Alice said....

... and I responded, but my comment was too long for the comment box!

Having taken the trouble to write it, I didn't want to waste it, so here it is:

Hi Alice,

Thanks for your comments, those are exactly the sort of well-thought out, (non-ranting) comments that I like to hear.

There have always been positive tests, but yes, some riders were caught/confessed without a posi-test.... in cases where the other evidence was overwhelming - and we are talking about bags of blood that DNA tests prove to be theirs, so that they had no option but to confess. But yes, you are right. Saying "I never had a posi-test" is a lawyers' argument.  It's morally reprehensible, but you can't say he was guilty of doping without a posi-test - or a confession (no chance!) or overwhelming evidence, and although we keep being told about the 1000 page report - read it yet, anyone? All of it? - we also know that it is the same old stuff that the FBI assembled, and then scrapped.

Second, you have made my point much better than I made it! Yes, I fully believe that Lance would use anything, until it was both banned AND detectable. I think we all realise that he is a pretty hard-boiled character, and would fly very close to the line. His own books say as much: he has spent his entire life, private and professional, pushing lines and boundaries. (Yes, and pushing people about, as well.)

Thirdly, this whole issue of him giving money to the UCI for anti-doping does confuse me. Is it possible that he was giving money to fund specific testing, perhaps of doping techniques that he did not use himself? That would make him look good, ("Oh look, I give money to the anti-doping fight") without exposing him to any risk. 

If, on the other hand, he planned to give money to the UCI in order to protect himself from posi-tests, surely he would have given it privately to the guy in charge, not openly to the organisation?

I mean, covering up a posi-test must involve so very many people: testers, technicians, admin staff, data inputters, fax operators, probably janitors and cleaners as well - how would you know that you have covered every single person? As we know from the Contador case, it only takes one lab technician to leak details to the press.

Surely it would be better to bribe the guy in charge, and let him work out who he needed to sub-bribe (if there is such a thing) in order to protect a particular set of specimens. Giving the money openly the the UCI he would have no control over how it was used.

Even then, if he bribed the guy in charge, then as per the Contador problem, I don't think it would work. There have been allegations of Lance doping for a decade, so any technician etc with any real knowledge or proof of a "fixed" test would have gone to the press long since.

I take the point that the UCI, receiving money from Lance, would be highly embarrassed if that funding revealed that Lance had been doping. But, as per above, I don't think they could have concealed it - I think someone would have blabbed. Lance does have a way of making enemies, and amongst all the hundreds of "little people" working at the UCI, at the labs, etc, there must have been a good number of Lance-haters who would gleefully have shopped him, had there been any evidence.

4th- yeah, Dr Ferrari. Speak to Cadel Evans about that one! 

Contador - yes, I read that report and nearly cheered out loud! As you might know, I'm not a big Conti fan, but to hear him stating that until it's proven, he won't believe it, really made my day! I nearly wrote a post on the subject. Indurain likewise: these are serious cycling people, people who should know, and I respect their opinions more than the opinions of the Twitterati.

And that, of course, is the thrust of my argument: I'm not actually debating Lance's guilt or otherwise, but I seriously hate the way the world is ready to string him up without even hearing the evidence properly. Properly = two sides, court of law, perjury etc. Not "some bloke I've never heard of telling a story about some other bloke talking about an email from Lance threatening something". Come on, get real: witness A is "telling a story" ie something he remembers, which he might have got incorrect, about witness B, who's not even a witness, reading something which may or may not have been taken out of context. Even the wording of the story is annoying to me: it was described as "a furious email" from Lance. From reading a couple of Lance's own books, I have formed the impression that a "furious" email from him would have effing and blinding in it, and any threats would be very clear indeed and would probably involve physical harm. It certainly would not be calm and clear, and quite possibly worded by a PR person with oversight from a legal advisor. But enough of that.

Remember Contador? Remember Frankie? Both claim to be innocent of doping, both have been strung up by the press and the Twitterati, and "everyone" believes whoever shouts loudest. Which is, of course, the Twitterati. (I use that term to encompass the journos as well, of course).

And that's what really bugs me.

As for the unlovely Mr McQuaid, I don't think he has a clue what to do, what to say, or how to save cycling. It would be in his interests, you would have thought, to have insisted on a proper court case, as now "everyone" thinks the UCI are a bunch of useless tossers who can be nobbled or bullied into covering up posi-tests.

I'm with you Alice - I'm doubtful about the whole thing, but I am getting quite certain that we will never know the truth...

Coug