In article <[email hidden]>,
Mike Jacoubowsky said:Quoted message said:In the "If I did it..." version of LA's putative doping, he had a
longstanding relationship with Dr. "Evil" Ferrari as a training
consultant. Any money he paid to Ferrari would be as innocent as the
cash he paid to Chris Carmichael, except that his relationship with
Carmichael almost certainly saw money flowing the other way, owing to
sponsorship and promotional considerations.So that's how money would go from Lance to the person who can provide
the performance enhancement. Note also that in the case of autologous
blood transfusions (or the various rbc-packing tricks that start with
your own blood) there's no drugs to be procured at all.But worst of all, no team in cycling had bigger and less accountable
funds at hand than Tailwind in general and Armstrong in particular. They
could have hidden a team-sized doping program in their catering budget.EPO doesn't cost that much,
But the money to stay silent, when the alternative is so massively
destructive to the individual involved (the athlete whose reputation is at
stake), has to not only be substantial but potentially without end. If Dr.
Ferrari was involved with illegal activities regarding Lance, we're not
talking about the cost of the treatments, we're talking about the potential
cost of blackmail. Not, of course, if Dr. Ferrari is some sort of
unquestionably-honorable man would go to jail for 20 years rather than
implicate one of his former clients. But I doubt that's the case.
Mike, firsthand witnesses who have claimed LA doped:
Frankie Andreu
Emma O'Reilly
As for Dr. Ferrari, I won't question his honour, but I will point out he
has a medical license and a sports-fitness consulting business that
would both be jeopardized by any claim that he helped Armstrong dope.
The thing about blackmail is that it's a very risky crime in any case,
and in this particular situation, most of the people in a position to
blackmail Armstrong would be effectively admitting their own complicity
in doping.
Now, let me be clear: I've long felt the evidence against Armstrong was
in the realm of "enough to slander, insufficient to convict." But there
is a rather large amount of circumstantial evidence.
Let me put it this way: if God offered me an even-odds proposition bet
on "Armstrong doped during his career" I'd bet the "doped" side,
trusting of course that God would be All Fair as well as All-Knowing,
and thus would pay off accurately. I wouldn't bet the rent money, but I
would bet the beer and bike parts money.
But if Vegas offered me the same odds on a proposition like "Armstrong
will be incontrovertibly found to have doped in the next decade" with
incontrovertible evidence being something like a personal admission, a
criminal conviction, or, say, a consensus so strong even TK accepts it,
then I'd bet against it. But I'd only bet the wine and peppermint mocha
money, not the beer money.
--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing