# USADA Doctor Michael Ashenden Exposes Armstrong Case



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Dr. Michael Ashenden says:

"But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, *its about a conspiracy*. You can find that word often in USADA's charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth."




Whoa, I thought the federal government tried to get Armstrong on this very charge and they dismissed the case because there just was not any evidence. Low and behold now Doctor Michael Ashenden of the USADA admits that is what the USADA's case is against Armstrong. 

The USADA has now been fully exposed with its motives and has now been proven to be conducting nothing more then a witch hunt!

How convenient that the USADA does not have to abide by the standards in the United States Constitution. It is no wonder Armstrong did not fight what is a rigged system that can not be beat.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

The USADA does not have to abide by the constitution because it ISN'T a court of law. 

I'm thinking that a poster in another thread got it right; hey Lance, you need to spend more on lawyers, the ones you have now aren't solving your problems.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

So in your mind because you hate Lance Armstrong it is OK for the USADA to go through the back door to get Armstrong for something the federal government gave up on because there was no laws broken? 

Face it this is not about cleaning up cycling, it was a witch hunt to try and bring down Armstrong, but even at that the USADA failed.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

AntiUSADA said:


> Dr. Michael Ashenden says:
> 
> "But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, *its about a conspiracy*. You can find that word often in USADA's charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth."
> 
> ...


Not the same charge. Do you really think that if one prosecutor decides (not necessarily because of lack of evidence) not to move forward with charges against me for conspiracy to rob ACME Bank, I am immune from any prosecutor from charging me with conspiracy to commit ANY crime?

So if the Feds can't prove that I didn't commit a federal crime, I am immune from prosecution for any state crimes, and I'm also immune from any civil liability too!?! 

Wow.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Nice way to try and twist what the USADA has done. Fail on your part.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

This has never been about one athlete.... It has always been about a conspiracy. That was the basis upon which Novitzky was attempting to go after LA - in part a conspiracy to traffic and distribute PEDs....

Anyone who thinks that the US postal setup was unique, and that no other teams in the peloton had similar doping operations going to what Postal had, has their head in the sand......

Is anyone going to spend tens of millions of dollars to go after Ullrich if he is handed the titles? Anyone think Ullrich was clean? Anyone think that Ullrich's team operated radically differently to Postal? LA has obviously been singled out. His doping violations are no worse in scope than those committed by most of the peloton in those years. What about the other riders after LA and Ullrich? Go down the list and chase them all? 

The whole era was dirty... It was systemic and not limited to LA.... LA didn't create the climate that made doping rampant in the peloton during those years - he just excelled in it. Go after those at the top who allowed the climate of doping to gain a foothold and run rampant. Thats where the conspiracy was - not at Postal......

If it was about cleaning up sport, and not politically motivated the money spent on chasing LA could have been put to far better use. What was the figure? $42million? That buys a lot of testing, research, and education.....


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

You make some great points but then the mob would have to stop hating Armstrong and we can't have that!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The prosecutors and investigators from 4 agencies all agreed to charge Armstrong in the Federal case. A political appointee dropped the case without their input. The charging papers were drawn up for mail fraud, drug distribution, wire fraud, witness tampering. Not sure what you are babbling about 

USADA is pursuing the very real conspiracy by Armstrong, Bruyneel, McQuaid, and Verburggen. As they should.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Babbling. No on e else is sure what he's babbling about, either.

Note to babbling brook. I'm not a Lance hater. Don't assume, and make an arse of your posts.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

Are you so silly, so transparent, so stupid as to make your handle ANTIUSADA?

What a tool. What, exactly, are you Anti with the USADA. Also, the sky is blue, by your logic USADA is conducting a witch hunt? This is, no joke, how weak, feeble and pathetic your argument is.

Sorry you had to find out the tooth fairy isn't real.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The prosecutors and investigators from 4 agencies all agreed to charge Armstrong in the Federal case. A political appointee dropped the case without their input. The charging papers were drawn up for mail fraud, drug distribution, wire fraud, witness tampering. Not sure what you are babbling about
> 
> USADA is pursuing the very real conspiracy by Armstrong, Bruyneel, McQuaid, and Verburggen. As they should.


I'm wondering after having read this article written by 2 lawyers:

http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=20287

if the FDA charges were dropped due to Travis Tygart having been privy to FDA evidence prior to charges being filed. Perhaps someone higher up than Novitzky realized the FDA hadn't followed proper legal procedures and decided to save the FDA from walking into a minefield if they proceeded with legal charges?



2 parts from the article:


(Note the word DURING here. Why was Tygart brought in before the conclusion of the FDA investigation?)

Another truth is Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, was involved in meetings conducted by Novitzky during the FDA’s investigation, which as stated above, failed to have formal charges filed against Armstrong.

The FDA’s and USADA’s methods in building a case against Armstrong appear unconstitutional and unlawful. The prime example of this surrounds the Federal Grand Jury testimony of witnesses subpoenaed by the FDA (USADA does not have Federal Grand Jury subpoena power). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6 states that grand jury testimony shall be kept secret with some exceptions, none of which include leaking that testimony to the CEO of a non-profit, non-governmental entity, such as USADA. Persons not affiliated with the grand jury are not even supposed to know the names of the person(s) testifying, yet somehow it appears USADA obtained those names, and apparently obtained transcripts of the testimony.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> I'm wondering after having read this article written by 2 lawyers:
> 
> http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=20287
> 
> ...


The amount of misinformation crammed into that article is impressive. 

Tygert was present during some witnesses non-Grand Jury testimony at the request of the witness. USADA also enabled some cross-border communication with European agencies

No Grand Jury evidence was shared with USADA. None. 

It is interesting how Lance's defenders are so willing to lie and obfuscate. It is a sign of desperation


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The amount of misinformation crammed into that article is impressive.
> 
> Tygert was present during some witnesses non-Grand Jury testimony at the request of the witness. USADA also enabled some cross-border communication with European agencies
> 
> ...


Just trying to figure this out. If you have specifics as to what is misinformation in that article, please share!

If the grand jury testimony wasn't shared with USADA then what is the basis of USADAs evidence?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> If the grand jury testimony wasn't shared with USADA then what is the basis of USADAs evidence?


Direct witness testimony. USADA took their own depositions. 

This has been covered over, and over, and over. 

The Feds handed over Zero evidence
Armstrong would have access to all that evidence to prepare his defense
Retired athletes have been sanctioned (Ulrich)
USADA's arbitration process is the American way. Arbitration is used hundreds of thousands of times a year

and on, and on. It is filled with misinformation and obfuscation. It is a joke


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Direct witness testimony. USADA took their own depositions.
> 
> This has been covered over, and over, and over.
> 
> ...


Why would anyone voluntarily give direct testimony to USADA voluntarily unless they had an axe to grind with LA?

I can see George Hincapie talking under a Grand Jury subpoena, but voluntarily to USADA?

What is the incentive for giving a statement to USADA if no one was legally compelled to do so?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Why would anyone voluntarily give direct testimony to USADA voluntarily unless they had an axe to grind with LA?
> 
> I can see George Hincapie talking under a Grand Jury subpoena, but voluntarily to USADA?
> 
> What is the incentive for giving a statement to USADA if no one was legally compelled to do so?


Yes, George volunteered. 

Some riders would like to fix some of the mess they helped create. Getting Bruyneel, Marti, Del Moral, Celya, out of the sport is an important step. Showing that nobody is above reproach is important. Exposing the corruption of the UCI is important.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, George volunteered.
> 
> Some riders would like to fix some of the mess they helped create. Getting Bruyneel, Marti, Del Moral, Celya, out of the sport is an important step. Showing that nobody is above reproach is important. Exposing the corruption of the UCI is important.


Is there any reference to George going to USADA voluntarily?

Also in an article you referenced some time ago, it would seem to indicate that the FDA was planning on passing on their evidence to USADA.... Which as mentioned would be illegal?

Lance Armstrong case rolls on, as it should

Don't get me wrong here.... If LA is guilty then nail him. But do it right, do it legally, and do it constitutionally....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Is there any reference to George going to USADA voluntarily?
> 
> Also in an article you referenced some time ago, it would seem to indicate that the FDA was planning on passing on their evidence to USADA.... Which as mentioned would be illegal?
> 
> ...


The Feds should have passed on the Non-Grand Jury evidence. This is legal and they have done so in the past (BALCO). One person chose not to do it this time. The same political appointee who ignored the prosecutors and investigators is sitting on the evidence. Wonder why? 

You will have to ask George, and the over a dozen other witnesses, why they testified. It is nice to see the Omerta finally being broken


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The amount of misinformation crammed into that article is impressive.
> 
> Tygert was present during some witnesses non-Grand Jury testimony at the request of the witness. USADA also enabled some cross-border communication with European agencies
> 
> ...


Prove it, were you there? If you answer is no then you are blowing smoke Falsetti. 

It is interesting how Lance's haters are willing to lie and obfuscate. It is a sign of desperation!


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Feds should have passed on the Non-Grand Jury evidence. This is legal and they have done so in the past (BALCO). One person chose not to do it this time. The same political appointee who ignored the prosecutors and investigators is sitting on the evidence. Wonder why?
> 
> You will have to ask George, and the over a dozen other witnesses, why they testified. It is nice to see the Omerta finally being broken


But you see there is the problem.... Neither the FDA nor USADA have released ANYTHING!

Here's what I think....... Just my 2cents.....

The FDA used millions and well over a year to chase LA, before USADA took over a few months back. There is no way IMO that USADA was able to compile the level of evidence against LA that the FDA did without getting the FDA files and tips from the FDA. Impossible..... Over a year, and tens of millions spent would indicate otherwise.

If evidence was shared it places USADA in the precarious position of only being able to release that evidence which they garnered independent of the FDA investigation. If they release what they have and its weak then they look like fools. If they were indeed given anything from the FDA and they use it, its against the law. And come on really? Tygart was involved with the FDA investigation! You honestly believe USADA got nothing? I bet Tygart knows the whole FDA case.....

I have a sneaking feeling that LA and team knew this. I think they knew that if they didn't contest the charges, then at some point USADA would have to come public with their evidence, and that all USADA had outside of the FDA evidence was a few bits here and there which aren't enough to convict anyone of anything.......

Time will tell if I'm right..... Lets see what USADA comes up with for the UCI!!! Interesting to watch!!!


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

slegros said:


> Is there any reference to George going to USADA voluntarily?
> 
> Also in an article you referenced some time ago, it would seem to indicate that the FDA was planning on passing on their evidence to USADA.... Which as mentioned would be illegal?
> 
> ...


The fact is Falsetti is all over the map trying to act like he is some insider with information no one else has when in reality he does not know any more then you or I do. 

Maybe Falsetti should get some index cards so he can keep up with all his allegations of lance and what has gone on in this abortion/witch hunt of Armstrong.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Maybe this will help you Falsetti:

However, lost amid the celebrations by those who adore Armstrong, and the angst from those who don't, was this quote deep inside news stories that day:

"Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws," said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. "Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing, and *we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation*."


----------



## Wait for me (Sep 7, 2012)

What "exactly" did Lance do that was illegal?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> Maybe this will help you Falsetti:
> 
> However, lost amid the celebrations by those who adore Armstrong, and the angst from those who don't, was this quote deep inside news stories that day:
> 
> "Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws," said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. "Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing, and *we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation*."


Did you read the charging letter? USADA made it clear they did not use any evidence obtained from the Federal case. No matter how large a font you use this fact does not change. 

But of course you knew that.....


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

AntiUSADA said:


> It is a sign of desperation!


Desperation is someone joining a cycling forum and calling themselves "AntiUSADA" and posting in the doping threads!! But thanks, you've given me a good laugh.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

AntiUSADA said:


> So in your mind because you hate Lance Armstrong it is OK for the USADA to go through the back door to get Armstrong for something the federal government gave up on because there was no laws broken?
> 
> Face it this is not about cleaning up cycling, it was a witch hunt to try and bring down Armstrong, but even at that the USADA failed.



If a drug agency like USADA wants to clean up the sport......maybe they should worry about what is going on now and not 10 years ago!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> But you see there is the problem.... Neither the FDA nor USADA have released ANYTHING!
> 
> Here's what I think....... Just my 2cents.....
> 
> ...


You forgot the part about the space aliens. 

The FDA released it's non-grand jury evidence, but the Political appointee did not give it to USADA. Yes, I find this disturbing. 

You need to stop deliberately posting nonsense. There is zero evidence the Fed investigation cost tens of millions. Zero evidence the Feds shared Grand Jury testimony. USADA did not "Take over". 

It is amazing the level of conspiracy theories that develop due to a couple weeks delay


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

He has done nothing illegal. He may have skirted the rules. Big difference. The federal government spent millions of dollars trying to find something Lance did that was illegal and they came up empty. 

The worst part is there is evidence from the mouth of Travis Tygart himself that the federal government may have broken the law by sharing secrete grand jury testimony with Tygart and the USADA.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

You have got to be kidding me with this stuff. I hope Lance is paying you well to waste your time making a fool of yourself.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you read the charging letter? USADA made it clear they did not use any evidence obtained from the Federal case. No matter how large a font you use this fact does not change.
> 
> But of course you knew that.....


Yet you went to trouble to reduce it to a very small size to avert attention to what Travis Tygart said about him and the USADA waiting for the evidence from the government. 

Sorry Falsetti that does not pass the smell test. No matter how small you make the font for comments made by Travis Tygart himself it does not change the fact of what he said. 

But or course you knew that....


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Fireform said:


> You have got to be kidding me with this stuff. I hope Lance is paying you well to waste your time making a fool of yourself.


Wow I did not know I was going to get paid by Lance, when do I expect my check and how much do I get? 

Are you ignoring what Travis Tygart said about him and the USADA waiting for the federal government to hand over their evidence? 

When we justify violating the law to get one person, no one is safe from the system after that. 

I know it might be a little rough but try to think about that for a while and just maybe it will sink in.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

AntiUSADA said:


> Wow I did not know I was going to get paid by Lance, when do I expect my check and how much do I get?
> 
> Are you ignoring what Travis Tygart said about him and the USADA waiting for the federal government to hand over their evidence?
> 
> ...


Slippery slope brought out after post hoc ergo prompter hoc? 

You're on a roll of fallacies. Good on ya.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The prosecutors and investigators from 4 agencies all agreed to charge Armstrong in the Federal case. A political appointee dropped the case without their input.


Please explain why it matters that a "political appointee" dropped the case. You're obviously implying something. Just say it.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

You can always tell when the haters are out of ammo, they always resort to their name calling.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You forgot the part about the space aliens.
> 
> The FDA released it's non-grand jury evidence, but the Political appointee did not give it to USADA. Yes, I find this disturbing.
> 
> ...



Zero evidence that the fed investigation cost tens of millions? Thats right because the FDA is refusing to release the actual costs! All estimates put it in the tens of millions. One estimate I saw put it at something like $42million!!

GOPer blasts FDA's Lance Armstrong investigation at budget hearing - The Hill's Healthwatch
Governmental Waste: The New National Pastime. | THE SPORTS DUMP
Jonathan Littman: Lance Armstrong, the FDA's Most Wanted

You think it was cheap?

Zero evidence that the FDA shared info with USADA? Travis Tygart is quoted as saying he was looking forward to getting the FDAs info. Under your scenario we're to believe that the FDA investigation and USADAs are completely independent when Travis Tygart was brought in on the FDA investigation? Get real....

If you think the FDA investigation was cheap, and that USADA didn't get a copy of the FDA investigation's evidence, I have another one you'll believe: Lance was clean. Based on the criteria you apply to the above he would be....

And I'm not the only one thinking USADA might not have the goods:

To Quote a trial lawyer following the case(from an article you should now be familiar with):

USADA has yet to provide the UCI with its report regarding Armstrong, which suggests there may not be as much, or any of the evidence, they claim to possess.

Maybe this was the plan all along. Maybe the FDA realized it couldn’t win within the constraints and burdens imposed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and decided maybe another entity could prevail that didn’t have those constraints and burdens. Why else would Tygart be participating in meetings conducted by FDA investigators? The strong inferences derived from the witness testimony obtained during the grand jury proceedings couldn’t win the day for the FDA, but the statements did win the day for USADA, because that’s all they needed.


Its obvious the FDA investigation cost tens of millions, and that the FDA shared its information with USADA. Otherwise USADA would have no starting point. You would have everyone believe that USADA picked up independently from the FDA after the FDA failed to bring charges and that the 2 are operating completely independently of each other when we both know that's not the case. The timing of the USADA investigation starting immediately at the conclusion of the FDA investigation is evidence to the contrary - it certainly wasn't coincidence that USADA suddenly decided to go after LA 7 years after his last tour win.......

I've said all along if LA is guilty - nail him. But it has to be kept legal, and that he shouldn't be disproportionately pursued. If its about fairness in sport - he deserves the same treatment as any other doper. Last time I checked I didn't see any federal agencies spending millions pursuing all of the other dopers in those tours.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Zero evidence that the fed investigation cost tens of millions? Thats right because the FDA is refusing to release the actual costs! All estimates put it in the tens of millions. One estimate I saw put it at something like $42million!!
> 
> GOPer blasts FDA's Lance Armstrong investigation at budget hearing - The Hill's Healthwatch
> Governmental Waste: The New National Pastime. | THE SPORTS DUMP
> ...


Do you actually read any of the links you post? None offer any evidence to support any of your ridiculous claims. You don't even realize it wasn't an FDA investigation. 

Don't worry, thanks to the FIA the costs will be public shortly and they are a small fraction of your estimates. 

Let us know when you find anything to support your theory that USADA got evidence from the Feds, so far you have nothing. If you are going to accuse Travis of lying at least have something to support it

If USADA gives the UCI their evidence next week, and it is overwhelming, will stop playing these silly games?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

For the last time:

The USADA does not have the same burden of proof as a criminal trial. All they have to do is show the violation of the USADA/WADA/IOC doping rules that the athlete signed on with and agreed to. And they don't have ANY of the evidence in the case, unless they know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Furthermore, they claim "It's obvious....FDA shared its information with the USADA." No sh!t. But if it's not grand jury testimony, there's nothing stopping the FDA from sharing it with USADA. And it's pretty obvious there's quite a few of Lance's teammates that are willing to talk if you simply ask them.

Lastly, he's not being disproportionately pursued: Marti, Ferrari, Bruyneel and Del Moral all got handed charges/bans as well. How is he being disproportionately pursued.

Enough with the smoke an mirrors crap. We know you love your buddy, we know you're digging for any little straw that MIGHT have a CHANCE of getting him off the hook. Ain't gonna happen, since he's already essentially entered a nolo-contendere plea.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

> You can always tell when the haters are out of ammo, they always resort to their name calling.


Just a bit of advice. As a new guy if you're not a troll, you'll do better posting less. 

Imo, the RBR message boards are the best because the community here has a history and agree or not with each other avoids the silly trolling stuff you're doing. You've started three or four new threads in the 24 hours since you joined and for the most part they're all spam. Free forum, free speech, but when engaging the folks here pro or con, less is usually more.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

AntiUSADA said:


> You can always tell when the haters are out of ammo, they always resort to their name calling.


Babbling; calling someone a hater is name calling. It also isn't very nice. I can only imagine how unpleasant you are in REAL life.


----------



## Wait for me (Sep 7, 2012)

Ill ask the question again: what EXACTLY has Lance done that was illegal?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Wait for me said:


> Ill ask the question again: what EXACTLY has Lance done that was illegal?


USADA is not going to put Lance in Prison. He broke the rules of the sport and he is being sanctioned. 

You can read the charging letter here
USADA Notice Letter Against Lance Armstrong - WSJ.com

Shortly there will be much, much more


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you actually read any of the links you post? None offer any evidence to support any of your ridiculous claims. You don't even realize it wasn't an FDA investigation.
> 
> Don't worry, thanks to the FIA the costs will be public shortly and they are a small fraction of your estimates.
> 
> ...


Have a look at my previous 2 responses, they are self explanatory. I'm not claiming anything. I'm questioning the process based upon my observations and opinions. Which I am entitled to do. I'm not allowed to express concerns over how the process has been handled or present a view which differs from your own? Doing so makes me somehow a believer in space aliens, guilty of spreading lies or of playing silly games? All of which you have accused me of by the way..... You'll notice I have been polite in my responses and refrained from any personal insults.......

The process should not be held to any level of scrutiny because its LA? One should not express concerns over the process because its LA? LA should be brought down at any cost? Should he be pursued more aggressively than anyone else from that era? Its ok that laws and constitutional rights be violated in the process because its LA? How much should be spent? Where do you draw the line? 

It would seem that for some there is no reasonable line. That for some there is a personal element to this which somehow makes it OK in this case to go after one individual with a disproportionate aggression unprecedented in the history of sport. A personal element which makes it OK to ignore any questions regarding the legality, and constitutionality of certain practices in his pursuit. A personal element that creates an environment where anyone who expresses a concern over the scope and legality of the process should be construed as not having a valid opinion and shouted down.

That I not only find distasteful, but frightening.

If USADA has the evidence,and they obtained it legally GREAT!! NAIL HIM!! I hope they bring it forward soon, as I for one am curious to see it!

If they don't, or laws and constitutional rights were broken in the process it raises serious questions. As it should. 

One thing is for certain. Just as LA should be held accountable for his actions, most certainly the FDA and USADA should be held accountable for theirs.... A double standard should not apply.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Can I take your word up on that Falsetti ? After reading Tyler's book, I'm eagerly waiting for the USADA details, which are delayed, and delayed, and delayed. They've always been saying "soon."

I really do hope they bring everything out and don't strike a stupid deal with the UCI where half of the information is withheld because it's too compromising.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> Can I take your word up on that Falsetti ? After reading Tyler's book, I'm eagerly waiting for the USADA details, which are delayed, and delayed, and delayed. They've always been saying "soon."
> 
> I really do hope they bring everything out and don't strike a stupid deal with the UCI where half of the information is withheld because it's too compromising.


Yes, the UCI will get the file in the next few days. The public will have to wait a while though.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

slegros said:


> Have a look at my previous 2 responses, they are self explanatory. I'm not claiming anything. I'm questioning the process based upon my observations and opinions. Which I am entitled to do. I'm not allowed to express concerns over how the process has been handled or present a view which differs from your own? Doing so makes me somehow a believer in space aliens, guilty of spreading lies or of playing silly games? All of which you have accused me of by the way..... You'll notice I have been polite in my responses and refrained from any personal insults.......
> 
> The process should not be held to any level of scrutiny because its LA? One should not express concerns over the process because its LA? LA should be brought down at any cost? Should he be pursued more aggressively than anyone else from that era? Its ok that laws and constitutional rights be violated in the process because its LA? How much should be spent? Where do you draw the line?
> 
> ...


The reason you are being compared to a space alien is because you are repeatedly throwing out all sorts of the same untrue garbage without listening to the responses from people familiar with the global picture. For example, you keep harping about constitutional laws being broken, but the USADA case has nothing to do with the constitution.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

AntiUSADA said:


> You can always tell when the haters are out of ammo, they always resort to their name calling.


Odd comment. Nobody is 'hating' on anything. These subjects have been discussed continually on this forum for several years. 

You came out like a troll, complete with your AntiUSADA moniker, and started picking fights. DF and others have countered your comments. It is yourself who continues to ramp up the negative rhetoric.

You have attached yourself to unoriginal negative attacks in an attempt to out shout someone else - _"The fact is Falsetti is all over the map trying to act like he is some insider with information no one else has when in reality he does not know any more then you or I do."_

Really, opinions are always welcomed, but read thru some of the threads before popping off so strongly.

That was me that neg repped you. :thumbsup:


----------



## EpicX (Mar 11, 2002)

AntiUSADA said:


> Nice way to try and twist what the USADA has done. Fail on your part.


on and on and on... The federal case and the USADA case are looking for answers to two different things:

Feds: If doping took place, where federal funds paid to USPS and then to US Postal cycling used to pay for some or all of that doping?

USADA: Did doping take place? The conspiracy angle just makes it more severe, but the main focus is did they dope.

Notice, the difference here? The feds were only interested in doping as it relates to the purchase of drugs with govt. money. They were NOT interested in whether LA doped from a sporting standpoint. The outcome of that case would have been purely criminal. Although it's likely LA would have been stripped of titles as fallout, sporting sanctions were not the goal of the feds.

So, for those having a hard time with the concept, just because the federal case was stopped does not mean in any way that LA and USPS did not cheat their way to 7 TDF wins. It just means that they probably were smart enough to not spend govt money on it. In light of Tyler's book, it's pretty clear that each rider was responsible for funding their own doping plan as designed by Bruyneel and Ferrari. Not surprising in retrospect that the fed case didn't find what they were after.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

wrong spot.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Tschai said:


> The reason you are being compared to a space alien is because you are repeatedly throwing out all sorts of the same untrue garbage without listening to the responses from people familiar with the global picture. For example, you keep harping about constitutional laws being broken, but the USADA case has nothing to do with the constitution.



What untrue garbage?

Both Sam Sparks, and 2 trial lawyers following the case have stated that they had concerns that proper legal and constitutional guidelines may not have been followed by USADA. I have quoted the lawyers' article in this thread, and judge Sparks' ruling has also been quoted numerous time elsewhere.

I disagree and think it certainly does have something to do with USADA. If USADA hasn't followed proper procedures - and clearly note here I'm not saying they didn't, I'm stating that people with more legal knowledge than myself have expressed concerns to that effect- then it could create a situation where this case is not decided on the basis of the evidence, but is decided on a legal technicality. Which is wrong, and would be a colossal waste.

It also raises concerns as to the methods being used by USADA if legal minds better than my own are expressing concern over the methods used. I'm of the belief that any regulatory agency has an obligation to follow the rules just as the athletes do. Do you believe that suspected doping offenses should be pursued by any means necessary with no regard for laws and constitutional rights?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> What untrue garbage?
> 
> Both Sam Sparks, and 2 trial lawyers following the case have stated that they had concerns that proper legal and constitutional guidelines may not have been followed by USADA. I have quoted the lawyers' article in this thread, and judge Sparks' ruling has also been quoted numerous time elsewhere.
> 
> ...


These two fools you claim are speaking the gospel know absolutely nothing about the USADA's evidence or process. They would simply see that there's no constitutional argument to be found in this case: Armstrong signed an anti-doping charter. He was found to have violated that charter. The only thing they could possibly challenge is the use of FDA evidence in the actual arbitration, which wouldn't be a federal court decision anyway, but an argument in front of the arbitration panel. Armstrong was afforded his constitutional right to a hearing. He declined. How has there been no regard for his rights?

Just because two silly legal talking heads with an agenda say it doesn't make it right.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> What untrue garbage?
> 
> Both Sam Sparks, and 2 trial lawyers following the case have stated that they had concerns that proper legal and constitutional guidelines may not have been followed by USADA. I have quoted the lawyers' article in this thread, and judge Sparks' ruling has also been quoted numerous time elsewhere.
> 
> ...


You can find two lawyers to support almost anything it you pay them. The reality is Sparks tossed out Armstrong's babble. He said there was plenty of due process. The many mistakes, and outright lies, of your two lawyers friends have been pointed out to you multiple times, yet you chose to ignore this. Is this intentional? 

Even Armstrong's lawyer/Agent disagrees with you. Bill Stapleton wrote much of the USADA process.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

AntiUSADA said:


> *The fact is Falsetti is all over the map trying to act like he is some insider with information no one else has when in reality he does not know any more then you or I do.
> *
> Maybe Falsetti should get some index cards so he can keep up with all his allegations of lance and what has gone on in this abortion/witch hunt of Armstrong.


Incorrect. Over the past couple of years, the majority of Falsetti's statements have proven to be true.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

mariomal99 said:


> If a drug agency like USADA wants to clean up the sport......maybe they should worry about what is going on now and not 10 years ago!


4 little words: CON...TIN..U...UM! 

Got that?:thumbsup:


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, the UCI will get the file in the next few days. The public will have to wait a while though.


That is what you said last week and the week before that Falsetti. 

Face it USADA is going to look like a fool if they release what they have but then again I don't hink they will ever release it. 

My advice to you Falsetti is to quit trying to pose as if you know what the USADA is doing because you are not an insider and you have no clue outside of what you read on the internet what the USADA is doing.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

slegros said:


> What untrue garbage?
> 
> Both Sam Sparks, and 2 trial lawyers following the case have stated that they had concerns that proper legal and constitutional guidelines may not have been followed by USADA. I have quoted the lawyers' article in this thread, and judge Sparks' ruling has also been quoted numerous time elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Don't you know that unless you are a Lance Armstrong hater your opinion is invalid. I have clearly said I think Armstrong was using the same drugs everyone else was using yet because I do not bash Armstrong I am considered his fan. I could care less about Lance or any other rider. 

You have raised very valid questions but that gets in the way of the get Lance Armstrong at all costs crowd in this forum and that will not be tolerated. 

Like you I am concerned with the process that has been used to get Armstrong. 

The only thing these kinds of witch hunts do is destroy the sport. Like you have brought up all that money spent trying to get the retired Armstrong could have been better spent on today's riders in today's races. Instead it has been wasted in a witch hunt to bring down Armstrong. 

When all is said and done I doubt you will see Armstrong's name removed from the record books as TDF champion for all seven of the years he won it.


----------



## markrhino (Nov 28, 2011)

Thought people outside of Australia might find this interesting. Its a comedy which dissects the spin and strategies around advertising. This particular episode they talk about Lance Armstrong and the PR strategy surrounding the latest doping allegations.
As well as a good laugh it sheds some interesting perspectives on the whole ordeal.

Episode 3 - Gruen Planet - ABC TV


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

AntiUSADA said:


> Don't you know that unless you are a Lance Armstrong hater your opinion is invalid. I have clearly said I think Armstrong was using the same drugs everyone else was using yet because I do not bash Armstrong I am considered his fan. I could care less about Lance or any other rider.
> 
> You have raised very valid questions but that gets in the way of the get Lance Armstrong at all costs crowd in this forum and that will not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


So do you think it was a level playing field & this is all just a witch hunt? We'll of course you do..

IMO.. LA did more to destroy the sport than any other rider.. turned pro cycling into WWF.... I wonder what he will tell his kids? I"m glad the nature of the dirty sport is coming out and riders can speak out and not live a LIE... but in your perfect world.. riders can continue to live the lie and keep the drug race and ometra... 

And in the end LA may get his way.. riders will continue to just follow along and be SHEEP. very sad.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Funny how the guy so worked up over the USADA process does not even understand it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

AntiUSADA said:


> Don't you know that unless you are a Lance Armstrong hater your opinion is invalid. I have clearly said I think Armstrong was using the same drugs everyone else was using yet because I do not bash Armstrong I am considered his fan. I could care less about Lance or any other rider.
> 
> You have raised very valid questions but that gets in the way of the get Lance Armstrong at all costs crowd in this forum and that will not be tolerated.
> 
> ...


Here we go again. How is this damaging the sport?

How is removing the lying, cheating co-owner of a junior team a bad thing? How is removing Bruyneel (who DSs a protour team) a bad thing? How is removing a drug cheat from professional triathlon a bad thing? How are putting away the doctors, physiologists etc who are still working in the peloton a bad thing?

You're worried that some fat slob at a desk may say "gee, cycling is a dirty sport, I don't think I like it" before he tunes into Monday Night Raw? Seriously, the american public really doesn't give a crap about pro cycling (for the most part) and this isn't going to change anything.


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> Dr. Michael Ashenden says:
> 
> "But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, *its about a conspiracy*. You can find that word often in USADA's charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth."
> 
> ...


I thought the Fed case was about fraud and misuse of tax payer dollars? In any case I am hoping that LA will be called to testify against JB!!!! That would be very interesting indeed!!!


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

AntiUSADA said:


> The only thing these kinds of witch hunts do is destroy the sport.


Yep - catching the dopers is destructive, definitely not the dopers themselves...


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

95zpro said:


> I thought the Fed case was about fraud and misuse of tax payer dollars? In any case I am hoping that LA will be called to testify against JB!!!! That would be very interesting indeed!!!


Why, Armstrong can not be made to testify because the USADA is not a government agency and they have no subpoena powers to force anyone to testify.


----------

