[MaddSkillz]

While Armstrong was still racing! C'mon, that's bad move from the get-go and they're just now coming out and stating this? Something's fishy. Also, Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to the UCI.

McQuaid acknowledges accepting Armstrong donation a mistake

 

[Rex Hunter]

While Armstrong was still racing! C'mon, that's bad move from the get-go and they're just now coming out and stating this? Something's fishy. Also, Armstrong is the only rider ever to have made a donation to the UCI.

McQuaid acknowledges accepting Armstrong donation a mistake

But also proves there was no cover up of a positive test. That's the important information.

 

[MaddSkillz]

But also proves there was no cover up of a positive test. That's the important information.

Maybe, maybe not...

 

[Rex Hunter]

Maybe, maybe not...

No, that is the big information of the day - no doping cover up. McQuaid's info puts that to bed. Earlier, two key figures from the anti doping world have said it would be very difficult indeed to cover up a positive test.

IOC president Jacques Rogge:

"To my knowledge it is not possible to hide a positive result," Rogge told ESPN. "The lab knows the code. WADA gets it also. Then it goes to the national and international federations. One person cannot decide: 'I can put this under the carpet.'"

Former president of the German cycling federation, Sylvia Schenk, echoed this opinion. Schenk held the position at the time of events and now chairs an international organisation fighting corruption, Transparency International.

"I do not think that a positive doping test can be easily covered up, especially in the case of such a famous rider like Armstrong," Schenk told Cyclingnews on Tuesday. "The tests are performed in accredited labs; it would be difficult to bury a positive result as there are too many people involved. But not only that: I also doubt that the UCI would do such a thing."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-uci-needs-more-transparency

Schenk goes on to criticise the perception caused by Armstrong's donation to the UCI and calls for more transparency. But it would appear the allegation that Armstrong somehow overruled a positive test is the weakest part of Landis' case.

Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

 

[MaddSkillz]

They never said it was impossible... Just difficult. Money changes all the rules.

I still think a racer contributing funds to an organization who's purpose is to find cheats, is sketchy at best. And for the UCI to even consider the donation shows a sever lack of judgement (or corruption) on their end.

And the fact that this news is only just coming out now tells me they knew it was sketchy transaction.

No, something is not right about that.

 

[mohair_chair]

They never said it was impossible... Just difficult. Money changes all the rules.

Then why settle for $100K from a guy who probably made $20 million that year? I mean, he's filthy rich, his whole reputation is on the line, so is his future earning power, and you are going to settle for $100K? An almost insignificant amount of money to him? Ridiculous.

For the number of people involved who risk losing their jobs and possible jail time, spreading $100K around is not going to make a cover up worthwhile, and it's not going to keep them quiet forever. I would laugh at an offer of $100K. Try $1 million, and we'll go up from there.

 

[Dwaynebarry]

Does this now call into question Landis' other claims?

No. Landis never said he knew for a fact Armstrong paid the UCI to cover a doping positive. He said Armstrong told him he had paid the UCI to cover a doping positive.

 

[MaddSkillz]

Then why settle for $100K from a guy who probably made $20 million that year? I mean, he's filthy rich, his whole reputation is on the line, so is his future earning power, and you are going to settle for $100K? An almost insignificant amount of money to him? Ridiculous.

For the number of people involved who risk losing their jobs and possible jail time, spreading $100K around is not going to make a cover up worthwhile, and it's not going to keep them quiet forever. I would laugh at an offer of $100K. Try $1 million, and we'll go up from there.

I agree with all of this... But it could also mean, they're bad barginers.

It still doesn't dispute the shady aspect of a transaction like this. The first and last of its kind since then.

 

[Dwaynebarry]

No, something is not right about that.

Of course it's not right, but it seems pretty unlikely it was possible. I think by the time we're talking about, when the lab reported positives they reported to multiple agencies to avoid the kind of stuff that was going on at U.S. Track & Field in earlier decades. Hard to believe anyone would have enough connections to simultaneously silence two or more organizations.

Furthermore, I believe they are saying all of the EPO positives out of the French & Swiss labs for 2001 are accounted for.

 

[mohair_chair]

I agree with all of this... But it could also mean, they're bad barginers.

Even a bad negotiator can get a better deal than that, because Armstrong has no play to make. It's pay up or else.

 

[JohnHenry]

I wonder if they could produce documentation to show where the 100K$ went?

 

[Coolhand]

I wonder if they could produce documentation to show where the 100K$ went?

One of the stories detailed that- they bought a blood testing machine. Think it was in the cyclingnews one.

 

[sometimerider]

And the fact that this news is only just coming out now tells me they knew it was sketchy transaction.

It isn't "just coming out now". It was well publicized when it happened.

 

[3rensho]

Regardless of any details, the fact that they took the dough and withheld this revelation until they were confronted speaks very poorly of the UCI's credibility. These are the people who should be the standard-bearers for this sport and to know that they are willing to accept money from someone that would create such an enormous conflict of interest is baffling.

Everyone seems to be dwelling on the credibility of Floyd's claim of a hidden positive when I want to know how the UCI can claim impartiality from '01 to now given their suspect handling of the truth.

 

[Dwaynebarry]

Everyone seems to be dwelling on the credibility of Floyd's claim of a hidden positive when I want to know how the UCI can claim impartiality from '01 to now given their suspect handling of the truth.

Well you've seen the Vrijman report they commissioned, no?

If there was a ever a white-washing that was it.

 

[The Weasel]

I still think a racer contributing funds to an organization who's purpose is to find cheats, is sketchy at best. And for the UCI to even consider the donation shows a sever lack of judgement (or corruption) on their end.

Finding cheats is nt their only purpose. Form the UCI site:
What are the aims of the UCI?


The UCI Statutes specify that the aim of the UCI is:

a) to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline cycling under all forms worldwide;

b) to promote cycling in all the countries of the world and at all levels;

c) to organise, for all cycling sport disciplines, world championships of which it is the sole holder and owner;

d) to encourage friendship between all members of the cycling world;

e) to promote sportsmanship and fair play;

f) to represent the sport of cycling and defend its interests before the International Olympic Committee and all national and international authorities;

g) to cooperate with the International Olympic Committee, in particular as regards the participation of cyclists in the Olympic Games.

Promoting and organizing races to further the sport takes money. Why shouldn't individuals, just like corporations, be allowed to contribute to this cause?

 

[3rensho]

Mr. Barry, do you have a link to the actual report? I could only find reaction articles.

I recall the story but not the details. This was related to LA's positives from '99 Tour?
The saddle sore cream incident? (I loved their first album)

 

[MaddSkillz]

. Why shouldn't individuals, just like corporations, be allowed to contribute to this cause?

They were allowed, and the president of the UCI believes it was a mistake to do so... To me and him, it seems the reason is obvious.

Do I really need to explain it to you?

 

[saird]

Wish he'd donate some money to me.

 

[Dave Hickey]

It isn't "just coming out now". It was well publicized when it happened.

+1...I remember when it happened...It wasn't buried..