong it gave him a choice - Plead guilty and you will be given a back-dated penalty for two years, which means you lose the 1999 and 2000 TDF, but retain the titles from 2001 to 2005 - Lance had balls and refused to accept the deal - It must be remembered that Landis had $$$ flashing in front of him when he testified to USADA. A success in the US Government's legal case against Armstrong for fraud type behaviour,means that under US Legislation whistleblowers are entitled to 30% of the compensation - Finally, i chuckle at some on Cycling News - Tried explaining that US Postal (ex sponsor) is a Government Agency, hence why the US Government is suing Armstrong but they still deny this is the cse.
 
yaco55 said:
Blackcat - I can add the following - Once USADA nailed Armstrong it gave him a choice - Plead guilty and you will be given a back-dated penalty for two years, which means you lose the 1999 and 2000 TDF, but retain the titles from 2001 to 2005 - Lance had balls and refused to accept the deal - It must be remembered that Landis had $$$ flashing in front of him when he testified to USADA. A success in the US Government's legal case against Armstrong for fraud type behaviour,means that under US Legislation whistleblowers are entitled to 30% of the compensation - Finally, i chuckle at some on Cycling News - Tried explaining that US Postal (ex sponsor) is a Government Agency, hence why the US Government is suing Armstrong but they still deny this is the cse.
Click to expand...
yeah, Floyd does the Qui Tam whistleblower latin civil suit and sues Lance on behalf of the Fed. He is entitled to 30% if he proves the case. I reckon after the lawyers get paid, Floyd prolly gets about ten million. Lance prolly has to pay about 50million, in 2018money, because I reckon it is atlest 18 months to go, so if it was 35million in nominal money from 1998 thru 2004, this prolly translates to real money of in the vicinity of 65million, but there is no way the judge will award the compensation and punitive of that. something around 50 will be a nice round number.

Armstrong prolly has about 150US million of assets that are shifted around the world in trusts in Caymans and in Swiss UBS anonymous accounts, Gorski worked for Wiesel in his bank, then I think he went to work for UBS, but about three years ago, the Fed exposed some anonymous accounts a tax avoidance with UBS in Switzerland for American domestic clients.

Amstrong will be ok. The 20 million in lawyers fees meant he had to sell some assets tho, and get liquidity to pay Fabiani et al.

This aint real. This is some parallel life a tiny strata of Americans live. Armstrong can have it.

They money is just a facade the Americans define themselves with. *net worth is a risible appellation unless you are meds and the IPA

#networth
medusala
 
Who is the British “Olympic champion and icon”, I wonder - a cyclist perhaps?

Also of note, the IAAF talking up their integrity unit that is being set up.
I think all of these Integrity Units should be made to clearly publish exactly:

What they are set up to monitor - too much, not enough, there should be no integrity at all?
And whose integrity they are monitoring - their "accredited media", their contracts, the $, their senior management, etc.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.e...-champion-benefited-from-doping-cover-up/?amp

" ...
In the message published by Le Monde and the German broadcaster ARD that the Guardian has independently established as genuine, the disgraced former head of Russian athletics claims to have been shown a list by “IAAF Ambassadors” that included non-Russian athletes. The program alleges that Balakhnichev wired €1.5m to former IAAF chief Lamine Diack.

It was also revealed a British “Olympic champion and icon” was the potential beneficiary of a doping cover-up. This revelation was disclosed via an email that was reportedly sent by the disgraced former head of Russian athletics before the current doping scandal to engulf the sport. The German television network published a message dated 30 July 2014 by the governing body’s ousted treasurer, Valentin Balakhnichev. In the email, ARD and French newspaper Le Monde claimed to have obtained Balakhnichev warning IAAF officials not to drop plans to renege on what he described a “TOTAL PROTECTION PROJECT” that he confirmed allowed Russian dopers to compete at London 2012.

In the message, Balakhnichev also claimed to have been shown a list by “IAAF Ambassadors” that included athletes from other nations. It said we surprisingly found there some prominent British athletes including Olympic champion and icon of the GB sports and it was added our question is why did not the IAAF to require from GB Athletics to sanction these athletes. It was also written that be sure that this question will be asked in our explanations and the names of the athletes who were under Athlete Biological Passport investigation will also be disclosed and that we demand fair and transparent public procedure in regard of all athletes with the alleged ABP violations.

In response, the athletic governing body of UK said that British Athletics has no knowledge of any of the allegations made by Valentin Balakhnichev in his email of July 2014 published today. It was added that we will of course cooperate fully with any inquiry we might receive from the anti-doping authorities on the matter.

In a coded threat to the IAAF officials concerned, Balakhnichev said we will not remain silent. It was not us who started this game and added it was the IAAF project and the IAAF shall be the key victim of future scandal.

The IAAF ethics commission later banned Balakhnichev, the Russian distance coach Alexei Melnikov, and Papa Massata Diack (son of former IAAF chief Lamine Diack) from athletics for life.

The IAAF said it was unable to comment while the French investigation was in progress. A spokeswoman for the world governing body of athletics said we cannot comment on the specifics of the article whilst the criminal investigation is under way. The spokeswoman added it is clear we all need to get to the bottom of what has happened, which is what the French criminal investigation is doing, and we continue to assist them as required. The IAAF spokeswoman also said we are taking bold steps to safeguard the sport in the future with the reforms we are introducing including setting up the integrity unit and disciplinary tribunal."
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
Who is the British “Olympic champion and icon”, I wonder - a cyclist perhaps?

Also of note, the IAAF talking up their integrity unit that is being set up.
I think all of these Integrity Units should be made to clearly publish exactly:

What they are set up to monitor - too much, not enough, there should be no integrity at all?
And whose integrity they are monitoring - their "accredited media", their contracts, the $, their senior management, etc.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.evolutionary.org/british-olympic-champion-benefited-from-doping-cover-up/?amp

" ...
In the message published by Le Monde and the German broadcaster ARD that the Guardian has independently established as genuine, the disgraced former head of Russian athletics claims to have been shown a list by “IAAF Ambassadors” that included non-Russian athletes. The program alleges that Balakhnichev wired €1.5m to former IAAF chief Lamine Diack.

It was also revealed a British “Olympic champion and icon” was the potential beneficiary of a doping cover-up. This revelation was disclosed via an email that was reportedly sent by the disgraced former head of Russian athletics before the current doping scandal to engulf the sport. The German television network published a message dated 30 July 2014 by the governing body’s ousted treasurer, Valentin Balakhnichev. In the email, ARD and French newspaper Le Monde claimed to have obtained Balakhnichev warning IAAF officials not to drop plans to renege on what he described a “TOTAL PROTECTION PROJECT” that he confirmed allowed Russian dopers to compete at London 2012.

In the message, Balakhnichev also claimed to have been shown a list by “IAAF Ambassadors” that included athletes from other nations. It said we surprisingly found there some prominent British athletes including Olympic champion and icon of the GB sports and it was added our question is why did not the IAAF to require from GB Athletics to sanction these athletes. It was also written that be sure that this question will be asked in our explanations and the names of the athletes who were under Athlete Biological Passport investigation will also be disclosed and that we demand fair and transparent public procedure in regard of all athletes with the alleged ABP violations.

In response, the athletic governing body of UK said that British Athletics has no knowledge of any of the allegations made by Valentin Balakhnichev in his email of July 2014 published today. It was added that we will of course cooperate fully with any inquiry we might receive from the anti-doping authorities on the matter.

In a coded threat to the IAAF officials concerned, Balakhnichev said we will not remain silent. It was not us who started this game and added it was the IAAF project and the IAAF shall be the key victim of future scandal.

The IAAF ethics commission later banned Balakhnichev, the Russian distance coach Alexei Melnikov, and Papa Massata Diack (son of former IAAF chief Lamine Diack) from athletics for life.

The IAAF said it was unable to comment while the French investigation was in progress. A spokeswoman for the world governing body of athletics said we cannot comment on the specifics of the article whilst the criminal investigation is under way. The spokeswoman added it is clear we all need to get to the bottom of what has happened, which is what the French criminal investigation is doing, and we continue to assist them as required. The IAAF spokeswoman also said we are taking bold steps to safeguard the sport in the future with the reforms we are introducing including setting up the integrity unit and disciplinary tribunal."
Click to expand...
mo farah?
 
VL3OJ said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2016/09/19/mo-farahs-medical-history-backed-up-by-latest-leak/


May not be.
Click to expand...
but you cannot believe the media, this is not Trump MO talking points btw.

you cannot believe the media when they merely reiterate the refutations of the sports bodies and administrators. they have zero reason to tell the truth. then the media will just parrot their talking points for them.

hence, we get Armstrong.

Essendon were not the only club, Essendon WERE the only club to operate with hubris and no concern for the administrators who have a fine line tightrope to walk WRT the appearance of anti-doping and anti-doping enforcement. It is a bird that flew decades ago, and you wont be putting it back in the all-amateur box where the win matters less than the effort.
 
Balakhnichev wired €1.5m to former IAAF chief Lamine Diack.
It was also revealed a British “Olympic champion and icon”

Has to be Mo Farah only one that links IAAF and Olympic Champion and Icon. He has trained with the Alberto Salazar group, who has been accused by several people of doping as well as this assistant coach to Salazar - Steve Magness.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/sep/18/alberto-salazar-uk-athletics-oregon-project
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
718
Satan
Satan
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top