# New Charges for Armstrong



## fuzz-tone

Can't believe this isn't posted here yet:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lance...sada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html?hpid=z2


----------



## pretender

"Armstrong has never tested positive."

Who got to Amy Shipley?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Well I guess that answers the question about whether a leopard can change his spots, still doping on his return to the sport.

What do you think the chances are he was on a full-on Ferrari-type program for his foray in triathlon?


----------



## trailrunner68

Dwayne Barry said:


> What do you think the chances are he was on a full-on Ferrari-type program for his foray in triathlon?


I would say 100% This is a dude who has spent his entire professional career using drugs. He cannot even comprehend training and racing without them. It's like bodybuilders who forget how hard it is to train when they are not using roids to recover.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

trailrunner68 said:


> I would say 100% This is a dude who has spent his entire professional career using drugs. He cannot even comprehend training and racing without them. It's like bodybuilders who forget how hard it is to train when they are not using roids to recover.


I think it was Willy Voet way back when the cat was first starting to be let out of the bag who said the riders are also addicted to the feeling of power that comes with it. Feeling strong when riding, climbing mountains faster than you ever did before, etc.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

RkFast said:


> Im NO LA fanboy, but I just dont buy the fact he has doped forever. He DOES have a TON of natural talent and ability.


I'm pretty sure some riders and maybe even a team doctor at the time (?) have talked about Motorola riders getting their doors blown off when they first went to Europe and that's when basically everyone figured out the score and what it took to be competitive.


----------



## Chris-X

trailrunner68 said:


> I would say 100% This is a dude who has spent his entire professional career using drugs. He cannot even comprehend training and racing without them. It's like bodybuilders who forget how hard it is to train when they are not using roids to recover.


Yup and remember he was a Pro from about 16 on.......:cryin:

one other thing,

BOOYAH!!!


----------



## RkFast

trailrunner68 said:


> I would say 100% This is a dude who has spent his entire professional career using drugs. He cannot even comprehend training and racing without them. It's like bodybuilders who forget how hard it is to train when they are not using roids to recover.


I dont buy that. Has anyone used drugs his entire career? LA was kicking ass at every level of competition he ever participated in. You mean to tell me when he was on the national circuit in his early 20s and blowing the doors off everyone he was doping, too? When he was doing tris in his teens he was doping, too? Come on.

Im NO LA fanboy, but I just dont buy the fact he has doped forever. He DOES have a TON of natural talent and ability.


----------



## DIRT BOY

They need to just let this go!


----------



## Creakyknees

*Looks like LA won't be doing the Kona Ironman after all...*

USADA levels doping charges at Armstrong

/ yes mods I know... wanted to make sure everyone else sees it too.


----------



## spookyload

DIRT BOY said:


> They need to just let this go!


Winner. Save the millions of tax payers dollars.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Creakyknees said:


> Setting aside questions of guilt, now or long ago.. where does the USADA get the authority to pull this kind of crap? No tests, just accusations, and you're bizanned? WTF?


I don't think that accurately reflects their evidence, but they get the authority from the athletes who agree to compete under the WADA code when they take out their racing license with an organization that is a signatory to WADA.

If you race USCF you've given them the authority to do the same to you


----------



## Creakyknees

Setting aside questions of guilt, now or long ago.. where does the USADA get the authority to pull this kind of crap? No tests, just accusations, and you're bizanned? WTF?


----------



## spookyload

I am pretty sure everyone in the world will know about this within a week. Media outlets love controversy. This will be on every channel.


----------



## RkFast

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm pretty sure some riders and maybe even a team doctor at the time (?) have talked about Motorola riders getting their doors blown off when they first went to Europe and that's when basically everyone figured out the score and what it took to be competitive.


Thats when he went pro. Yahoos in this thread are implying he doped since he was in the 10th grade back in Texas, which IMO is mindless.


----------



## JasonB176

Big surprise, he's denying it:

Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA Allegation - Lance Armstrong

Guilty or innocent, I was looking forward to seeing how he did in the triathlon and am disappointed he won't be able to compete now.


----------



## trailrunner68

RkFast said:


> I dont buy that. Has anyone used drugs his entire career? LA was kicking ass at every level of competition he ever participated in. You mean to tell me when he was on the national circuit in his early 20s and blowing the doors off everyone he was doping, too?


Do you mean the time he was on the U.S. national team where Chris Carmichael was injecting the amateur kids on the team with dope? That time?

Then there are the persistent rumors that he was using steroids in high school.

Like I said, this dude has likely been doping for twenty five years.


----------



## jorgy

Creakyknees said:


> Setting aside questions of guilt, now or long ago.. where does the USADA get the authority to pull this kind of crap? No tests, just accusations, and you're bizanned? WTF?


Rinse and repeat. Boggles my mind, and I think Lance probably did dope at some point(s) in his career.

From cyclingnews:

_The Washington Post reported on a copy of a 15-page letter sent to Lance Armstrong by USADA on Tuesday. In it, the agency alleged that some of Armstrong's blood samples from 2009 and 2010 were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."_

While the biological passport was *theoretically* a good idea, I can't see results from it--absent an actual positive doping test--ever passing muster for a conviction. Haven't some of it's former scientific proponents already dismissed it's usefulness? I don't even see why it would be bothered for an indictment.


----------



## SicBith

Wasn't Contador allowed to compete during his investigation? It would have been great to see where he would have placed in IMs. This is certainly unfortunate timing.


----------



## trailrunner68

Creakyknees said:


> Setting aside questions of guilt, now or long ago.. where does the USADA get the authority to pull this kind of crap? No tests, just accusations, and you're bizanned? WTF?


These are Armstrong's blood values from 2009. Let him explain the two distinct populations.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

jorgy said:


> While the biological passport was *theoretically* a good idea, I can't see results from it--absent an actual positive doping test--ever passing muster for a conviction.


I don't follow this stuff like I use to, but haven't there already been a few riders suspended on the basis of the Biopassport?

Although I can't recall any in the U.S.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> Yup and remember he was a Pro from about 16 on.......:cryin:
> 
> one other thing,
> 
> BOOYAH!!!


I don't think you know how to use the term booyah.


----------



## Creakyknees

....must be Tour de France time again!


----------



## Dwayne Barry

jtompilot said:


> Why didnt they ban Lance in 2009 or 2010. Three years is a little late. If a test is positive it should be brought up immediately.


Very good question that USA cycling and UCI officials should answer.


----------



## jorgy

Dwayne Barry said:


> I don't follow this stuff like I use to, but haven't there already been a few riders suspended on the basis of the Biopassport?
> 
> Although I can't recall any in the U.S.


I can only think of Gusev, who was fired by Astana, and then I think won an award against them. I don't know if the UCI ever even did anything.

In my mind, the passport is really on good for identifying those folks that should receive extra scrutiny.


----------



## jtompilot

Why didnt they ban Lance in 2009 or 2010. Three years is a little late. If a test is positive it should be brought up immediately.


----------



## trailrunner68

spookyload said:


> Agreed. Mom was not wealthy divrocee making millions to support her sons drug habit. He did not come from a rich background.


At that time you could not throw a rock onto a Texas high football field without hitting a steroid user. You did not have to be Daddy Warbucks to dope.


----------



## spookyload

RkFast said:


> Thats when he went pro. Yahoos in this thread are implying he doped since he was in the 10th grade back in Texas, which IMO is mindless.


Agreed. Mom was not wealthy divrocee making millions to support her sons drug habit. He did not come from a rich background.


----------



## spookyload

trailrunner68 said:


> These are Armstrong's blood values from 2009. Let him explain the two distinct populations.


Did he race in 2008? If I remember right, he ran the NYC marathon. He also went back and forth to Vail a lot, but I don't know enough about Hemo levels to know if that matters. 

Bigger conspiracy. Maybe Cheryl Crow dumped Lance for stealing her EPO during cancer treatments.


----------



## jorgy

Do you have a control set of data, i.e., from a rider with a similar 'talent' to Armstrong, who is known to not be doping and then competes in the TdF and has his blood tests at the same time of day?

Yea, the data look suspicious to those of us without any knowledge of how blood values vary with training and nutrition. But how different are they to how they'd look if he wasn't doping? No clue on my uneducated part.

IMO, there's nothing for Armstrong to explain unless an *expert* can explain why the values are suspicious.



trailrunner68 said:


> These are Armstrong's blood values from 2009. Let him explain the two distinct populations.


----------



## Chris-X

RkFast said:


> Thats when he went pro. Yahoos in this thread are implying he doped since he was in the 10th grade back in Texas, which IMO is mindless.


I know you're no fanboy but the fact is the guy was doping from at least his association with Carmichael and that was 18 or 19.

If you can't admit that you're in denial.

Also, not everybody is so impressed with Wonderboy's supposed incredible natural talent.

As for the people who now engaged in trifles like "letting it go." Armstrong himself is the reason this has gone on for so long. It's just a silly argument that he should benefit from his intransigence.


----------



## ronbo613

> This is a dude who has spent his entire professional career using drugs. He cannot even comprehend training and racing without them.


Really? Do you have proof or are you just another internet blowhard? Maybe Lance did drugs, maybe he didn't, how can you be so sure without any direct connection to the issue?
If I see you at the playground with a five year old kid, can I call you a child molester, DUDE?
No matter what you or anybody else thinks, it's innocent until proven guilty(unless you are in politics or work on Wall Street).


----------



## King Arthur

*LA formally charged*

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/c...doping-charges-against-lance-armstrong-061312

Now they have finally done it. Does this mean if he is found guilty he gives back stuff?


----------



## stevesbike

I get the sense some haven't read the report yet - this is a massive set of charges spanning from 1998-2011, including numerous drugs and distribution.


----------



## jorgy

stevesbike said:


> I get the sense some haven't read the report yet - this is a massive set of charges spanning from 1998-2011, including numerous drugs and distribution.


Accusations? So what. At some point, a prosecutor needs to have the sense to realize when s/he should cut their losses. Example: Today the feds said they wouldn't re-try John Edwards.

Given any federal agency operates on limited resources, tough decisions have to be made.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

stevesbike said:


> I get the sense some haven't read the report yet - this is a massive set of charges spanning from 1998-2011, including numerous drugs and distribution.


Is the letter available somewhere now?

Edit: Never mind, got it.


----------



## OldChipper

Seems a violation of due process and Armstrong should be able to get injunctive relief. Banning him from competition before a final determination is made seems premature. If he's ultimately cleared, seems like he could recover damages for lost earnings at a minimum. 

FWIW, I'm agnostic on Lance and drug testing professional athletes in general.


----------



## trailrunner68

jorgy said:


> Accusations? So what. At some point, a prosecutor needs to have the sense to realize when s/he should cut their losses. Example: Today the feds said they wouldn't re-try John Edwards.
> 
> Given any federal agency operates on limited resources, tough decisions have to be made.


Armstrong's own arrogance is responsible. He could have retired, sat on a beach, and not hired PR people to keep him in the news. He could have kept quiet and just enjoyed his money. But his ego would not allow him to do that. He had to keep poking the bear. He unretired and tried to dope his way to an eighth title. When that did not work out, he switched to triathlon. Until the provisional suspension today, he was racing as a professional triathlete. He kept poking the bear until it swatted him. Don't try to blame the bear. Blame Armstrong's stupidity.

If the USADA cannot go after current professional athletes then who are they supposed to go after?


----------



## Chris-X

*spare me*



SicBith said:


> I don't think you know how to use the term booyah.


the pedantics!

Urban Dictionary: booyah


----------



## jorgy

trailrunner68 said:


> If the USADA cannot go after current professional athletes then who are they supposed to go after?


Ones they actually have evidence--either a positive dope test or testimony from the doctor that actually prepared and administered the transfusion--against.


----------



## jswilson64

trailrunner68 said:


> These are Armstrong's blood values from 2009. Let him explain the two distinct populations.


As someone who works with statistics and charts like this every day, I'd want to see the actual data before saying there are two distinct sets of data points. I'm pretty sure I could take the same data and color code it on some date ranges and make it look even worse for Lance, or worse for the USADA. The cutoff between May and June 2009 - if we roll that back to April, does it suddenly cloud the picture? What's so special about June 1, 2009, and why should that be the cutoff?


----------



## Chris-X

*It would?*



SicBith said:


> Wasn't Contador allowed to compete during his investigation? It would have been great to see where he would have placed in IMs. This is certainly unfortunate timing.


Are you also a Pro Wrestling and Bodybuilding fan?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

jorgy said:


> Ones they actually have evidence--either a positive dope test or testimony from the doctor that actually prepared and administered the transfusion--against.


Why would a doctor's word about doping a rider be worth any more or less than testimony from any other eyewitness to the doping?


----------



## Coolhand

Here is the velonews link:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/usada-levels-doping-charges-at-armstrong_223773


----------



## trailrunner68

The 15 page letter,

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf


----------



## jorgy

Dwayne Barry said:


> Why would a doctor's word about doping a rider be worth any more or less than testimony from any other eyewitness to the doping?


Because if the 'eyewitness' didn't prepare the infusion, how do they _really_ know what was in it? Saline drips were only banned a couple years ago.

Here's how I envision questioning of someone like GH might go:

LA's Lawyer: Hello, Mr. Hincapie. Would you say cycling is an individual or a team sport?

Hincapie: It's a team sport.

LAL: Knowing it's a team sport, does the fastest or strongest rider in a race usually win?

H: Often, but not always.

LAL: Do you agree that the team and the team's tactics are important for a racer to win a race?

H: Yes.

LAL: It must be very important for riders on the team 'domestiques' to be very motivated to ride for their designated team leader.

H: Yes, it is.

LAL: As a domestique, would you be more motivated to ride for a leader that you knew was doing everything he could to prepare for and win a race?

H: Yes.

LAL: Do cyclists ever employ ‘head games’ or psychological tricks in the course of competition or preparing for competition, as they might in many other sports?

H: Of course.

LAL: Wasn't LA known for his psychological toughness?

H: Yes.

LAL: In your deposition, you stated you saw LA take intravenous doping products, did you not?

H: Yes.

LAL: Did you prepare these infusions yourself?

H: Of course not.

LAL: How did you know they were, in fact, doping products?

H: LA told me they were.


----------



## Steve B.

I am totally baffled as to how they intend to prove any drug use. All they have is testimony from fellow riders and doctor(s), no actual positive tests.

Don't their own rules require a positive test result before they can take action ?.

Granted that they have something like 10 different testimonies that were given to the Justice Dept., and that they have access to (not sure the legality of THAT, either) but I think that's what they legally call "hearsay". 

I think they want to strip him of every win and title. 

I personally think he doped, but this is a witch hunt.


----------



## scottzj

What I dont understand is why they wanted years to decide to do this? Hmm And to strip him of all his wins.......I mean really? Oh well, media love this stuff.


----------



## trailrunner68

scottzj said:


> What I dont understand is why they wanted years to decide to do this? Hmm And to strip him of all his wins.......I mean really? Oh well, media love this stuff.


The USADA held back while the feds were investigating. As a result of the investigation the USADA got a lot more information. When a political decision was made not to charge Armstrong criminally, the USADA made it clear that they would go forward.


----------



## danielc

Does this have anything to do with Hincapie retiring?


----------



## Robert1

*New doping charges against Armstrong yet again*

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/s...g-charges.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Lance's response

Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA Allegation - Lance Armstrong


----------



## jorgy

To my untrained legal eye, the letter looks like something from bizarro land. USADA has no power to convict anyone of a crime. It does have the ability to sanction athletes, and I suppose doctors, trainers, etc. But if Armstrong is the only American the other 'indictments' are just brazen ankle-biting. RadioShack is registered in Luxembourg, IIRC. 

Armstrong's lawyers will depose the witnesses used as the basis of the "formal action." It's likely at that point, it would be clear this is a losing case.

Now, however, they've potentially cost LA a chance to compete at IM France and IM Kona. If this "formal action" falls apart, I would not be surprised for LA to reverse course and go after a monetary award from USADA. Is taxpayer money funding USADA?



trailrunner68 said:


> The 15 page letter,
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf


----------



## Barry Muzzin

Steve B. said:


> Granted that they have something like 10 different testimonies that were given to the Justice Dept., and that they have access to (not sure the legality of THAT, either) but I think that's what they legally call "hearsay". .


You thought wrong. It is called "eyewitness testimony" and it is used to convict criminals everyday. It is only "hearsay" if the first person (the person providing the testimony) did not have direct knowledge of the act.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

jorgy said:


> To my untrained legal eye, the letter looks like something from bizarro land. USADA has no power to convict anyone of a crime. It does have the ability to sanction athletes, and I suppose doctors, trainers, etc. But if Armstrong is the only American the other 'indictments' are just brazen ankle-biting. RadioShack is registered in Luxembourg, IIRC.
> 
> Armstrong's lawyers will depose the witnesses used as the basis of the "formal action." It's likely at that point, it would be clear this is a losing case.
> 
> Now, however, they've potentially cost LA a chance to compete at IM France and IM Kona. If this "formal action" falls apart, I would not be surprised for LA to reverse course and go after a monetary award from USADA. Is taxpayer money funding USADA?


There was a report a couple of weeks ago where Armstrong has supposedly said he won't fight the charges.


----------



## Local Hero

What a waste.


----------



## C6Rider

The good Doctor was expecting this to happen. I'm looking forward to him checking in.


----------



## badge118

Okay first let me say I think LA doped. Second let me say I am disturbed by how the USADA is dealing with this. Please also note I am coming at this from a perspective of one familiar with the traditional court sstems.

As an example



> In the 15-page charging letter obtained by The Post, USADA made previously unpublicized allegations against Armstrong, alleging it collected blood samples from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood ma*nipu*la*tion including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”


It was my understanding that you are either positive for EPO or you are not toi be declared "positive." It is also my understanding that if there were such clear indications using the bilogical passport program then he could have been suspended or banned then. Heck in 2008 the UCI noted that 23 athletes were under the gun due to the Biological passport. 

It is in essence, atm, the vagueness of the case that concerns me the most. Essentially this. Justice imo should be blind. If you pursue a case you must pursue each case with the same vigor and determination. Simply because you believe one person is getting away with some thing, or they are a higher profile target, is no cause to push the envelope in their case and their case only. It allows Armstrong to do exactly what he is doing. While it is of course spin, with the exception of his denial of doping (largely implied) what he states in his response is largely true. If 10 athletes are prepared to testify and have direct knowledge then they too are technically part of the conspiracy and likely doped. Without coroborating evidence that meets the requirements of the WADA code. 

In a criminal case you can not base a case or bring a charge solely on the testimony of unindicted co-conspirators. There is a reason for this. People to save their asses and the livelyhoods will often say just about anything. That seems to be what they are doing here. Basically they are saying "we have X athletes that will testify they were given doping products etc" by Armstrong and "because of this statement these odd test results MUST mean that he was doping." Likely? Absolutely. Is it messy shady and do I think such "damn the spirit of the rules we need to get this SOB because people see him as a hero and we think he is a doper!!" Yes to that as well imo.

It is a fact of life. In order for a system to keep the face of being a prosecutorial body and NOT a persecutorial body, sometimes the bad guys gets away with it. Now unless Armstrong has changed his mind and choses to fight it we will never really know the strength of the USADA's case and we will never know if some of their arguably fast and loose plays with the rules are valid. I say fast and loose plays becaus the case they are basing the breaking of the SOL is based on a guy who lied in a USADA hearing before then later came out and said he doped. Lying hile under oath and lying simply in the court of public opinion are two very different things. Every criminal tries to cover up their crimes and if you can simply say "well they didn't dope in public...they hid in their bed room and used a pre paid Visa check card to buy the stuff so they concealed their doping and it doesn't matter if it happened 12 years ago" then you might as well just throw out the rules and let an inquisiton become the rule of the day.


----------



## C6Rider

The good Doctor was expecting this to happen. I'm looking forward to him checking in.


----------



## jorgy

Ironman has taken no time in apparently scrubbing him from their website _a la_ Stalin:









On Slowtwitch, Dan Empfield (who is friends with Armstong) has a good editorial. Excerpt:
_I’m a process guy. If there is anything to American exceptionalism, it is this: We have an unusually admirable attachment to process. Imagine any other country in the world working through the presidential election of 2004 as seamlessly as this country did. We behaved so well because we are a country of laws, not men. Our processes trump our personalities.

If Lance is righteously popped, end of story. That’s our process. We must abide by it, honor it, and live with it. Lance should be banned from triathlon for the requisite time period, and WTC should not make an exception in his case (not that it would).

Still, I think the onus is on USADA to lay out the case. I’d like to express here some things that bother me. Travis Tygart, who is USADA’s front man and someone who we’ve interviewed here, is a lawyer by trade. Therefore, he knows the difference between evidence and rumor. According to today’s Post article referenced above, the 15-page letter sent to Armstrong by USADA informing him of his ban contains the allegation by “Martial Saugy, the director of an anti-doping lab in Switzerland, [who] stated that Armstrong’s urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland indicated EPO use.” But the Post article further recounts an interview it conducted with Saugy last year, in which Saugy stated that the sample was merely “suspicious," and that “We did not do the additional analysis. It will never be sufficient to say, in fact, it was positive… I will never go in front of a court with that type of thing.”
Three or four urban myths and phantom rumors does not equal one piece of admissible, actionable evidence. Tygart knows this or, if he’s forgotten, he needs to go back and audit that course in law school. In fact, I did not read anything in the Post article that constitutes evidence. The Post article references blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” I’m left with this question: Were these samples found, by a WADA accredited lab, to be an adverse finding? Or, were these samples indicative of a bio passport anomaly? If so, that’s righteous evidence. But, this is 2012. Why are we hearing this now, rather than back when the violation took place?

I'm bothered when rumors or hints are presented as evidence. Further, if you're the sort of person who's willing to present non-evidence as evidence, and I catch you at it, it makes me cast a jaundiced eye at the rest of your case.

I hope Lance Armstrong decides to take this up with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, not because I’m a blind believer in the innocence of those whom I want to be innocent, rather because I’d like to see USADA’s claims subjected to a transparent airing in an adversarial setting._


----------



## badge118

Oh i think only a fool didn't expect it. The problem is this. First how solid are the USADA's various thoughts on SOL and the use primarily of unindicted co-conspirators rather than hard evidence? If LA sticks to his prior letter we may never know because he won't fight the case to preserve the bulk of his public good will. Don't forget the majority of his fans are not cycling fans. They are joe six pack americans who see him as a champion for cancer causes and one persecuted by "the european establishment" (remember cycling isn't REALLY an American sport.)

If he fought the case it would do more harm than good. I suspect he would win the SOL battle and if he did that I hope they have witnesses that aren't Landis, Hamilton and Hincapie, Andrieu etc. because they would then be stuck with a time frame where they were not present. Then even when he was nailed for that more narrow time frame a legitimate loss would hurt him even with Joe six pack. Not contesting the case however helps him BUT imo hurts the system instead.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

badge118 said:


> If LA sticks to his prior letter we may never know because he won't fight the case to preserve the bulk of his public good will. Don't forget the majority of his fans are not cycling fans. They are joe six pack americans who see him as a champion for cancer causes and one persecuted by "the european establishment" (remember cycling isn't REALLY an American sport.)


I think this is it. His fan base is largely clueless and/or so deluded they just repeat the apologetic mantras his camp puts out. He loses the least here by not fighting it.

The spanner in the works is that he clearly must not have seen this coming, perhaps suffering some sort of self-delusional teflon Don syndrome, or he wouldn't have committed to triathlon the way he has. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fight this, although I suspect there are legal ramifications leading to his lawyers advising him not to.


----------



## Cableguy

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong's own arrogance is responsible. He could have retired, sat on a beach, and not hired PR people to keep him in the news. He could have kept quiet and just enjoyed his money. But his ego would not allow him to do that.


Same reason Michael Jordan made a come back, right? Surely Armstrong didn't just miss pursuing his passion and grow tired of retirement.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> Oh i think only a fool didn't expect it. The problem is this. First how solid are the USADA's various thoughts on SOL and the use primarily of unindicted co-conspirators rather than hard evidence? If LA sticks to his prior letter we may never know because he won't fight the case to preserve the bulk of his public good will. Don't forget the majority of his fans are not cycling fans. They are joe six pack americans who see him as a champion for cancer causes and one persecuted by "the european establishment" (remember cycling isn't REALLY an American sport.)
> 
> If he fought the case it would do more harm than good. I suspect he would win the SOL battle and if he did that I hope they have witnesses that aren't Landis, Hamilton and Hincapie, Andrieu etc. because they would then be stuck with a time frame where they were not present. Then even when he was nailed for that more narrow time frame a legitimate loss would hurt him even with Joe six pack. Not contesting the case however helps him BUT imo hurts the system instead.


If he does not contest it then he will lose all seven titles. If he does contest it then he will have pretty much every American teammate testifying against him while blood and hormone levels are used as corroborative evidence.

The document also references acts of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, and other means used to conceal the conspiracy. If Armstrong wants to contest the SOL then he will have to deal with that. I doubt he wants that sort of thing to leak out to the general public.


----------



## OldChipper

WTF is a reticulocyte?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

OldChipper said:


> WTF is a reticulocyte?


A new immature blood cell. I believe the way the test works is that you should have a fairly consistent level of them as there is a study death and regeneration of blood cells. But if you're manipulating blood with EPO or transfusions, you screw up the level.

I think what they are saying is that Armstrong was basically using EPO in conjunction with transfusions to attempt to mask the use of one with the other.


----------



## Doggbike

RkFast said:


> I dont buy that. Has anyone used drugs his entire career? LA was kicking ass at every level of competition he ever participated in. You mean to tell me when he was on the national circuit in his early 20s and blowing the doors off everyone he was doping, too? When he was doing tris in his teens he was doping, too? Come on.
> 
> Im NO LA fanboy, but I just dont buy the fact he has doped forever. He DOES have a TON of natural talent and ability.


Didn't he go through the same route as Strock and Kaiter?

You're right though to a point - according to allegations made by Steve Swart the heavy epo started later. I guess he was one of the people that testified so we'll see if his stories are corroborated.


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> If he does not contest it then he will lose all seven titles. If he does contest it then he will have pretty much every American teammate testifying against him while blood and hormone levels are used as corroborative evidence.
> 
> The document also references acts of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, and other means used to conceal the conspiracy. If Armstrong wants to contest the SOL then he will have to deal with that. I doubt he wants that sort of thing to leak out to the general public.


What acts of perjury? I can not recall him ever testifying in a criminal or civil case under oath. As for witness intimidation who would testify to that? Other than the one case in the TdF which related to Ferrari's case, not his, again you have the issue of un-indicted co-conspirators. 

The other issue is even with the testimony of former teammates the rules from WADA are pretty clear on what is and what is not a positive. After 2008 you have the bio pass port program (the program can not be retroactively used) but that is within the statute of limitations so those hormone levels etc would not involve all tours.

Of course he likely won't contest it. I already noted why he won't, he has far more to loose than gain. My wish for him to contest it is because I think A LOT of the counts against him would get tossed. If you look at the case where the USADA busted the SOL in detail A LOT of the charges got kicked there and the arbitration panel basically told the USADA they were very shady when it came to those charges. 

As time has gone on I think the various anti doping panels in their zealousness to root out doping have begun to play fast and loose with certain due process rules. While fighting the case would be bad for LA I think it would be good for the system.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> What acts of perjury? I can not recall him ever testifying in a criminal or civil case under oath. As for witness intimidation who would testify to that? Other than the one case in the TdF which related to Ferrari's case, not his, again you have the issue of un-indicted co-conspirators.


He committed perjury during a deposition for the SCA arbitration. During that time he intimidated several witnesses intto lying under other. If word on the street is to be believed then he has engaged in similar acts during the last two years.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

badge118 said:


> I think he did see it coming hence his announcement that he would not fight it a couple weeks ago. That preemptive letter basically laid the ground work for his "I am a martyr" play with his joe six pack fan base.
> 
> I am curious to know if/how much influence that letter had on the USADA bringing the case forward.


I guess it depends on the time frame, why the commitment to triathlon knowing he wouldn't be able to follow it through?


----------



## badge118

Dwayne Barry said:


> I think this is it. His fan base is largely clueless and/or so deluded they just repeat the apologetic mantras his camp puts out. He loses the least here by not fighting it.
> 
> The spanner in the works is that he clearly must not have seen this coming, perhaps suffering some sort of self-delusional teflon Don syndrome, or he wouldn't have committed to triathlon the way he has. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fight this, although I suspect there are legal ramifications leading to his lawyers advising him not to.


I think he did see it coming hence his announcement that he would not fight it a couple weeks ago. That preemptive letter basically laid the ground work for his "I am a martyr" play with his joe six pack fan base. 

I am curious to know if/how much influence that letter had on the USADA bringing the case forward.


----------



## thechriswebb

I know people feel so strongly about seeing him burn but I am really over this.

I am not a deluded person invested in the Lance Armstrong mythology and I believe that people convicted of doping charges should be punished. However, I am in agreement with all of those who say that this looks like an ambiguous mess from USADA. Regardless of how sure people may be that he doped, it doesn't make sense to throw the book at somebody (even if they may deserve it) by means that are outside of the scope of due procedure. The papers I read sounded to me like: "we really think that you doped and we decided that some stuff from three years ago could possibly look a little fishy and somebody told me that they saw you dope and we really feel like you did so you are *BANNED* from competing in anything at all effective now and the rules say to ban people for two years but we think you are extra bad so we are going to try and erase all of your results and ban you FOREVER if we can."

Even if I hated Lance Armstrong and desperately wanted to see him punished for it, I couldn't support this mess. 

Witch hunt.


----------



## badge118

Dwayne Barry said:


> I guess it depends on the time frame, why the commitment to triathlon knowing he wouldn't be able to follow it through?


Because that would mess with being a martyr. He plays the martyr and continues with his life as normal until his "persecutors" make him stop.


----------



## Doggbike

badge118 said:


> What acts of perjury? I can not recall him ever testifying in a criminal or civil case under oath. As for witness intimidation who would testify to that?


As for witness intimidation the account of his meeting with Tyler in the restaurant at the ski resort could be read multiple ways. As could his chasing down of Simeoni the Ferrari whistleblower. Former staff and friends such as Emma O, Betsy and Mike Anderson may have something to say on that top as well, unfortunately.

Maybe he thought that buy buying a chunk of Ironman it was going to be profitable anyway as he added percieved value by associating his name with it? Maybe the racing was just secondary?


----------



## thechriswebb

Armstrong And Authorities Comment On Doping Charges | Cyclingnews.com

So apparently the UCI didn't know anything about this?

Armstrong comes out swinging, but will he fight?

And if even the USADA is saying that no one is guilty yet, how can such an emphatic ban be implemented. The WTC that oversees triathlons says that they don't allow athletes under investigation to compete. Does that mean that if I don't want a triathlete to compete, I can just make a big enough stink to have an investigation opened up, even if the conviction is doomed to fail, and the said athlete could be banned from the events that I don't want them to compete in during the investigation?


----------



## pedalruns

thechriswebb said:


> Witch hunt.


This makes me laugh! So does.. "waste of tax payers dollars", "never tested positive"... and "just let it go" 


This was the lead story on National News (U.S.).. ABC news said "this is one of the most compelling doping cases ever" 

The letter "alleges that Armstrong and five former cycling team associates — three doctors including Italian physician Michele Ferrari, one trainer and team manager Johan Bruyneel— engaged in a massive doping conspiracy from 1998-2011, and that “the witnesses to the conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists . . .” I guess we know why Hincapie retired! 

Happy Tuesday!


----------



## thechriswebb

pedalruns said:


> This makes me laugh! So does.. "waste of tax payers dollars", "never tested positive"... and "just let it go"
> 
> 
> This was the lead story on National News (U.S.).. ABC news said "this is one of the most compelling doping cases ever"
> 
> The letter "alleges that Armstrong and five former cycling team associates — three doctors including Italian physician Michele Ferrari, one trainer and team manager Johan Bruyneel— engaged in a massive doping conspiracy from 1998-2011, and that “the witnesses to the conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists . . .” I guess we know why Hincapie retired!
> 
> Happy Tuesday!



What is so compelling? It sounds like the same stuff we've heard before? 

Yes, I think that it is a waste of resources. It is too late I believe for any sort of conviction to be successful in contributing to the determent of potential dopers. It is expensive and at this point there is not much to accomplish other than satisfying the people who want to see him punished so badly. 

I'm not invested in the myth and Lance Armstrong is not my hero. I also think this has been handled very badly and it has become a debacle and I just want it to go away.


----------



## tbgtbg

trailrunner68 said:


> If he does not contest it then he will lose all seven titles.


And who will they give these titles too?? who down the list is a known non-doper??


----------



## pedalruns

thechriswebb said:


> What is so compelling? It sounds like the same stuff we've heard before?
> 
> Yes, I think that it is a waste of resources. It is too late I believe for any sort of conviction to be successful in contributing to the determent of potential dopers. It is expensive and at this point there is not much to accomplish other than satisfying the people who want to see him punished so badly.
> 
> I'm not invested in the myth and Lance Armstrong is not my hero. I also think this has been handled very badly and it has become a debacle and I just want it to go away.


Here is the link to the whole document... It is pretty massive... and they have to respond by June 22nd or...

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

Not much to accomplish? There is wrong and right... this is so far on the 'wrong' side it is sad.. and it does need to go away, but the truth needs to be told and finally it is. I also wonder about Bruyneel's future, his name is first on the list!


----------



## thechriswebb

tbgtbg said:


> And who will they give these titles too?? who down the list is a known non-doper??


I guess they could split them between Sastre, Zubeldia, and Leipheimer?


----------



## trailrunner68

thechriswebb said:


> I guess they could split them between Sastre, Zubeldia, and Leipheimer?


Leipheimer? Leipheimer is supposedly one of the riders who talked. He was also doping as an amateur.


----------



## trailrunner68

nOOky said:


> I really feel that this should be just stopped. Not because of who it is or because I am tired of it, or that my tax payer dollars are being wasted. The simple truth is that if L.A. doped, everybody else more than likely did also. All things being equal among dopers, he still had either more ability or talent than the rest of the cheaters. Dopers don't necessarily have to train less to acquire superior results, in fact they may train harder because the recovery is that much more enhanced.


Here is an easy way to stop the expenditure of money. Armstrong can stop lying. That is all it will take. He stops lying, accepts responsibility for what he did, and everyone can move on.


----------



## nOOky

I really feel that this should be just stopped. Not because of who it is or because I am tired of it, or that my tax payer dollars are being wasted. The simple truth is that if L.A. doped, everybody else more than likely did also. All things being equal among dopers, he still had either more ability or talent than the rest of the cheaters. Dopers don't necessarily have to train less to acquire superior results, in fact they may train harder because the recovery is that much more enhanced.


----------



## jorgy

trailrunner68 said:


> If he does not contest it then he will lose all seven titles.


I thought the ASO ran the Tour de France, not USADA.


----------



## thechriswebb

pedalruns said:


> Here is the link to the whole document... It is pretty massive... and they have to respond by June 22nd or...
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
> 
> Not much to accomplish? There is wrong and right... this is so far on the 'wrong' side it is sad.. and it does need to go away, but the truth needs to be told and finally it is. I also wonder about Bruyneel's future, his name is first on the list!


I read that earlier. I still don't see anything new. 

If the truth is that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs, that truth has been being told for a very long time. At this point, I don't think that anything that is going to happen (conviction or no) is going to shift people away from the position that they already hold on what they believe. 

On the other hand, I am the sort of person that doesn't care to see people get dragged through the mud, even if they wronged me, unless doing so somehow makes the world a better place. It doesn't make me feel better. There are plenty of people (most, I think) that feel differently than me about that so I understand that we are going to disagree philosophically.


----------



## Creakyknees

jorgy said:


> Because if the 'eyewitness' didn't prepare the infusion, how do they _really_ know what was in it?
> LAL: Did you prepare these infusions yourself?
> 
> H: Of course not.
> 
> LAL: How did you know they were, in fact, doping products?
> 
> H: LA told me they were.


sure, just like that scene when Harry Potter pretended to give Ron the potion before the big match. 

yeah, that's the ticket.


----------



## thechriswebb

trailrunner68 said:


> Leipheimer? Leipheimer is supposedly one of the riders who talked. He was also doping as an amateur.


I mentioned Leipheimer because his high Tour placings were after he left Postal. 

I saw something once (I wish that I could find it) that showed the number of races that Sastre would have won if all of the suspected dopers that won ahead of him were removed. It was crazy.


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> Here is an easy way to stop the expenditure of money. Armstrong can stop lying. That is all it will take. He stops lying, accepts responsibility for what he did, and everyone can move on.


That isn't how the system is supposed to work or should. The system is supposed to expect bad guys to try and get away with it. It is then the systems OBLIGATION to do a number of things. First and foremost the system must do everything in it's power to put forth the impression that justice is blind, and that the least known of targets is treated the same as the best known. 

Once you do that the question of money kicks in. The majority of doping involves conspiracy to one degree or another. Would the USADA put this much work into going after say a Jelly Belly like team as they have Armstrong? Well to be considered a legitimate organization imo they should. Going after a guy retired is not going to change the playing field at all. Hell if I was a doping cyclist all it would tell me is to avoid the lime light because lets be honest. If he just won a lot of races but stayed beneath the radar the USADA could give a damn about such a circumstantial case and that is what this case is. Make no mistake, if "Livestrong" wasn't plastered in front of you at least once a week we would not be seeing this case goes forward and that makes the idealist in me sad because cases should be about justice not a trophy on the wall or proving a personal point.


----------



## Chris-X

*Huh?*



badge118 said:


> That isn't how the system is supposed to work or should. The system is supposed to expect bad guys to try and get away with it. It is then the systems OBLIGATION to do a number of things. First and foremost the system must do everything in it's power to put forth the impression that justice is blind, and that the least known of targets is treated the same as the best known.
> 
> Once you do that the question of money kicks in. The majority of doping involves conspiracy to one degree or another. Would the USADA put this much work into going after say a Jelly Belly like team as they have Armstrong? Well to be considered a legitimate organization imo they should. Going after a guy retired is not going to change the playing field at all. Hell if I was a doping cyclist all it would tell me is to avoid the lime light because lets be honest. If he just won a lot of races but stayed beneath the radar the USADA could give a damn about such a circumstantial case and that is what this case is. Make no mistake, if "Livestrong" wasn't plastered in front of you at least once a week we would not be seeing this case goes forward and that makes the idealist in me sad because cases should be about justice not a trophy on the wall or proving a personal point.


This is a lot of twisting and contorting.

In the usual, low level, run of the mill, piece of $hit case, where the accused is a nobody and has no resources, the accused is brusquely told what his options are and unless the accused takes one of those options, things will get much worse for him.

Armstrong has played all types of underhanded games to get away with fraud. That is the fact. Not the silliness you keep advancing. All Armstrong has to do is tell the truth and things will go as easy as they possibly can at this point in time. Just like EVERYBODY else.


----------



## Rokh On

badge118 said:


> 1) It was my understanding that you are either positive for EPO or you are not toi be declared "positive".
> 
> 2) Justice imo should be blind. If you pursue a case you must pursue each case with the same vigor and determination.


1) YEP ... EXACTLY. Look how they got Contador and no I'm not trying to rehash the endless debate on his testing and the amount found.

2) Valverde has said this in MANY interviews

looks like Dr. F was right


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> This is a lot of twisting and contorting.
> 
> In the usual, low level, run of the mill, piece of $hit case, where the accused is a nobody and has no resources, the accused is brusquely told what his options are and unless the accused takes one of those options, things will get much worse for him.
> 
> Armstrong has played all types of underhanded games to get away with fraud. That is the fact. Not the silliness you keep advancing. All Armstrong has to do is tell the truth and things will go as easy as they possibly can at this point in time. Just like EVERYBODY else.


It is not silliness I am advancing but rather how the civil and criminal legal systems are supposed to work in the US. Every defendant regardless of the egregiousness of their offenses and their financial means NEEDS to be treated the same. If this does not occur the validity of the entire system comes into question. I understand how people in fits of righteous anger can say "lets bend the spirit (if not the letter) of the rules to get the guy", I have thought this to myself more than once tbh. However it is the duty of anyone with such authority to take a step back, take a breath and then say "I wish we could but we can't." You keep saying "like everybody else" but you keep missing an important fact. 1. it only technically matters when under oath. 2. to my knowledge LA has been very careful to never testify under oath and guess what it is his right to remain silent when under oath. "Just like everyone else."

The section that speaks about lying under oath in the charging document does not specify Armstrong but also names a number of people one of whom (Ferrari) did testify in an Italian proceeding so the claim that LA has perjured himself is actually not supported by the document. LA was always careful to have other people testify. As an example he did not testify that he never admitted to using EPO to a doctor in the presence of Ms. Andrieu, the Doctor testified that he did not recall any such conversation. It seems like they are trying to say "since Bob lied under oath and we have named Bob in the conspiracy with Steve, then Bob's lying under oath can be held against Steve. Now in a RICO case which has all the protections for defendants under criminal law, I have no issue with that, in a case however that does not provide the accused with the same protections and procedures I have a major issue with RICO being used. Hell at one point some legal scholars thought RICO would be found unconstitutional even with all the protections.

Sorry but the slimiest, sleezest most deceptive SOB on the planet needs to be treated equally by the system. Does that mean if the slime ball with more money has a better chance than the poor one? Well yeah. That said a system where the rules are fluid and can be changed depending on who you are is a scary as hell system that has caused systems in the past to fall.

On a more suspicious note. Since they are chosing to attack it as a conspiracy case they are taking a HUGE risk. It is possible that just one of the alleged named complainants fighting and winning makes the entire case fall apart. Their entire case essentially revolves around the existence of an organized decades long conspiracy and they way they have worded that document they are doing an all or nothing charge. Maybe that is another reason why LA has chosen his course. He has little to lose. His networth is enough that he can pay back prize monies and he loses little in the court of public opinion. JB and others though will fight tooth and nail and if they win so does Lance.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> IYou keep saying "like everybody else" but you keep missing an important fact. 1. it only technically matters when under oath. 2. to my knowledge LA has been very careful to never testify under oath and guess what it is his right to remain silent when under oath. "Just like everyone else.".


He was deposed under oath for the SCA suit. He lied.

If he wants to contest the USADA charges then he will have to testify under oath at the arbitration hearing.


----------



## nOOky

trailrunner68 said:


> Here is an easy way to stop the expenditure of money. Armstrong can stop lying. That is all it will take. He stops lying, accepts responsibility for what he did, and everyone can move on.


See, you're assuming he's guilty. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty? There has never been enough or any evidence to convict him, all along it's only been everyone saying he's guilty. Even his former team mates aren't good enough proof, or show sufficient lack of credibility that previous charges have been dropped. You thinking he's guilty does not make him guilty, it's just your opinion.
I remember one day I swore up and down that my little sister stole some money out of my dresser drawer. I would have bet anything that it was her, because everything fit and it seemed like something she would do. Turns out it was my brother, he admitted to it, and I would never have guessed.
My point is that there simply is no real proof, not proof good enough to say definitively that he doped. Upon that, even if you think he doped, it can't be proven so he wins.


----------



## Mr. Scary

thechriswebb said:


> I read that earlier. I still don't see anything new.
> 
> If the truth is that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs, that truth has been being told for a very long time. At this point, I don't think that anything that is going to happen (conviction or no) is going to shift people away from the position that they already hold on what they believe.
> 
> On the other hand, I am the sort of person that doesn't care to see people get dragged through the mud, even if they wronged me, unless doing so somehow makes the world a better place. It doesn't make me feel better. There are plenty of people (most, I think) that feel differently than me about that so I understand that we are going to disagree philosophically.


I guess you failed to read the part that all are still active in cycling (except for Armstrong, he's in tri now as you may have missed that as well), so there is the possibility of good to come if you consider clean sport good. If you are of the opinion contrived performances are just as cool as a real effort than watch big time wrestling. The three or four people that have commented in this thread that actually do understand what is happening have spent enough time correcting the naysayers. The best line was the statement that one poster could not recall Armstrong ever testifying regarding doping under oath... Real informed, yet he/she still felt compelled to share their lack of reading comprehension with the rest...


----------



## badge118

Valverde was different. He got nailed by DNA. Sorry you lose. AC's case also is not the same imo because, whether right or wrong the athlete is responsible for what is in his body regardless of the source. Other athletes were given bans for cases where even CAS acknowledged the ingestion was unintentional and as such until that rules is changed AC needed to be banned as well. Neither was really a case of the scale this case is and if you read all 15 pages (and I did) the entire case is essentially based solely on the testimony of other athlete who are not being charged as part of a conspiracy. I would feel much better about the whole thing if these other athletes were at least pleading open guilty pleas and were also going in the doc. An open guilty plea is one where you might get some punishment but sentencing is with held pending cooperation and the resolution of the case. A case like the one they have here (in the shape it has) would likely never see the inside of a real court room.


----------



## pedalruns

thechriswebb said:


> I read that earlier. I still don't see anything new.
> 
> If the truth is that Lance Armstrong took performance enhancing drugs, that truth has been being told for a very long time. At this point, I don't think that anything that is going to happen (conviction or no) is going to shift people away from the position that they already hold on what they believe.
> 
> On the other hand, I am the sort of person that doesn't care to see people get dragged through the mud, even if they wronged me, unless doing so somehow makes the world a better place. It doesn't make me feel better. There are plenty of people (most, I think) that feel differently than me about that so I understand that we are going to disagree philosophically.


This is what is new to me: It says in there he doped n 2009 and 2010-his comeback years, 10 riders stated under oath he used PED's... (I never heard that many) and he could now be stripped of all 7 titles! 

I don't care to see people dragged thru the mud either.. I think of Lemond, Filippo Simeoni, Frankie & Betsy Andrea, Christophe Bassons, etc. Also, what does it say to young juniors coming up... Pay a good doctor, be a BIG Bully and get away with it.


----------



## aliensporebomb

Crazy. The guy will be dead and buried someday and someone somewhere will STILL trying to press doping charges on him.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> It is not silliness I am advancing but rather how the civil and criminal legal systems are supposed to work in the US. Every defendant regardless of the egregiousness of their offenses and their financial means NEEDS to be treated the same. If this does not occur the validity of the entire system comes into question. I understand how people in fits of righteous anger can say "lets bend the spirit (if not the letter) of the rules to get the guy", I have thought this to myself more than once tbh. However it is the duty of anyone with such authority to take a step back, take a breath and then say "I wish we could but we can't." You keep saying "like everybody else" but you keep missing an important fact. 1. it only technically matters when under oath. 2. to my knowledge LA has been very careful to never testify under oath and guess what it is his right to remain silent when under oath. "Just like everyone else."
> 
> The section that speaks about lying under oath in the charging document does not specify Armstrong but also names a number of people one of whom (Ferrari) did testify in an Italian proceeding so the claim that LA has perjured himself is actually not supported by the document. LA was always careful to have other people testify. As an example he did not testify that he never admitted to using EPO to a doctor in the presence of Ms. Andrieu, the Doctor testified that he did not recall any such conversation. It seems like they are trying to say "since Bob lied under oath and we have named Bob in the conspiracy with Steve, then Bob's lying under oath can be held against Steve. Now in a RICO case which has all the protections for defendants under criminal law, I have no issue with that, in a case however that does not provide the accused with the same protections and procedures I have a major issue with RICO being used. Hell at one point some legal scholars thought RICO would be found unconstitutional even with all the protections.
> 
> Sorry but the slimiest, sleezest most deceptive SOB on the planet needs to be treated equally by the system. Does that mean if the slime ball with more money has a better chance than the poor one? Well yeah. That said a system where the rules are fluid and can be changed depending on who you are is a scary as hell system that has caused systems in the past to fall.
> 
> On a more suspicious note. Since they are chosing to attack it as a conspiracy case they are taking a HUGE risk. It is possible that just one of the alleged named complainants fighting and winning makes the entire case fall apart. Their entire case essentially revolves around the existence of an organized decades long conspiracy and they way they have worded that document they are doing an all or nothing charge. Maybe that is another reason why LA has chosen his course. He has little to lose. His networth is enough that he can pay back prize monies and he loses little in the court of public opinion. JB and others though will fight tooth and nail and if they win so does Lance.


You ever been charged with a crime?

FYI, after you are charged with a crime, you are viewed by the State as guilty until proven innocent.

The presumption of innocence is in the eyes of the Court and supposed to be the way the jury views it.

So when you're a juror, you'd usually ask. 'If the defendent is innocent until proven guilty why is he being held without bail?'

'why is he being escorted into court by 4 Marshalls?'

'Why is the defendent shackled at his feet and waist if he's not guilty?'

'Why shouldn't I as a juror look at the police and prosecutors as correctly doing their jobs?'

Those who believe in a presumption of innocence are very naive.

Defendants who are poor or of modest means get much WORSE treatment than any treatment Armstrong has encountered.

And btw, he's guilty as sin.:mad2:


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> He was deposed under oath for the SCA suit. He lied.
> 
> If he wants to contest the USADA charges then he will have to testify under oath at the arbitration hearing.


Okay granted (I just goggled the videos). You pointing this out actually disturbs me even more tbh. First lets look at the ptecident setting case where perjury let them beat the SOL. Read that case and you will see that many years ago the accused testified under oath he had not doped THEN in 2009 or so in an interview said he HAD doped. To make an allegation of perjury you first need to prove that the statement was a lie. For the context of this proceeding nothing of the sort has been done yet. So it seems like they are saying that thus far unproven perjury is part of the conspiracy and reason to beat the SOL. They are NOT accusing him of perjury as an offense but are stating it in the charging papers as a fact in evidence when it has not been proven. One could argue it was proven in the case of Ferrari he testified and was convicted (though given a suspended sentence) in a court of law. No such thing has occurred with LA yet and if they are simply going to state as evidence an unproven fact I am disgusted tbh.

Yes I am anal retentive when it comes to rules and regulations.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> You ever been charged with a crime?
> 
> FYI, after you are charged with a crime, you are viewed by the State as guilty until proven innocent.
> 
> The presumption of innocence is in the eyes of the Court and supposed to be the way the jury views it.
> 
> So when you're a juror, you'd usually ask. 'If the defendent is innocent until proven guilty why is he being held without bail?'
> 
> 'why is he being escorted into court by 4 Marshalls?'
> 
> 'Why is the defendent shackled at his feet and waist if he's not guilty?'
> 
> 'Why shouldn't I as a juror look at the police and prosecutors as correctly doing their jobs?'
> 
> Those who believe in a presumption of innocence are very naive.
> 
> Defendants who are poor or of modest means get much WORSE treatment than any treatment Armstrong has encountered.
> 
> And btw, he's guilty as sin.:mad2:


Have I ever been charged with a crime? No. I have been arresting people for crimes for the last 15 years however.

As for some of your statements.

1. To assure he appears for trial pure and simple (if of course there is no probation or parole violation inherent in the case) There have been cases of innocent people going on the lam because they were in such fear of the charges against them and the primary purpose of bail is simply to ensure they appear. Bail can NOT be punative in nature.

2. In my state the Jury NEVER see the defendant in hand cuffs and shackles unless he has already acted out violently in their precense because it is seen as prejudicial.

3. In the jury questionare in my state it specifically asks if you would assume the police and prosecutor are right and if you answer yes it is grounds for summary dismissal from the Jury pool at the request of the defense (hint if this question is before you answer yes and you will get out of jury duty.)

4. They do and it sucks and should be corrected. But the way you correct this is by enhancing the resources the poor get, not by creating different rules to make getting the rich easier. You raise UP the lowliest, rather than lower the bar for all basically.

Care to play legal 101 again?

Yes he is guilty as sin. I know many defendant's who are such. However the system is such that they sometimes get off and even if its my case and for a short bit I am pissed later I am glad because better the guilty go free then a twisted system be used against the innocent.

Again I am not saying he is innocent, I think he is not. However some of the gymnastics they are attempting to complete here raise several disturbing questions regarding the system and how much weight the rules as written have. They are essentially now operating under case law BUT since there is no real court and it is actually just a civil arbitration process by a body with only contractual not authority, not authority under law, where or who is the court of record that makes the case law authoritative?

This case at the moment has at least the appearance in some respects of a malicious prosecution (even if zome see it as justifiably malicious) and even when such is not really the case it hurts the system.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> Okay granted (I just goggled the videos). You pointing this out actually disturbs me even more tbh. First lets look at the ptecident setting case where perjury let them beat the SOL. Read that case and you will see that many years ago the accused testified under oath he had not doped THEN in 2009 or so in an interview said he HAD doped. To make an allegation of perjury you first need to prove that the statement was a lie. For the context of this proceeding nothing of the sort has been done yet. So it seems like they are saying that thus far unproven perjury is part of the conspiracy and reason to beat the SOL. They are NOT accusing him of perjury as an offense but are stating it in the charging papers as a fact in evidence when it has not been proven. One could argue it was proven in the case of Ferrari he testified and was convicted (though given a suspended sentence) in a court of law. No such thing has occurred with LA yet and if they are simply going to state as evidence an unproven fact I am disgusted tbh.
> 
> Yes I am anal retentive when it comes to rules and regulations.


No, you are not. You are using circular logic to dismiss any evidence: Evidence outside the SOL is not permissible because there is no judgement of perjury but there cannot be a judgement of perjury because evidence is outside the SOL.

The USADA will show evidence that Armstrong doped from 1999 to 2010. In an effort to show concealment, they will also show that Armstrong testified in 2005 (I think) under oath that he did not dope. If the arbitrators decide that there is enough evidence to prove that he doped before the 2005 deposition then they can take that evidence into consideration when corroborating the testimony of witnesses that Armstrong doped in 2009 and 2010. If they decide that the evidence is not strong enough then they can consider evidence outside the SOL as irrelevant. There will be many acts of concealment to consider. In the end the arbitrators will be left with a body of facts that are deemed permissible to use and they will make a decision based on that body of evidence.


----------



## blackhat

Im torn between thinking he saw this coming (saying "I'm done fighting doping charges" a month ago) and thinking he didn't (did he think he's be able to continue to do tris?) Either way, it's about time.


----------



## thechriswebb

pedalruns said:


> This is what is new to me: It says in there he doped n 2009 and 2010-his comeback years, 10 riders stated under oath he used PED's... (I never heard that many) and he could now be stripped of all 7 titles!
> 
> I don't care to see people dragged thru the mud either.. I think of Lemond, Filippo Simeoni, Frankie & Betsy Andrea, Christophe Bassons, etc. Also, what does it say to young juniors coming up... Pay a good doctor, be a BIG Bully and get away with it.


You are correct about the allegations of the comeback years being new. That was also one of the weakest sounding statements in the papers to my ear. In other words, it appears to me as an attempt to find something that they can say to dig the case back up, even though it is possible that there isn't enough evidence to prove beyond doubt in court that he manipulated his blood in 09 and 10. Of course, I could be wrong and they could have a video of Lance taking blood that they haven't shown yet. Either way, I'm not invested in Armstrong and am not defending him. I just want to see the legal system behave appropriately and follow procedures properly. If they do so and it results in a conviction, then that's all fine and appropriate. It just smells a bit funny to me at the moment.


----------



## txzen

trailrunner68 said:


> These are Armstrong's blood values from 2009. Let him explain the two distinct populations.


Sorry, what's the source for this data? Just curious.


----------



## trailrunner68

txzen said:


> Sorry, what's the source for this data? Just curious.


Armstrong posted the numbers in an effort to "prove" that he was not doping. When scientists like Michael Ashenden and others started pointing out that the pattern was highly suspicious, he took them off his website.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> the pedantics!
> 
> Urban Dictionary: booyah


using urban dictionary doesn't help your argument.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Have I ever been charged with a crime? No. I have been arresting people for crimes for the last 15 years however.
> 
> As for some of your statements.
> 
> 1. To assure he appears for trial pure and simple (if of course there is no probation or parole violation inherent in the case) There have been cases of innocent people going on the lam because they were in such fear of the charges against them and the primary purpose of bail is simply to ensure they appear. Bail can NOT be punative in nature.
> 
> 2. In my state the Jury NEVER see the defendant in hand cuffs and shackles unless he has already acted out violently in their precense because it is seen as prejudicial.
> 
> 3. In the jury questionare in my state it specifically asks if you would assume the police and prosecutor are right and if you answer yes it is grounds for summary dismissal from the Jury pool at the request of the defense (hint if this question is before you answer yes and you will get out of jury duty.)
> 
> 4. They do and it sucks and should be corrected. But the way you correct this is by enhancing the resources the poor get, not by creating different rules to make getting the rich easier. You raise UP the lowliest, rather than lower the bar for all basically.
> 
> Care to play legal 101 again?
> 
> Yes he is guilty as sin. I know many defendant's who are such. However the system is such that they sometimes get off and even if its my case and for a short bit I am pissed later I am glad because better the guilty go free then a twisted system be used against the innocent.
> 
> Again I am not saying he is innocent, I think he is not. However some of the gymnastics they are attempting to complete here raise several disturbing questions regarding the system and how much weight the rules as written have. They are essentially now operating under case law BUT since there is no real court and it is actually just a civil arbitration process by a body with only contractual not authority, not authority under law, where or who is the court of record that makes the case law authoritative?
> 
> This case at the moment has at least the appearance in some respects of a malicious prosecution (even if zome see it as justifiably malicious) and even when such is not really the case it hurts the system.


As to the red bolded, a yes would be perjury on my part. I get out of jury duty honestly when they ask me about my arrest and charges. I honestly say I don't trust the police and the prosecution throws me off the case.

"Bail cannot be punitive in nature?" 

More nonsense on par with "innocent until proven guilty." Your freedom is taken away and you are INNOCENT.

Please put your thinking cap on.

All I will say is that I'm incredulous that you, as a police officer, are taking this stance.


----------



## natedg200202

spookyload said:


> Winner. Save the millions of tax payers dollars.


How are tax dollars involved in this?


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> Are you also a Pro Wrestling and Bodybuilding fan?


Why are you asking.... you got some tickets your selling?


----------



## ronbo613

OK, Lance is guilty, he's a doper. Before giving the TDF to the guy after him, submit him to the same scrutiny as Lance. Heck, "widespread doping", that seems like just about everybody...


----------



## txzen

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong posted the numbers in an effort to "prove" that he was not doping. When scientists like Michael Ashenden and others started pointing out that the pattern was highly suspicious, he took them off his website.


Interesting. Must have missed that. 

Probably the best description of the blood-doping procedure is this interview : Behind the Scenes of the Contador CAS hearing with Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

What I found interesting is that in the early days, cyclists used EPO just to boost their red blood cells, but the levels of EPO required were too high and easy to detect. 

The more modern approach was to do blood transfusions, and monitor for the signs of dropping reticulocytes. Then, EPO is given in micro doses - likely too low to be detected, you hope - in order to stimulate production of reticulocytes to mask the effects of blood transfusion. Apparently, this is the procedure that Landis detailed to WADA. While his credibility is certainily in question, Ashenden's is not.


----------



## Chris-X

Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA Allegation - Lance Armstrong

Looks like lance wants the Federal charges reinstated.

Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA Allegation


AUSTIN, TX -- June 13, 2012 -- I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned. *These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation*. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity. Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.

I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence.


----------



## jorgy

trailrunner68 said:


> If he wants to contest the USADA charges then he will have to testify under oath at the arbitration hearing.


Doubtful. His lawyers will be able to shoot many, many holes in the testimony of ex-teammates.


----------



## blackhat

jorgy said:


> Doubtful. His lawyers will be able to shoot many, many holes in the testimony of ex-teammates.


Right, because they're _all_ out to get Lance. Not only is USADA operating under a vendetta, the long line of teammates/soigneurs/doctors/mechanics that have already or will testify against him are just jealous/seeking riches/insane.

Stick with that. It's a winner.


----------



## trailrunner68

jorgy said:


> Doubtful. His lawyers will be able to shoot many, many holes in the testimony of ex-teammates.


An arbitration like this is more like a civil trial than a criminal one. You don't get a choice on whether you testify. You go before the arbitrators and, under oath, tell your side of the story. With Armstrong's recent brush with criminal investigation, his lawyers will tell him that lying opens up the potential for future criminal prosecution, which could bring in everything the feds have sealed. He is between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> As to the red bolded, a yes would be perjury on my part. I get out of jury duty honestly when they ask me about my arrest and charges. I honestly say I don't trust the police and the prosecution throws me off the case.
> 
> "Bail cannot be punitive in nature?"
> 
> More nonsense on par with "innocent until proven guilty." Your freedom is taken away and you are INNOCENT.
> 
> Please put your thinking cap on.
> 
> All I will say is that I'm incredulous that you, as a police officer, are taking this stance.


Bail according to the rules of Judicial Procedure is not to be punitive. The purpose is to ensure that showing up at trial, and I forgot, ensuring similar criminal offenses are not committed while awaiting trial. So for the purposes of bail you can show evidence that the guy has no job, no fixed address and is a career drug dealer. However if the person has a job, a fixed address and no prior criminal charges unless the crime is heinous and would make even the most reasonable person run, the bail should be reasonable enough that they can be free. That is why many states have unsecured bails "if you don't show you owe us 25k." Now does this mean some "hanging judge" doesn't go outside that rule? No of course not. However in my state up until the case gets past District Court, with the exception of the most serious cases (homicide and rape etc.) The police act as the prosecutor and I have had to more than once pull out that book and read off the disqualifiers for easy bail my defendant has on him.

I assume that most of your contact with cops is based on TV tbh if you are incredulous. Most of the cops I know who have been on the job for more than 5 years while on ocassion frustrated by the system see it as a necessary evil. It helps to keep us, the prosecutors and the judges honest. At the bar we may ***** and moan, but all it takes is you seeing one legitimately bad case and then you say "that is why the system is the way it is."


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> An arbitration like this is more like a civil trial than a criminal one. You don't get a choice on whether you testify. You go before the arbitrators and, under oath, tell your side of the story. With Armstrong's recent brush with criminal investigation, his lawyers will tell him that lying opens up the potential for future criminal prosecution, which could bring in everything the feds have sealed. He is between a rock and a hard place.


Actually wrong. The arbitration panel in the case the USADA keeps harping about actually said in the decision that the accused had the right to NOT testify at his hearing but since he chose to do so he then had to be truthful. There was an interview with Dick Pound a few years ago on NPR. He basically explained their arbitration process, the burden of proof etc as being a hybrid straddled between civil and criminal proceedings. The anti doping regime is really quite unique in many ways. LA is under no obligation to say anything if he challenges the case.


----------



## badge118

blackhat said:


> Right, because they're _all_ out to get Lance. Not only is USADA operating under a vendetta, the long line of teammates/soigneurs/doctors/mechanics that have already or will testify against him are just jealous/seeking riches/insane.
> 
> Stick with that. It's a winner.


The problem will be this. A few clearly have axes to grind. Others are uncharged co-conspirators. You don't even need to accuse someone of lying. If Bob says one thing about a time frame and Steve says something else about the same time frame that contradicts that, even if post testimonies are damning they can wash out. There is one defense attorney I respect a lot who works that way. At the preliminary hearing he holds a full hearing with a stenographer. At the end he makes NO argument for charges to be dismissed because a Prima Facia case is damn easy to make. That said he goes over those steno notes with a fine toothed comb and at trial or a pre trial motion hearing he will pounce on inconsistencies in testimony. That is why I always tell new guys "don't guess and never be afraid to say 'I don't recall' or 'can I refresh my memory from my report?'" In the end its about the little things.


----------



## jorgy

trailrunner68 said:


> An arbitration like this is more like a civil trial than a criminal one. You don't get a choice on whether you testify. You go before the arbitrators and, under oath, tell your side of the story. With Armstrong's recent brush with criminal investigation, his lawyers will tell him that lying opens up the potential for future criminal prosecution, which could bring in everything the feds have sealed. He is between a rock and a hard place.


You sure you can't plead the 5th in arbitration?

I know you can in civil trials, and, unlike in criminal trials, the jury or judge can make inferences about your refusal to testify.


----------



## blackhat

badge118 said:


> The problem will be this. A few clearly have axes to grind. Others are uncharged co-conspirators. You don't even need to accuse someone of lying. If Bob says one thing about a time frame and Steve says something else about the same time frame that contradicts that, even if post testimonies are damning they can wash out. There is one defense attorney I respect a lot who works that way. At the preliminary hearing he holds a full hearing with a stenographer. At the end he makes NO argument for charges to be dismissed because a Prima Facia case is damn easy to make. That said he goes over those steno notes with a fine toothed comb and at trial or a pre trial motion hearing he will pounce on inconsistencies in testimony. That is why I always tell new guys "don't guess and never be afraid to say 'I don't recall' or 'can I refresh my memory from my report?'" In the end its about the little things.


Even granting you the rather tired "axes to grind" canard, it's still a loser for wonderboy.

It might work in front of a jury. This is an arbitration. As entertaining as your law enforcement anecdotes are, they're not really relevant.


----------



## badge118

blackhat said:


> Even granting you the rather tired "axes to grind" canard, it's still a loser for wonderboy.
> 
> It might work in front of a jury. This is an arbitration. As entertaining as your law enforcement anecdotes are, they're not really relevant.


Actually not necessarily. Look at the case the USADA keeps harping on. Read it the whole decision. The USADA was pretty well lambasted for many of their charges and procedural violations. The one thing they won on was the perjury thing. The arbitration panels actually do a real good job.

As for the canard I refer only to Landis and Hamilton there. To me they have zero credibility and if they were the only witnesses there would be no case imo. The fact there are other witnesses does give them credibility but if I was a member of the USADA I wouldn't touch those two with a 10 meter cattle prod.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Bail according to the rules of Judicial Procedure is not to be punitive. The purpose is to ensure that showing up at trial, and I forgot, ensuring similar criminal offenses are not committed while awaiting trial. So for the purposes of bail you can show evidence that the guy has no job, no fixed address and is a career drug dealer. However if the person has a job, a fixed address and no prior criminal charges unless the crime is heinous and would make even the most reasonable person run, the bail should be reasonable enough that they can be free. That is why many states have unsecured bails "if you don't show you owe us 25k." Now does this mean some "hanging judge" doesn't go outside that rule? No of course not. However in my state up until the case gets past District Court, with the exception of the most serious cases (homicide and rape etc.) The police act as the prosecutor and I have had to more than once pull out that book and read off the disqualifiers for easy bail my defendant has on him.
> 
> I assume that most of your contact with cops is based on TV tbh if you are incredulous. Most of the cops I know who have been on the job for more than 5 years while on ocassion frustrated by the system see it as a necessary evil. It helps to keep us, the prosecutors and the judges honest. At the bar we may ***** and moan, but all it takes is you seeing one legitimately bad case and then you say "that is why the system is the way it is."


My contact with cops is my friends and their parents who go into the big city to protect us from the "n.ggers."

Then, I had charges filed against me, The State, against me. And what does that matter?

If one is presumed innocent, why would there have to be any assurance similiar offenses, of which the defendent is not guilty, were not committed?

By the way, maybe you can tell me why a secretive organization is legally able to keep records of my arrest for a crime where I wasn't guilty before the arrest and there was no subsequent finding of guilt, and the case was dropped?


----------



## blackhat

badge118 said:


> Actually not necessarily. Look at the case the USADA keeps harping on. Read it the whole decision. The USADA was pretty well lambasted for many of their charges and procedural violations. The one thing they won on was the perjury thing. The arbitration panels actually do a real good job.
> 
> As for the canard I refer only to Landis and Hamilton there. To me they have zero credibility and if they were the only witnesses there would be no case imo. The fact there are other witnesses does give them credibility but if I was a member of the USADA I wouldn't touch those two with a 10 meter cattle prod.




If Landis and TH are your only concerns, sleep easy. It doesn't appear there's a lack of direct testimony from multiple sources.


----------



## badge118

jorgy said:


> You sure you can't plead the 5th in arbitration?
> 
> I know you can in civil trials, and, unlike in criminal trials, the jury or judge can make inferences about your refusal to testify.


You can chose not to testify. The AAA in the stated in the much harped about case...



> he panel finds here that Hellebuyck came to this panel with unclean hands. He committed perjury in his 2004 hearings before the AAA when he testified that he had not used EPO. He did not have to testify at those hearings. Now, having admittes he committed multiple doping offenses during the relevant time period that he lied about the 2004 hearing, he cannot assert that some procedural or substantive rule designed for the purpose of ensuring adequete presentation of timely and reliable evidence should work to his benefit to avoid a determination that he committed the doping offenses.


So he can refuse to testify. The questions are. 1. Does the USADA have to prove he doped first before they can prove perjury? If the answer is yes do they have witnesses with the SOL to make this case. To be able to beat the SOL in order to justify beating the SOL seems more than a little off to me.

2. Is perjury outside the authority of an AAA hearing admissible?


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> My contact with cops is my friends and their parents who go into the big city to protect us from the "n.ggers."
> 
> Then, I had charges filed against me, The State, against me. And what does that matter?
> 
> If one is presumed innocent, why would there have to be any assurance similiar offenses, of which the defendent is not guilty, were not committed?
> 
> By the way, maybe you can tell me why a secretive organization is legally able to keep records of my arrest for a crime where I wasn't guilty before the arrest and there was no subsequent finding of guilt, and the case was dropped?


First because your friends or their family are a bunch of racist pigs does not mean we all are and your ignorance in assuming so pretty much says it all.

As for the point of futures crimes, one of the few cases where prior bad acts can be raised is in a bail hearing. Most often I have used it in cases of drug sales. If you have a CI or videoed buy and then admit into evidence for the purposes of bail the defendant's 5 prior drug sales convictions then the court can take that into account.

I would like to know what secretive organization you speak of. If you are referring to law enforcement as for keeping the record, the record stands, at least in my state, only until you go to court and get a judge to issue an order to expunge. Then the PD that arrested you has to remove the arrest even from their internal records. So if that is the case it's your own fault tbh.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> First because your friends or their family are a bunch of racist pigs does not mean we all are and your ignorance in assuming so pretty much says it all..


Where did I say I based my entire opinion of police on an upbringing I was born into? I actually made a misstatement, in that my friends parents who were cops are not presently cops. They've been retired for awhile. I also didn't assume all police are racists. You made a statement that my experience with police seemed to be garnered from TV.



badge118 said:


> As for the point of futures crimes, one of the few cases where prior bad acts can be raised is in a bail hearing. Most often I have used it in cases of drug sales. If you have a CI or videoed buy and then admit into evidence for the purposes of bail the defendant's 5 prior drug sales convictions then the court can take that into account..


You're missing my point. You're using police procedure and legal procedure to justify police procedure. My point is that if you're innocent until proven guilty, that's an absolute statement. If you can be denied bail in a case where you haven't yet been convicted, it doesn't matter whether the police or legal system says it's punitive or not. Being in jail IS punitive. What the heck are innocent people in jail for? Why are innocent people shackeled and escorted into court by federal marshalls if they haven't been convicted of anything. 

Answer. Because the authorities do in fact believe they are guilty and this is normal procedure belying the presumption of innocence. 

What I find odd is the ridiculous tap dancing you're doing when Armstrong is being treated entirely normally within the system and you're trying to lend credence to this witch hunt stupidity. 



badge118 said:


> I would like to know what secretive organization you speak of. If you are referring to law enforcement as for keeping the record, the record stands, at least in my state, only until you go to court and get a judge to issue an order to expunge. Then the PD that arrested you has to remove the arrest even from their internal records. So if that is the case it's your own fault tbh.


The police are a secretive organization. Why the heck should the burden be on me to get a record of an arrest expunged when my case didn't even go to court? Heck, I'm innocent! 

Actually, I got a couple of weeks paid vacation, ie suspension, when my employer brought up my arrest 7 years after it happened. I told them I could be arrested every single day of my life and as long as I didn't miss work it was none of their business. They insisted it was their business. I asked them if the USA was now a "Police State?" That shut them up.


----------



## peter584

So what happens if the arbitrators say he doped?


----------



## lonestar_shawn

Didn't the Landis case teach that the CAS wasn't really bound to follow legal procedures? Whether you believe Landis actually used testosterone during the supposed failed test (which he still denies), he brought up legitimate evidence for why the charges should be dropped and it was never considered. Under the USADA/CAS system Lance could be found guilty even if there is only hearsay. It just depends on what the arbiters want to believe.

I'm in the camp that thinks Lance doped but I also don't think there isn't true solid evidence or it would have been brought up before now.

I'm also wondering who would get his Tour titles if he was stripped. It would be a shame if they went to someone who was also a doper but hadn't been found guilty because they were flying under the radar.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> Where did I say I based my entire opinion of police on an upbringing I was born into? I actually made a misstatement, in that my friends parents who were cops are not presently cops. They've been retired for awhile. I also didn't assume all police are racists. You made a statement that my experience with police seemed to be garnered from TV.
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing my point. You're using police procedure and legal procedure to justify police procedure. My point is that if you're innocent until proven guilty, that's an absolute statement. If you can be denied bail in a case where you haven't yet been convicted, it doesn't matter whether the police or legal system says it's punitive or not. Being in jail IS punitive. What the heck are innocent people in jail for? Why are innocent people shackeled and escorted into court by federal marshalls if they haven't been convicted of anything.
> 
> Answer. Because the authorities do in fact believe they are guilty and this is normal procedure belying the presumption of innocence.
> 
> What I find odd is the ridiculous tap dancing you're doing when Armstrong is being treated entirely normally within the system and you're trying to lend credence to this witch hunt stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> The police are a secretive organization. Why the heck should the burden be on me to get a record of an arrest expunged when my case didn't even go to court? Heck, I'm innocent!
> 
> Actually, I got a couple of weeks paid vacation, ie suspension, when my employer brought up my arrest 7 years after it happened. I told them I could be arrested every single day of my life and as long as I didn't miss work it was none of their business. They insisted it was their business. I asked them if the USA was now a "Police State?" That shut them up.


Well so your experience is from retired cops of an older generation. This contact made you incredulous when dealing with a cop who believes in the system and that it should maintain adequete protections for all. Again this assumption says alot.

As for your last because it is an official government record. Such records should not be erased lightly. In some cases dismissals are based on plea agreements and the like. As such there is a process that must be gone through. If your case was not one where the nolle pros/dismissal was part of a plea agreement then the State would not raise an objection and the expungement would be pro forma. If however it was due to a plea agreement the state would have every right to object. Google your State and look up sunshine laws. Also if Police are so secretive tell me how the courts have said it is legal for a "Private Investigator" to have a web site where the names and photos of both undercover officers and confidential informants can be posted with impunity? 

As for how your employer suspended you that is between you and them. I assume it was because you did not disclose the arrest when hired. Some cities are now passing rules to discourage that practice. However again if this is the case it's on you.

As for LA my problem is simply with what I have explained why till I am blue in the face. What I like is that you do not ever deny that the USADA has gone leaps and bounds beyond any other case to get LA. You do not even deny that some of the ways they are trying to do so are perhaps "creative." Instead you seem to find it justifiable because of who the prime accused is. The entire point of any justice system that even pretends to be impartial is so that who the defendant is should be irrelevant to how the case is conducted. I have yet to see a single person, with a straight face, say that this is the case here and the fact people seem to applaud it smack a bit of the fascistic if I am to be entirely honest. 

I believe he doped but I also believe that the rule of law should trump the idea of by any means necessary, which this case to seems to follow, at least to some extent.


----------



## badge118

peter584 said:


> So what happens if the arbitrators say he doped?


It really depends on a host of things. 1 do they go with the SOL being broken? Then he loses all his victories and pays back all prize money. If he is nailed under aggravating circumstances I think he can be given either a 6 year or a life ban (forget which) from any sport participation that is signed on with the WADA protocol.

In terms of PR and the rest of the world, I was just listening to the BBC world service. They were interviewing a NY Times reporter who said she thinks even a guilty verdict will have little impact on those who see him as a hero cancer survivor before they see him as an athlete and that is really the dividing line. With the exception of some 99ers most people who follow the sport and thus see him as an athlete already see him as a doper. Those who know him because of his cancer work could either give a damn or do indeed see it as a conspiracy.


----------



## gordy748

lonestar_shawn said:


> Didn't the Landis case teach that the CAS wasn't really bound to follow legal procedures? Whether you believe Landis actually used testosterone during the supposed failed test (which he still denies), he brought up legitimate evidence for why the charges should be dropped and it was never considered. Under the USADA/CAS system Lance could be found guilty even if there is only hearsay. It just depends on what the arbiters want to believe.


What? Landis tested positive for testosterone the very same stage he rose like Lazarus from the dead and beat the same riders that thumped him the previous day by a country mile. "The tests are wrong! The science is flawed", he bleated... nope, it was 2 positive A & B samples for excess testosterone. Simples.

As for Armstrong, the facts are that he never failed a drugs test, and his blood passport levels were always within statistical norms. Even the graph above is well within the standard variance for a normal person, let alone an athlete that trains all over the world at differing altitudes to gain maximum effect. Actually, the hematocrit levels seem slightly low to me, so I'm not so sure you could even call it suspicious.

Compare with USADA's case. A bunch of proven liars who were offered immunity to tell stories about Lance. And some blood levels that are within the UCI blood passport limits. Is this really it?

I don;t doubt he took something, but there has to be proof.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Well so your experience is from retired cops of an older generation. This contact made you incredulous when dealing with a cop who believes in the system and that it should maintain adequete protections for all. Again this assumption says alot.
> 
> As for your last because it is an official government record. Such records should not be erased lightly. In some cases dismissals are based on plea agreements and the like. As such there is a process that must be gone through. If your case was not one where the nolle pros/dismissal was part of a plea agreement then the State would not raise an objection and the expungement would be pro forma. If however it was due to a plea agreement the state would have every right to object. Google your State and look up sunshine laws. Also if Police are so secretive tell me how the courts have said it is legal for a "Private Investigator" to have a web site where the names and photos of both undercover officers and confidential informants can be posted with impunity?
> 
> As for how your employer suspended you that is between you and them. I assume it was because you did not disclose the arrest when hired. Some cities are now passing rules to discourage that practice. However again if this is the case it's on you.
> 
> As for LA my problem is simply with what I have explained why till I am blue in the face. What I like is that you do not ever deny that the USADA has gone leaps and bounds beyond any other case to get LA. You do not even deny that some of the ways they are trying to do so are perhaps "creative." Instead you seem to find it justifiable because of who the prime accused is. The entire point of any justice system that even pretends to be impartial is so that who the defendant is should be irrelevant to how the case is conducted. I have yet to see a single person, with a straight face, say that this is the case here and the fact people seem to applaud it smack a bit of the fascistic if I am to be entirely honest.
> 
> I believe he doped but I also believe that the rule of law should trump the idea of by any means necessary, which this case to seems to follow, at least to some extent.


Some of my experience is from retired cops from an older generation and some of it is from their kids who are now cops nearing retirement themselves. Some of it is from other cops I've run into who aren't any brighter than the aforementioned.

Your assumption, funny you assume a lot, about my arrest being before I was hired is incorrect. It shouldn't matter anyway because an arrest is just an accusation.

Your assertion that USADA has gone leaps and bounds beyond anything else they've done to pursue Armstrong is ludicrous on its face and your arguments (SOL silliness) have been thoroughly rebutted by everyone, most notably Doctor Falsetti. The only reason this thing has gone on as long as it has is that Armstrong has the resources to argue nonsense which you are evidently lapping up. In your world this absurd obfuscation and intimidation advanced by Armstrong accrues to his benefit.


----------



## badge118

Here is an interesting thought and with Armstrong's past history as a litigant I would not be surprised if his camp did this. According to the BBC the term "unconstitutional" came out of the Armstrong camp. Now in prior cases people did try to raise this in US courts. The courts in these cases used basically an out. These cases were based on analytical findings (positive drugs tests) from over seas events. They basically said they have no jurisdiction over a drug test done in France and referred them to European courts.

Here we have a non-analytical finding based largely on statements taken by Federal Agents of the United States. Could Armstrong's attorneys go to a Federal Circuit Court and file for an injunction? Now of course the statement could just be part of a "I am a Martyr" tactic but it does make you wonder.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> Some of my experience is from retired cops from an older generation and some of it is from their kids who are now cops nearing retirement themselves. Some of it is from other cops I've run into who aren't any brighter than the aforementioned.
> 
> Your assumption, funny you assume a lot, about my arrest being before I was hired is incorrect. It shouldn't matter anyway because an arrest is just an accusation.
> 
> Your assertion that USADA has gone leaps and bounds beyond anything else they've done to pursue Armstrong is ludicrous on its face and your argument have been thoroughly rebutted by everyone. The only reason this thing has gone on as long as it has is that Armstrong has the resources to argue nonsense which you are evidently lapping up. In your world this absurd obfuscation and intimidation advanced by Armstrong accrues to his benefit.


How has it been rebutted. In the other thread (Lance gives up) when I posted my concerns with all of the case law from the prior AAA case to back it up even Dr. F said he understood many of my concerns and even believed they were valid, though still arguable. 

You really seem to have issues my friend. On the one hand you take statements of alleged cops who use racial slurs and apply their ignorant conduct to all police officers (else why would my attitude strike you as incredulous) and your own singularly negative contact with law enforcement to do the same and on the other have said in this thread basically "he lied so who the hell cares how they get him?"

Then when you make allegations that are then contradicted by facts (police secrecy vs sunshine laws and case law, prisoners allegedly in shackles in front of juries, the fact the prior AAA case was specific in that it was lying before an previous AAA panel etc) you simply pass onto another topic.

You also completely blame the system for you own failure to get your criminal record expunged as well. So basically you feel the system screwed you (even though in the end your suspension and still existing criminal record is your own damn fault) so it's cool if the system screws someone else. Now if you care to actually argue facts, such as research the main prior AAA case being called upon by the USADA and the like I'll jump back in with ya, but so long as you keep raging with baseless statements and prejudice I think we are pretty much done.

All that said I do challenge you to do this. If my allegation that this is beyond anything the USADA has done in the past with a case based on non-analytical findings.... please cite the case. If you can't cite a case with this much scope and conspiratorial drama in it, then please just be quiet because all you do is embarrass yourself.


----------



## den bakker

RkFast said:


> I dont buy that. Has anyone used drugs his entire career? LA was kicking ass at every level of competition he ever participated in. You mean to tell me when he was on the national circuit in his early 20s and blowing the doors off everyone he was doping, too? When he was doing tris in his teens he was doping, too? Come on.
> 
> Im NO LA fanboy, but I just dont buy the fact he has doped forever. He DOES have a TON of natural talent and ability.


Jeanson was doping from the age of 15.


----------



## badge118

den bakker said:


> Jeanson was doping from the age of 15.


Yeah. The best analogy I heard on the topic was one guy who said doping will not turn a plough horse into a thoroughbred. There has been a culture of doping in cycling since the earliest years. It was helped along by of all people the French (now arguably the most insane against doping) because they romanticized it...calling them Les Forçats de la Route or "convicts of the road." People felt sorry for them feeling th sport forced them to "race on dynamite."

Also the idea of conspiracies actually seems to be the norm. Look at Operation Peurto, the Telekom, and now the Lampre case in Italy. With how scientifically complicated doping has had to get due to the improvements in science to detect dopers the days of one guy finding a shadowy prepatore to give him a little "help" are largely gone. If one guy is doping on a team you really should dig more because you will find more. Just be sure you do it consistently. Only consistency will see the "good guys" win in the long run. All a single high profile case is good for is short term head lines


----------



## Doggbike

badge118 said:


> Yeah. The best analogy I heard on the topic was one guy who said doping will not turn a plough horse into a thoroughbred.


 One only has to look at Mr Sixty Percent Bjarne Riis to blow that idea out of the water.


----------



## Ridin'Sorra

Serious question.. What did LA do to piss off so much people to raise charges/testify against him?

I mean, all guilty people plead being innocent.

This is silly for so many reasons. I don't like the man, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Ridin'Sorra said:


> Serious question.. What did LA do to piss off so much people to raise charges/testify against him?


I think for most of them it was a case of not wanting to risk perjuring themselves in the Feds case.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

badge118 said:


> Yeah. The best analogy I heard on the topic was one guy who said doping will not turn a plough horse into a thoroughbred.


I think it was Merckx who said all the drugs in the world wouldn't turn a mule into a race horse, probably when someone asked him about one of his multiple failed drug tests


----------



## buckeyebarry

IF he is stripped of his TDF titles,who gets them????


----------



## buckeyebarry

IF he is stripped of his TDF titles,who gets them???


----------



## nOOky

natedg200202 said:


> How are tax dollars involved in this?


Though not a government body, the agency is partly funded by a U.S. federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

Source, Wikipedia fwiw
<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#cite_note-3</sup>


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

I could say "I told your so" but that would be as classless 

Funny, I did not see the same whining when Basso, Ullrich, Valverde or Scarponi were sanctioned. Wonder why?

One of the better parts of the USADA letter



> collected blood samples from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood ma*nipu*la*tion including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”


Of course the attention is focused on Armstrong but notice the USADA letter also focuses on Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Celya, and Dal Morel. All still infecting the sport. All facing lifetime bans. This is a good thing


----------



## OES

But just WOW. 45, 46. Those are SHOCKING numbers. That's getting up near Riis territory. ut:

Hell, you really have to have a boner for someone to charge them based on THIS.



jorgy said:


> Do you have a control set of data, i.e., from a rider with a similar 'talent' to Armstrong, who is known to not be doping and then competes in the TdF and has his blood tests at the same time of day?
> 
> Yea, the data look suspicious to those of us without any knowledge of how blood values vary with training and nutrition. But how different are they to how they'd look if he wasn't doping? No clue on my uneducated part.
> 
> IMO, there's nothing for Armstrong to explain unless an *expert* can explain why the values are suspicious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Brennan: Armstrong has no room to whine



> Contrary to the opinion of one very famous American athlete and cancer survivor, what happened to Lance Armstrong on Wednesday is not a witch hunt, nor is it unfair or unwarranted. Armstrong can whine and complain all he wants, but the organization that alleged Wednesday that he engaged in a massive doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2011 is just doing its job.


----------



## OES

den bakker said:


> it's one of those complicated plots with two axis.
> hth.


I guess I'm confused. I guess I thought the point of doping was to get you crit levels up. He must have a piss-poor doping schedule, or just baseline piss-poor blood.


----------



## den bakker

OES said:


> But just WOW. 45, 46. Those are SHOCKING numbers. That's getting up near Riis territory. ut:
> 
> Hell, you really have to have a boner for someone to charge them based on THIS.


it's one of those complicated plots with two axis. 
hth.


----------



## thighmaster

Who get's the titles? By the Bicycling mag list of doped riders, it will be hard to find someone as "clean" as Lance. The part most of you miss is 10 riders are willing to testify they saw him actually do it--first hand testimony is pretty tough stuff.


----------



## asgelle

OES said:


> I guess I'm confused. I guess I thought the point of doping was to get you crit levels up.


I agree. You're confused. What you write only goes to prove you're several years behind the state of the art. http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden


----------



## Marc

OES said:


> But just WOW. 45, 46. Those are SHOCKING numbers. That's getting up near Riis territory. ut:
> 
> Hell, you really have to have a boner for someone to charge them based on THIS.


Ah, Ed. 

What's a classy Southron'er doing in this din?


----------



## asgelle

viciouscycle said:


> And this will clean up the sport in what way? Take all the focus away from current athletes so they can still dope, win, cash the money and ride under the radar..........GENIUS !!!!!!


All the named parties are currently involved in sports. Kind of takes something away from your argument, no?


----------



## viciouscycle

And this will clean up the sport in what way? Take all the focus away from current athletes so they can still dope, win, cash the money and ride under the radar..........GENIUS !!!!!!


----------



## zosocane

So if they strip Lance's 7 titles, that means Basso wins 1 tour, Joseba Beloki wins 2 tours and Jan Ulrich wins 4 tours? I can't remember.


----------



## viciouscycle

asgelle said:


> All the named parties are currently involved in sports. Kind of takes something away from your argument, no?


What current blood test's are they using?
What current race's will they strip him of his results?
If they find him dirty of his TDF wines, but he tests clean now, why not let him compete?

All I want is a to see is ANY governing body is truly serious about cleaning up their sport, test everyone, and ban them for life when caught, winnings will be paid back to the promoter. Make the punishment strong enough so that athletes are not willing to take a chance.


----------



## thighmaster

Even though 50 is the magic number, coming close is the target. During long events it will dip to much lower numbers, so maintaining a 46 is significant as the competition would be much lower. Squabble over the numbers, cheating is cheating.


----------



## NextTime

Questions - (and I've got no ax to grind here . . .)

Apart from Hamilton and Landis, who are the other riders that will testify against Armstrong in the USADA proceeding?

Follow-up question: can these riders be compelled to testify?


----------



## Chris-X

*Good lord I'll keep this simple*



badge118 said:


> How has it been rebutted. In the other thread (Lance gives up) when I posted my concerns with all of the case law from the prior AAA case to back it up even Dr. F said he understood many of my concerns and even believed they were valid, though still arguable.
> 
> You really seem to have issues my friend. On the one hand you take statements of alleged cops who use racial slurs and apply their ignorant conduct to *all* police officers (else why would my attitude strike you as incredulous) and your own singularly negative contact with law enforcement to do the same and on the other have said in this thread basically "he lied so who the hell cares how they get him?.


And I think you have issues, and those issues, which you share with many cops are that you're right about everything all the time. I know many, many, many, many, cops, both current and former, and I have spoken to them in many, many, many situations, both socially and the time I mentioned when I was arrested and other professional situations. You continue to make hysterical statements about how I take singular situations and apply them to *all* the police. Nice try. Did I write "many" enough times to get this thru your head.

I never said "he lied so who the hell cares how they get him?"

But it is clear as day that he's guilty and the defenses of Armstrong which have evolved over the last 13 years from 'he's not a doper' to now 'his rights are being violated' are absurd, and the idea the SOL has run out is ridiculous especially due to the fact that Armstrong has used every unseemly/illegal obstructionist tactic to evade justice and draw out the case even more.

I find it extremely odd knowing police the way I do, that you, a LEO, are making hail mary defense arguments with the mountain of evidence against Armstrong.

I made the point that with ANY everyday citizen with this kind of evidence against them, the police lay out the options of the accused and the accused is FORCED to make the best of those options, or else....



badge118 said:


> Then when you make allegations that are then contradicted by facts (police secrecy vs sunshine laws and case law, prisoners allegedly in shackles in front of juries, the fact the prior AAA case was specific in that it was lying before an previous AAA panel etc) you simply pass onto another topic.
> 
> You also *completely* blame the system for you own failure to get your criminal record expunged as well. So basically you feel the system screwed you *(even though in the end your suspension and still existing criminal record is your own damn fault)* so it's cool if the system screws someone else. * Now if you care to actually argue facts, *such as research the main prior AAA case being called upon by the USADA and the like I'll jump back in with ya, but so long as you keep raging with baseless statements and *prejudice I think we are pretty much done*.
> 
> All that said I do challenge you to do this. If my allegation that this is beyond anything the USADA has done in the past with a case based on non-analytical findings.... please cite the case. If you can't cite a case with this much scope and *conspiratorial drama *in it, then please just be quiet because all you do is embarrass yourself.


I love your hysterical characterizations from my short anecdotes. Like "all" or I "completely" blame the system, or whatever. The point which you miss because you like to go on and on, is that the system says I'm INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY, and I DID NOT BRING THE ARREST ON MYSELF. Why does an innocent person in our system have to take any action when they're wrongfully accused? And the answer is that when LEO detain, arrest, or charge you with something, they do NOT presume you're innocent, they presume you did something to warrant their involvement. For you to argue this is idiotic. Please tell me how the arrest record of someone who is innocent in the eyes of the law, is "their own damn fault?"

I'm really even doubting your reading comprehension because my suspension was a two week paid vacation, which I welcomed.

In fact the presumption of Innocence is just lip service and absolute nonsense because once you are charged there is a whole system of professional experts trying you in court, certain you are guilty and gunning for you.

You choose to ignore it and make the ridiculous statement that someone who is held in custody without bail; their incarceration isn't punitive because of more meaningless lip service by the legal establishment that bail can't be considered punitive? Are you insane? You'd be fantastic arguing indefinite detention in GITMO for the US government. 'Yeah, we've held the suspected terrorist for 10 years but the good news is so far he's not guilty of anything, and the tiny cell he's confined to is not intended to punish him. Jeez, thanks for that!

So I'm going to believe you or my own "lyin" eyes when I'm in voir dire in Federal Court in Fort Lauderdale and a Spanish speaking drug trafficking defendant who was about 5'6" tall and 140lbs is led into court shackeled with a US Marshall on either side of him?

Jeez, I think the police are effed up but this guy must be guilty of something. Nah, innocent until they prove him guilty. These professional LEO guys and prosecutors are wasting my time dragging this poor unfortunate before me! 

Lastly, I never want to argue with you again. I'm only doing so because now you're so hysterical as to argue 'conspiracies' against Armstrong. The only facts that matter in this forum are the ones piled up like a mountain that lead any sentient being to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong is a complete fraud. All of the ridiculous speculation by you about any legal strategy that can miraculously save Armstrong's a$s is just that. Speculation by a guy who doesn't like the fact that his idol is not a very good person.


----------



## Mosovich

Maybe Hincapie?? He is retiring and this might be why... Just a thought...


----------



## gusmahler

I didn't start following cycling until after Lance retired. Why do so many people here hate him so much?

It can't be because he dopes because it seems that the same people who hate Lance also think that "everyone" dopes.


----------



## Chris-X

gusmahler said:


> I didn't start following cycling until after Lance retired. Why do so many people here hate him so much?
> 
> It can't be because he dopes because it seems that the same people who hate Lance also think that "everyone" dopes.


And you're asking this because there isn't enough information floating around out there about Lance Armstrong? How many pages are devoted to him on this website alone?:idea:


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Mosovich said:


> Maybe Hincapie?? He is retiring and this might be why... Just a thought...


Seems like Hincapie is bound to be one of them, and the charges explicitly state the doping through all of the Armstrong years and teams.

I can't remember how it went. He came back and raced a year for Discovery and then a year for Astana? What Americans were on those teams? Got to be Leipheimer, right?


----------



## asgelle

viciouscycle said:


> What current blood test's are they using?...


I can understand why you'd want to change the subject, but your original argument was that none of the named individuals was still involved in sport. I don't see how any of this supports that point.


----------



## RkFast

fornaca68 said:


> So if they strip Lance's 7 titles, that means Basso wins 1 tour, Joseba Beloki wins 2 tours and Jan Ulrich wins 4 tours? I can't remember.


And none of those guys doped.....

What a mess.


----------



## lonestar_shawn

gordy748 said:


> What? Landis tested positive for testosterone the very same stage he rose like Lazarus from the dead and beat the same riders that thumped him the previous day by a country mile. "The tests are wrong! The science is flawed", he bleated... nope, it was 2 positive A & B samples for excess testosterone. Simples.


I'm talking about things like improper chain of custody, improper handling of the B sample, processes not being followed, etc. IMHO, in a US court of law these things would have caused the evidence to be thrown out. I was just stating this was a demonstration of how the CAS is not bound by the rules of the US judicial system, so although the case against Lance may not stand up under a legal trial it still may be enough for the CAS to find against him. I don't have the numbers in front of me but I think Landis had also brought up some statistics on how the CAS is stacked against the athlete and always sides with WADA/USADA.


----------



## JasonB176

viciouscycle said:


> What current blood test's are they using?
> What current race's will they strip him of his results?
> If they find him dirty of his TDF wines, but he tests clean now, why not let him compete?
> 
> All I want is a to see is ANY governing body is truly serious about cleaning up their sport, test everyone, and ban them for life when caught, winnings will be paid back to the promoter. Make the punishment strong enough so that athletes are not willing to take a chance.


Why do you add apostrophes to your plural words? You do realize apostrophes are indicative of possession or are used in contractions, right?


----------



## gusmahler

Chris-X said:


> And you're asking this because there isn't enough information floating around out there about Lance Armstrong? How many pages are devoted to him on this website alone?:idea:


I'm just asking for a quick summary of what he does that is bad. I'm not gonna spend an hour Googling everything he did.


----------



## Chris-X

gusmahler said:


> I'm just asking for a quick summary of what he does that is bad. I'm not gonna spend an hour Googling everything he did.


When people told the truth about LA, LA tried to ruin them professionally, financially, and personally with his own lies.


----------



## trailrunner68

Mosovich said:


> Maybe Hincapie?? He is retiring and this might be why... Just a thought...


Vaughters, Andreu, Hincapie, Danielson, Vandevelde, Leipheimer, Landis, Hamilton, Cruz, Clinger, Hesjedal, etc. Others that are former Postal/Disco riders or staff who now work for Garmin. 

Staff: Prentice Steffan, Emma O'Reilly, Mike Anderson


----------



## 95zpro

Unfortunately sponsors, sanctioning bodies etc. would not go for the lifetime ban idea, although this would be a great deterrent for the majority of athletes out there to not cheat because ultimately if they did they would be out of a job! Also to those that say just let it go, this has gone on too long, or since the Feds dropped their case USADA should drop this one, the USADA's job is to promote clean sport. If they find enough evidence of wrongdoing it's their responsibility to investigate, and with all of the collaborating evidence/testimony against LA it seems to be warranted. Just because LA never tested positive for PEDs does not mean he did not take them (reference Marion Jones, Mark McGuire etc.). With the evidence against him, I can see why LA does not want to testify for fear of perjuring himself especially in case someone from his inner circle decides to come clean.

As for the witnesses, George, Floyd, Frank, Hamilton, Betty etc. are part of the witnesses list that the USADA has testimony from. It will be very interesting to see how this proceeds in the next ten days (response to charges).


----------



## Dan333sp

Oh no, I just started reading the LA book "it's not about the bike". To continue enjoying it, I'll have to ignore all these threads about the latest accusations and my prior knowledge about his personal life.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OES said:


> But just WOW. 45, 46. Those are SHOCKING numbers. That's getting up near Riis territory. ut:
> 
> Hell, you really have to have a boner for someone to charge them based on THIS.


It appears you do not understand blood. 

Armstrong's base numbers in the off season were 38.5. In the 3rd week of the Tour they jumped to his highest ever recorded. Normally in the 3rd week of a GT hct is depressed by an average of 13%, Armstrong showed a 17% increase over his baseline. Given that he made the testers wait for 55 minutes, more then enough time to slam some plasma, his real Hct was likely higher. 

No boners needed


----------



## JasonB176

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you do not understand blood.
> 
> Armstrong's base numbers in the off season were 38.5. In the 3rd week of the Tour they jumped to his highest ever recorded. Normally in the 3rd week of a GT hct is depressed by an average of 13%, Armstrong showed a 17% increase over his baseline. Given that he made the testers wait for 55 minutes, more then enough time to slam some plasma, his real Hct was likely higher.
> 
> No boners needed


Did LA have to come up with some excuse to make the testers wait or are athletes allowed a certain window of time when they show up?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

JasonB176 said:


> Did LA have to come up with some excuse to make the testers wait or are athletes allowed a certain window of time when they show up?


IIRC, the athlete is not suppose to leave the sight of the tester/chaperone from the time they are contacted.


----------



## biobanker

So they'll go after him 100 times, fail 99 and then once they get one case across the line claim that he is a doper?

Who's keeping score?


----------



## asgelle

biobanker said:


> Who's keeping score?


You don't have to name 99 times, just one time Armstrong was charged with a doping violation and found innocent will do.


----------



## RkFast

They (the press) keep saying that the 7 TdF titles are at stake. Without a postive test from those events or admission from Armstrong, how is that so?


----------



## Ridin'Sorra

RkFast said:


> And none of those guys doped.....
> 
> What a mess.


Basso and Ullrich doped and did their time.

I don't know or don't remember (sincerely I'm too lazy to google it) about Beloki.

That may be the difference... the rest were caught and punished for it.

If I understand correctly, if they were banned during the years LA was in competition, then the title would go to the next one in line.

Again... I don't like the man. But I find ridiculous that they come for him after all this time.
Who's next? Indurain? Merkx?


----------



## trailrunner68

RkFast said:


> They (the press) keep saying that the 7 TdF titles are at stake. Without a postive test from those events or admission from Armstrong, how is that so?


Why don't you ask Ullrich or Scarponi or Leogrande or Zajicek or Pellizotti or,,,

The USADA is going to show that Armstrong was an active participant in a doping conspiracy from 1999 to 2010. He not only used dope himself, he encouraged teammates to dope, gave teammates dope, facilitated doping, engaged in acts to conceal the conspiracy, etc. All results from within the time frame are subject to the action.


----------



## RkFast

trailrunner68 said:


> Why don't you ask Ullrich or Scarponi or Leogrande or Zajicek or Pellizotti or,,,
> 
> The USADA is going to show that Armstrong was an active participant in a doping conspiracy from 1999 to 2010. He not only used dope himself, he encouraged teammates to dope, gave teammates dope, facilitated doping, engaged in acts to conceal the conspiracy, etc. All results from within the time frame are subject to the action.


Didnt ALL the names you mention either confess or got bagged in test? 

Im asking...not trying to be a wiseass.

And if the whole thing comes down to testimony, its gotta be pretty strong. Its gotta be someone saying they SAW DIRECTLY LA inject himself or get a transfusion. If its "I saw Johann carry a white paper bag into LA's room", the case is shot.


----------



## hoopingkld

Chris-X said:


> When people told the truth about LA, LA tried to ruin them professionally, financially, and personally with his own lies.



i don't really care much about LA here. But what did you have against the guy anyway...

Statement you made above is ludicrous at best. Guys like Tyler and Landis got their lives ruin bc they were caught and lose all sponsorships ie..monetary supports ....not bc the guy told all the sponsors/teams to ban them...please show us your fact proof that you actually see LA did what you said above not from media or a distance cousin somewhere..

shall we wait until after the trial to see what USADA could prove against the guy this time after all of other agencies failed to do so. Conspiracy theory can only go so far until reality check can confirm/deny it...just like what happened to other athletes Marion Jones, Mcguire, Giambi

all due respect, everyone's opinion is noticed in this forum but it's just an opinion IMHO..

Here is just freshly posted and i copied from ABC news:

_"Luskin's letter notes that the blood samples collected in 2009 and 2010 - when Armstrong came out of retirement to race in the Tour de France - did not result in positive drug tests at the time.

''As you well know ... he successfully passed every test administered to him during that period, as he has passed every test that was ever administered,'' Luskin wrote_.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

RkFast said:


> Didnt ALL the names you mention either confess or got bagged in test?
> 
> Im asking...not trying to be a wiseass.
> 
> And if the whole thing comes down to testimony, its gotta be pretty strong. Its gotta be someone saying they SAW DIRECTLY LA inject himself or get a transfusion. If its "I saw Johann carry a white paper bag into LA's room", the case is shot.


I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is no. Some have, some have confessed in all but actually saying yes I did it (e.g. Ullrich), and some have maintained their innocence (e.g. Basso & Valverde), some just take their medicine and essentially comment very little on it.

Seems the the testimony is in the form of I was told..., I was given..., I doubt there is too much ambiguity about it. People forget the doping culture that existed in cycling.


----------



## trailrunner68

RkFast said:


> Didnt ALL the names you mention either confess or got bagged in test?


Nope. None of them tested positive. Scarponi may have come to an agreement with CONI but I do not recall. All bio passport have occurred without a positive test.

In the last couple of years the USADA has sanctioned many people for doping based on non-analytical evidence (no positive test). In fact, the reason why the USADA can pursue non-Americans Bruyneel, Ferrari, Marti, Del Moral, and C... (cannot spell it) is because it is a non-analytical case.

There is an article on ESPN that goes over the legal and rules details. I don't have a link handy.


----------



## trailrunner68

hoopingkld said:


> i don't really care much about LA here. But what did you have against the guy anyway...
> 
> Statement you made above is ludicrous at best.


Armstrong has carried out a vendetta against Frankie Andreu. He tried to destroy LeMond's bike brand. He prevented Simeoni from getting in a break because Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari. Armstrong has a long history of using his money and influence in the industry to hurt those who told the truth about doping.


----------



## hoopingkld

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong has carried out a vendetta against Frankie Andreu. He tried to destroy LeMond's bike brand. He prevented Simeoni from getting in a break because Simeoni testified against Dr. Ferrari. Armstrong has a long history of using his money and influence in the industry to hurt those who told the truth about doping.


sounds like personal attacks against one another...Lemond once made a comment about LA's reputation as well. Should one makes a careless comment about another reputation...or throwing mud at each other. 

LA is also a human and he will hold grudges against people who considers against him...and he had more power than most to sue ..

Check this wiki link about Frankie: if you don't have enough proof, you will be toasted for defamation..
Frankie Andreu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we can debate about this all we want but we will not be able to deny the guy success...
....until LA voluntary comes clean or someone who had enough evidence to scare him enough just like how Justice Dept scared off those runners/baseball players to admit that themselves...


----------



## gordy748

I think Tommy Simpson should definitely be banned for life for doping. No, wait...

But I digress. Regarding Armstrong. Most of us believe he doped, much the same way most of us believe Elvis is still alive, the Loch Ness Monster is an introverted plesiosaur, and Jesus was a Mormon. 

Fact is we have no real evidence of any of these things. All these mountains of evidence that people on this thread claim USADA has is bunk. Their case largely rests on 2 things; the testimony of, among others, Landis and Hamilton, 2 of the most dubious and (in Landis' instance) lying drug cheats since Ben Johnson, most if not all will be testifying in exchange for immunity. They claim to have seen Lance doping... was it dope that he was injecting or a syringe full of vitamins? Or was is an IV full of dope or actually a saline drip? Both were standard, legal practices when Armstrong was racing. As for them hearing that Lance bragged about doping... I cannot buy that for a second. If he's smart enough to have gotten away with doping up to now, he's smart enough to have kept his mouth shut. All these allegations are as factual as the way Nessie has been sighted sunbathing on repeated occasions, primarily by drunks and crackpots. They simply are hearsay. And to include hearsay from proven perjurers like Landis is laughable.

The other base for the allegations are some blood results that appear suspicious but within normal variances. A few people Mention Mike Ashenden's interview (he is a man I highly rate, by the way). In his article he explains the average hematocrit level is 45% for men, with a maximum allowed of 50%. If I was expecting Armstrong to be doping, I'd expect to see Hematocrit results in the high 40s. Yet in the graph some posters are using as evidence that HE DEFINITELY CHEATED, they aren't. In fact they're lower than I'd expect. Further the range is not unusual. A low level in training can be caused by hard training as much as a high level in competition can be cause by a couple of easy days (including a rest day). The reticulocyte levels are also well within normal variances. Now, I'll admit the clustering of the August-May samples higher than the June-July ones is suspicious, as Ashenden points out. But that's all it is... suspicious. 

In fact, given the access to a blood analyzer as Landis claims, I'm surprised the team wouldn't have picked up that Armstrong's reticulocyte levels were suspiciously low so spiked them back up. Now that would be very suspicious! But no... they are all low and pretty consistent. And this is where using Ashenden's article as proof falls apart; to quote, "You can certainly get close, and as I said before that’s relatively easy to do, but that’s different to trying to dial in a level to say be within 0.1% of your target." Yet Armstrong's June-July results, when he should have been micro-dosing, are all within .1% variance. Ashenden admits that shouldn't be possible with micro-dosing.

Onto the USADA action. What's new in this latest chapter is including Bruyneel, Ferrari and co, which is a simple way of trying to bully one of these into confessing that, yes, Armstrong did indeed take drugs all along. Now, it is entirely possible that one of these will crack and throw Armstrong (and the rest) under a bus, and we'll have a more detailed understanding of what Armstrong actually took. Perhaps then we'll get the evidence confirming what we believe, and what some of the posters seem to need as if their lives depended on it.

What Tygart is doing, however, is betting the house on breaking one of these. If none of these nuts crack, then he's got nothing more than the same old rumors, allegations and occasional suspicions, which will fold like a house of cards. That would cost him his career, and the USADA its credibility. I certainly hope he knows what he's doing.


----------



## Mootsie

nOOky said:


> Though not a government body, the agency is partly funded by a U.S. federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
> 
> Source, Wikipedia fwiw
> <sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency#cite_note-3</sup>


The agency is doing what is tasked to do. So by its very existance it is using tax dollars. Either they do it or they shouldn't exist.


----------



## 55x11

RkFast said:


> I dont buy that. Has anyone used drugs his entire career? LA was kicking ass at every level of competition he ever participated in. You mean to tell me when he was on the national circuit in his early 20s and blowing the doors off everyone he was doping, too? When he was doing tris in his teens he was doping, too? Come on.
> 
> Im NO LA fanboy, but I just dont buy the fact he has doped forever. He DOES have a TON of natural talent and ability.


maybe I am naive. But I thought 1999-2006, almost certainly doped for most of it. 2009 - scared from recent news, did not dope and got lucky 3rd. 2010 - reality sets in. Triathlon career - meh. Probably did not dope. Decent, but not super-human performances.

Unless some news from recent triathlon testing comes out, let him race and leave it alone. Should have caught him when you had your chance. People who follow cycling know what goes on and have a pretty good idea what happened. People who don't follow cycling won't care or believe it anyways. The truth will come out eventually, Hincapie and others will tell their story. Don't force it unless you have solid proof.


----------



## Axe

gordy748 said:


> I think Tommy Simpson should definitely be banned for life for doping. No, wait...
> 
> But I digress. Regarding Armstrong. Most of us believe he doped, much the same way most of us believe Elvis is still alive, the Loch Ness Monster is an introverted plesiosaur, and Jesus was a Mormon.
> 
> Fact is we have no real evidence of any of these things. All these mountains of evidence that people on this thread claim USADA has is bunk. Their case largely rests on 2 things; the testimony of, among others, Landis and Hamilton, 2 of the most dubious and (in Landis' instance) lying drug cheats since Ben Johnson, most if not all will be testifying in exchange for immunity. They claim to have seen Lance doping... was it dope that he was injecting or a syringe full of vitamins? Or was is an IV full of dope or actually a saline drip? Both were standard, legal practices when Armstrong was racing. As for them hearing that Lance bragged about doping... I cannot buy that for a second. If he's smart enough to have gotten away with doping up to now, he's smart enough to have kept his mouth shut. All these allegations are as factual as the way Nessie has been sighted sunbathing on repeated occasions, primarily by drunks and crackpots. They simply are hearsay. And to include hearsay from proven perjurers like Landis is laughable.
> 
> The other base for the allegations are some blood results that appear suspicious but within normal variances. A few people Mention Mike Ashenden's interview (he is a man I highly rate, by the way). In his article he explains the average hematocrit level is 45% for men, with a maximum allowed of 50%. If I was expecting Armstrong to be doping, I'd expect to see Hematocrit results in the high 40s. Yet in the graph some posters are using as evidence that HE DEFINITELY CHEATED, they aren't. In fact they're lower than I'd expect. Further the range is not unusual. A low level in training can be caused by hard training as much as a high level in competition can be cause by a couple of easy days (including a rest day). The reticulocyte levels are also well within normal variances. Now, I'll admit the clustering of the August-May samples higher than the June-July ones is suspicious, as Ashenden points out. But that's all it is... suspicious.
> 
> In fact, given the access to a blood analyzer as Landis claims, I'm surprised the team wouldn't have picked up that Armstrong's reticulocyte levels were suspiciously low so spiked them back up. Now that would be very suspicious! But no... they are all low and pretty consistent. And this is where using Ashenden's article as proof falls apart; to quote, "You can certainly get close, and as I said before that’s relatively easy to do, but that’s different to trying to dial in a level to say be within 0.1% of your target." Yet Armstrong's June-July results, when he should have been micro-dosing, are all within .1% variance. Ashenden admits that shouldn't be possible with micro-dosing.
> 
> Onto the USADA action. What's new in this latest chapter is including Bruyneel, Ferrari and co, which is a simple way of trying to bully one of these into confessing that, yes, Armstrong did indeed take drugs all along. Now, it is entirely possible that one of these will crack and throw Armstrong (and the rest) under a bus, and we'll have a more detailed understanding of what Armstrong actually took. Perhaps then we'll get the evidence confirming what we believe, and what some of the posters seem to need as if their lives depended on it.
> 
> What Tygart is doing, however, is betting the house on breaking one of these. If none of these nuts crack, then he's got nothing more than the same old rumors, allegations and occasional suspicions, which will fold like a house of cards. That would cost him his career, and the USADA its credibility. I certainly hope he knows what he's doing.


Somebody got a clue here.


----------



## 95zpro

Fact is we have no real evidence of any of these things. All these mountains of evidence that people on this thread claim USADA has is bunk. Their case largely rests on 2 things; the testimony of, among others, Landis and Hamilton, 2 of the most dubious and (in Landis' instance) lying drug cheats since Ben Johnson, most if not all will be testifying in exchange for immunity. They claim to have seen Lance doping... was it dope that he was injecting or a syringe full of vitamins? Or was is an IV full of dope or actually a saline drip? Both were standard, legal practices when Armstrong was racing. As for them hearing that Lance bragged about doping... I cannot buy that for a second. If he's smart enough to have gotten away with doping up to now, he's smart enough to have kept his mouth shut. All these allegations are as factual as the way Nessie has been sighted sunbathing on repeated occasions, primarily by drunks and crackpots. They simply are hearsay. And to include hearsay from proven perjurers like Landis is laughable.

Unfortunately USADA has supposedly more than *10 witnesses* that they are going to be more than happy to parade before any hearing/trial etc. So these dubious characters will be backed up with other people that most likely witnessed the same thing or have even more evidence against Lance....

What Tygart is doing, however, is betting the house on breaking one of these. If none of these nuts crack, then he's got nothing more than the same old rumors, allegations and occasional suspicions, which will fold like a house of cards. That would cost him his career, and the USADA its credibility. I certainly hope he knows what he's doing.[/QUOTE]

Tygart will not have to worry about any of them cracking; the goose is already cooked as they say. If the Lance camp has not figured that out by now I do not know what will help them. Pepe, Ferrari and Moral's reputations are probably worse than Landis and Hamilton's. Furthermore, If the LA camp stays silent that would actually be great and as LA has already seen by not complying he has played into USADA's hands. The only smart thing LA has done was to come out a few weeks ago and claim that he is not going to fight any charges that might come out, however, I doubt that he will go down without a fight.


----------



## Knitapair

One issue I have is that I've yet to see a credible witness with substantial evidence come out against him. everyone always has some obvious ulterior motive for accusing him, like selling more copies of their tell all books. Now the rumors are that riders are basically being black mailed into testifying against him. "we know you doped, testify against lance or you'll never ride again" type of stuff. Sounds like someone who'd be willing to lie to preserve their career.

The biggest issue i have is this: Contador, Ulrich, Landis, Hamilton, Virenque, Vinkourov, Pantani, etc. were all caught using something at some point in their careers except for the man that they've tried harder to catch than any other athlete in world history.

Whether he did it or not his career is over and continuing to pursue him isn't about justice it's a witch hunt.


----------



## asgelle

Knitapair said:


> One issue I have is that I've yet to see a credible witness ...


You don't suppose the fact that there hasn't been a hearing yet might have something to do with that, do you?


----------



## asgelle

Knitapair said:


> Whether he did it or not his career is over and continuing to pursue him isn't about justice it's a witch hunt.


I guess I shouldn't have stopped reading after that first sentence. How do you miss the fact that A) six people are named in the conspiracy and all are currently active in sport, B) Armstrong is currently competing as a professional athlete subject to the WADA code?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I could say "I told your so" but that would be as classless
> 
> Funny, I did not see the same whining when Basso, Ullrich, Valverde or Scarponi were sanctioned. Wonder why?
> 
> One of the better parts of the USADA letter
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the attention is focused on Armstrong but notice the USADA letter also focuses on Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, Celya, and Dal Morel. All still infecting the sport. All facing lifetime bans. This is a good thing


Well I think the main reason for this is to shoe a conspiracy. If the AAA allows a RICO like case to go through that means if they can prove that Johan did "X" in furtherance of a greater conspiracy where LA was involved then LA can also be held accountable. That is actually why RICO was invented and why some people argue it is unconstitutional.

I did see an interesting story on Velonews today. A Law professor basically said that it looks like the current case was brought for 2 reasons 1. The SOL was going to expire in the not distant future even for his most recent TdF win and 2. this case was as strong as it was going to get in the finite time frame they had left. I think this is pretty accurate. The byzantine nature of the case I think shows a "pasta" method. They basically sat down and thought of any potential method to get Armstrong on a non-analytical finding and to bust the SOL. What remains to be seen I think really are two things. Does the AAA allow for a RICO like case without rules specifically permitting them and do they allow states made out side of sporting arbitration to be used to bust the SOL.


----------



## Handbrake

Easily the most useful piece of the letter is the list of slang names for EPO. I feel like I've wasted years calling it EPO, when I could have been using "Edgar Allen Poe".

That and it can be blended with olive oil and consumed as a salad dressing.


----------



## PaxRomana

RkFast said:


> They (the press) keep saying that the 7 TdF titles are at stake. Without a postive test from those events or admission from Armstrong, how is that so?


WADA permits non-analytical positives as evidence.


----------



## badge118

I think if any the difference between say Basso and LA even Jan is that eventually they got some DNA off him (a German criminal case which was settled). Basso had bags with blood with his dogs name on them in the OP affair and also Italy has a crime on the books for it so he was ending up on the short end too. 

See the difference?  When you have the power of criminal arrest in the background the entire system works better.


----------



## pedalruns

Knitapair said:


> One issue I have is that I've yet to see a credible witness with substantial evidence come out against him.


I consider these two credible.. Bassons & Simeoni 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-and-simeoni-say-armstrong-probe-is-overdue

Especially Bassons or "Mr Clean" who quit the sport because of the doping.. I always wondered what could have been, he was a huge talent who refused to dope.. His last year was in 1999.. He had hoped the sport would change after the Festina Affair in 98... but it was not to be. Lance bought himself the good dr. and the rest his now history. 

I also consider Frankie Andreu credible.. he had everything to lose testifying against Armstrong, NOTHING to gain.. He told the truth and in the end he lost quite a bit. 

In 99 Armstrong did test positive.. (I find this substantail) but of course he was allowed a back dated note.. 

One other thing... When LA first started bike racing he was never considered a grand tour rider, but a great classic's guy... In 1994 he was interviewed and he said something like.. how the top tour riders were on a different planet... And there is a great video of Indurain flying by him like he was standing still.. and the mt's he was far, far behind... This is substantial evidence to me.. But to be clear this is my opinion only.. I'm just a fan... I was a huge fan of LA at one time.


----------



## badge118

One last thing. I think this is the main reason why some of the hang him now ask questions later attitudes here are troubling to me. Where is the call for Landis's life time ban since he is apparently part of the conspiracy? Where are the calls for even a reduced ban/stripped palmares for Levi, Big George etc. These people were all also part of the conspiracy if rumors are true and should get some sort of penalty as well. I wonder how much of the righteous indignation is because these guys were/are seen as "nice" guys and Armstrong is, at least in my opinion (out side of his cancer work) an arrogant and abrasive SOB. To just give other people a complete walk in this case I think is helping to fuel the martyr story line. 

I don't think LA is a martyr but damn, this case could have been handled A LOT better to limit LA's ability to play this card.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

RkFast said:


> They (the press) keep saying that the 7 TdF titles are at stake. Without a postive test from those events or admission from Armstrong, how is that so?


Same way Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Scarponi, Jones and many others were sanctioned. In Lance's case they also have direct witness testimony from more then 10 teammates and staff.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> One last thing. I think this is the main reason why some of the hang him now ask questions later attitudes here are troubling to me. Where is the call for Landis's life time ban since he is apparently part of the conspiracy? Where are the calls for even a reduced ban/stripped palmares for Levi, Big George etc. These people were all also part of the conspiracy if rumors are true and should get some sort of penalty as well. I wonder how much of the righteous indignation is because these guys were/are seen as "nice" guys and Armstrong is, at least in my opinion (out side of his cancer work) an arrogant and abrasive SOB. To just give other people a complete walk in this case I think is helping to fuel the martyr story line.
> 
> I don't think LA is a martyr but damn, this case could have been handled A LOT better to limit LA's ability to play this card.


This is hardly a rush to judgement. Armstrong has done everything in his power to push off this inevitable date for a decade.


----------



## badge118

Simeoni isn't really a good one. He basically pulled a "oh crap I got caught lets dime someone out" with Ferrari. LA was shady as hell in how he shut down his break away at Le Tour no doubt, but I really think anyone who won or shined during the "Magnificant 7" years could be seen as reliable. Sorry one exception... Millar. It is one thing to get caught and then slink off or just go on business as usual later, those people to my mind are part of the problem still. They usually don't have a change of heart, they just want to preserve their career. However someone like Millar, I honestly think he had a true apiphany and is actively trying to be part of the solution. Sadly they are the rare ones.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I think if any the difference between say Basso and LA even Jan is that eventually they got some DNA off him (a German criminal case which was settled). Basso had bags with blood with his dogs name on them in the OP affair and also Italy has a crime on the books for it so he was ending up on the short end too.
> 
> See the difference? When you have the power of criminal arrest in the background the entire system works better.


Armstrong's sealed samples, stored in a UCI and WADA approved lab. Direct Witness testimony

See the difference? 

Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

The experts do


----------



## txzen

gordy748 said:


> As for Armstrong, the facts are that he never failed a drugs test, and his blood passport levels were always within statistical norms. Even the graph above is well within the standard variance for a normal person, let alone an athlete that trains all over the world at differing altitudes to gain maximum effect. Actually, the hematocrit levels seem slightly low to me, so I'm not so sure you could even call it suspicious.


Actually if you look at the research papers which validate the blood passport, they profile two athletes, one training at high altitude. No appreciable effect on reticulocytes.


----------



## Mootsie

*It's Time*

I like Lance, I've met Lance, I watched him race, I rooted for Lance, but I am not naive. The time has come. Let's get it over with so we can all move on. Fess up LA.


----------



## txzen

gordy748 said:


> ...The reticulocyte levels are also well within normal variances. Now, I'll admit the clustering of the August-May samples higher than the June-July ones is suspicious, as Ashenden points out. But that's all it is... suspicious.
> 
> In fact, given the access to a blood analyzer as Landis claims, I'm surprised the team wouldn't have picked up that Armstrong's reticulocyte levels were suspiciously low so spiked them back up. Now that would be very suspicious! But no... they are all low and pretty consistent. And this is where using Ashenden's article as proof falls apart; to quote, "You can certainly get close, and as I said before that’s relatively easy to do, but that’s different to trying to dial in a level to say be within 0.1% of your target." Yet Armstrong's June-July results, when he should have been micro-dosing, are all within .1% variance. Ashenden admits that shouldn't be possible with micro-dosing.


Suspicious is one thing, but the low reticulocyte values did not by themselves constitute a positive. And, given the level of scrutiny of him at the time, maybe they couldn't dose as much EPO as they would have liked to keep them steady.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hoopingkld said:


> i don't really care much about LA here. But what did you have against the guy anyway...
> 
> Statement you made above is ludicrous at best. Guys like Tyler and Landis got their lives ruin bc they were caught and lose all sponsorships ie..monetary supports ....not bc the guy told all the sponsors/teams to ban them...please show us your fact proof that you actually see LA did what you said above not from media or a distance cousin somewhere..


Ever heard of Mike Anderson? He was Armstrong's mechanic. he thought up the design for Mellow Johny's bike shop. When he found out about lance's drugs, money laundering, and tax evasion Armstrong fired him then harassed him until he had a seizure. He eventually moved to New Zeland 

Or Frankie, fired from multiple jobs after he chose not to commit perjury for Lance. 

I could go on but you get the idea. He tried hard to ruin lives


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is hardly a rush to judgement. Armstrong has done everything in his power to push off this inevitable date for a decade.


I am talking about the attitude of more than a few on these forums not the authorities here. Hell some people have actually come out and specifically noted his arrogance and open deception. All the other were equally deceptive by engaging in the same conduct, they just never made statements to the media denying such activity.

I think the USADA has a different mind set. I think there issue is one I have personally experienced. Sometimes you know someone is dirty and just can't catch em. Then you come across him and 4 buddies, all of em dirty. They run in different directions but you myopically focus on that guy you feel has been flaunting his wrong doing while getting away with it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gordy748 said:


> I think Tommy Simpson should definitely be banned for life for doping. No, wait...
> 
> But I digress. Regarding Armstrong. Most of us believe he doped, much the same way most of us believe Elvis is still alive, the Loch Ness Monster is an introverted plesiosaur, and Jesus was a Mormon.
> 
> Fact is we have no real evidence of any of these things. All these mountains of evidence that people on this thread claim USADA has is bunk. Their case largely rests on 2 things; the testimony of, among others, Landis and Hamilton, 2 of the most dubious and (in Landis' instance) lying drug cheats since Ben Johnson, most if not all will be testifying in exchange for immunity. They claim to have seen Lance doping... was it dope that he was injecting or a syringe full of vitamins? Or was is an IV full of dope or actually a saline drip? Both were standard, legal practices when Armstrong was racing. As for them hearing that Lance bragged about doping... I cannot buy that for a second. If he's smart enough to have gotten away with doping up to now, he's smart enough to have kept his mouth shut. All these allegations are as factual as the way Nessie has been sighted sunbathing on repeated occasions, primarily by drunks and crackpots. They simply are hearsay. And to include hearsay from proven perjurers like Landis is laughable.
> 
> The other base for the allegations are some blood results that appear suspicious but within normal variances. A few people Mention Mike Ashenden's interview (he is a man I highly rate, by the way). In his article he explains the average hematocrit level is 45% for men, with a maximum allowed of 50%. If I was expecting Armstrong to be doping, I'd expect to see Hematocrit results in the high 40s. Yet in the graph some posters are using as evidence that HE DEFINITELY CHEATED, they aren't. In fact they're lower than I'd expect. Further the range is not unusual. A low level in training can be caused by hard training as much as a high level in competition can be cause by a couple of easy days (including a rest day). The reticulocyte levels are also well within normal variances. Now, I'll admit the clustering of the August-May samples higher than the June-July ones is suspicious, as Ashenden points out. But that's all it is... suspicious.
> 
> In fact, given the access to a blood analyzer as Landis claims, I'm surprised the team wouldn't have picked up that Armstrong's reticulocyte levels were suspiciously low so spiked them back up. Now that would be very suspicious! But no... they are all low and pretty consistent. And this is where using Ashenden's article as proof falls apart; to quote, "You can certainly get close, and as I said before that’s relatively easy to do, but that’s different to trying to dial in a level to say be within 0.1% of your target." Yet Armstrong's June-July results, when he should have been micro-dosing, are all within .1% variance. Ashenden admits that shouldn't be possible with micro-dosing.
> 
> Onto the USADA action. What's new in this latest chapter is including Bruyneel, Ferrari and co, which is a simple way of trying to bully one of these into confessing that, yes, Armstrong did indeed take drugs all along. Now, it is entirely possible that one of these will crack and throw Armstrong (and the rest) under a bus, and we'll have a more detailed understanding of what Armstrong actually took. Perhaps then we'll get the evidence confirming what we believe, and what some of the posters seem to need as if their lives depended on it.
> 
> What Tygart is doing, however, is betting the house on breaking one of these. If none of these nuts crack, then he's got nothing more than the same old rumors, allegations and occasional suspicions, which will fold like a house of cards. That would cost him his career, and the USADA its credibility. I certainly hope he knows what he's doing.


I am sure you a prefectly nice person but you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to doping

USADA has more then 10 former teammates and staff that gave direct witness testimony of lance's doping. They saw him dope, they got dope from him, they doped together. This is far beyond Tyler and Floyd. George, Kevin, VDV, JV, Marty, Frankie, Mike, and many others. BTW, IV's have been banned for several years. 

Armstrong's blood values were never normal. Even in the early 00's it was reported he had a 49 in the 3rd week of the Tour. Armstrong admitted a 47. Testing showed his baseline was a 38.5. This is a huge swing. 

In 2009 he tested 17% baseline in the 3rd week of the Tour. Normal riders see a average of 13% *decrease* in the 3rd week. His rec's were also wacky. 

USADA has a super strong case, which is why Armstrong's tactic is not to attack the case itself but claim it is "Unconstitutional" 

ridiculous


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong's sealed samples, stored in a UCI and WADA approved lab. Direct Witness testimony
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events
> 
> The experts do


My point was to say that the anti doping regimes in countries where there are sport doping criminal laws and penalties are simply more efficient and by extension the US should have similar legislation (as I stated in the prior thread.) Will you PLEASE stop being so god damn defensive, it gets old having to explain myself twice.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA has a super strong case, which is why Armstrong's tactic is not to attack the case itself but claim it is "Unconstitutional"



Oh I agree but it is only ridiculous really imo IF he choses to go that route in Court and a Judge rules against him. This is the first case I can think of where it involves a non-analytical finding with the evidence largely gained either in the US or by agents of the US gov't and most importantly with a defendant that can afford such a challenge financially. Every other such challenge I can think of was weasled out of by the court claiming the jurisdiction lay with the courts of the nation where the tests occurred in an analytically based case. A judge will actually have to make a real decision if this case ends up in front if them now.

It is not ridiculous by rather damn smart if he doesn't challenge he takes little PR damage with those who believe he is persecuted or care more about his cancer work than his sporting history or if he does go that route and wins.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Oh I agree but it is only ridiculous really imo IF he choses to go that route in Court and a Judge rules against him. This is the first case I can think of where it involves a non-analytical finding with the evidence largely gained either in the US or by agents of the US gov't and most importantly with a defendant that can afford such a challenge financially. Every other such challenge I can think of was weasled out of by the court claiming the jurisdiction lay with the courts of the nation where the tests occurred in an analytically based case.
> 
> It is not ridiculous by rather damn smart if he doesn't challenge he takes little PR damage with those who believe he is persecuted or care more about his cancer work than his sporting history or if he does go that route and wins.


I think he is just threatening as he knows it will drain their resources, also known as "Taxpayer dollars" 

Basso, Marion Jones, Leogrande, 

Getting stripped of all his wins, being publicly labeled as a doper with detailed testimony of his doping.....then losing every dollar he has left in the Fraud case and paying back SCA, Times of London, and others. 

It will not be pretty


----------



## badge118

One other thing I was just musing about. The USADA has no jurisdiction over the other named conspirators if I am not mistaken. They would need to be dealt with by their own national federations as I understand it. Can an ADA actually make a case of conspiracy when most of the conspirators are out side their jurisdiction? Just another reason why I hate the balkanized nature of the WADA regime and think doping cases should be in the jurisdiction of the Sports governing body, that way everyone falls in the same jurisdiction. OP was the first time I got annoyed by this system.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I think he is just threatening as he knows it will drain their resources, also known as "Taxpayer dollars"


Probably. I just do a lot of musing and theory crafting, my wife calls it over analysing ;-) when it comes to legal issues.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> One other thing I was just musing about. The USADA has no jurisdiction over the other named conspirators if I am not mistaken. They would need to be dealt with by their own national federations as I understand it. Can an ADA actually make a case of conspiracy when most of the conspirators are out side their jurisdiction? Just another reason why I hate the balkanized nature of the WADA regime and think doping cases should be in the jurisdiction of the Sports governing body, that way everyone falls in the same jurisdiction. OP was the first time I got annoyed by this system.


nope,

Reference Valverde/CONI


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> One other thing I was just musing about. The USADA has no jurisdiction over the other named conspirators if I am not mistaken. They would need to be dealt with by their own national federations as I understand it. Can an ADA actually make a case of conspiracy when most of the conspirators are out side their jurisdiction? Just another reason why I hate the balkanized nature of the WADA regime and think doping cases should be in the jurisdiction of the Sports governing body, that way everyone falls in the same jurisdiction. OP was the first time I got annoyed by this system.


As I stated above the ESPN piece covers this. Because it is a non-analytical case the USADA has jurisdiction.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> nope,
> 
> Reference Valverde/CONI


That was a ban in Italy only though and involved DNA. With how some of the CAS decisions have been of late I wonder if it would be see as the same. CAS has just been wierd lately. The Contador hearings made my head hurt.


----------



## smartyiak

I have a question(s) that maybe the Dr. can answer.

First: Are the 10 witnesses individuals who testified at the Grand Jury?
2: If so, have they provided testimony to USADA or is USADA "piggybacking" off the Grand Jury testimony?

Which leads to my real question:
If the latter is true and USADA is "piggybacking" could the witnesses tell the USADA that they won't talk to them?
Farfetched: Could they even tell USADA that they lied during GJ? It's technically not perjury.

I assume USADA cant compel anyone to testify...so if a witness is retired by the time USADA inteviews them (Hincapie), all the sudden 10 witnesses become one or two.

I don't know the process and am curious if USADA actually has those witnesses "on the hook"

(I assume that they can't just use Grand Jury testimony b/c GJ testimony is sealed.)


----------



## gordy748

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am sure you a prefectly nice person but you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to doping
> 
> USADA has more then 10 former teammates and staff that gave direct witness testimony of lance's doping. They saw him dope, they got dope from him, they doped together. This is far beyond Tyler and Floyd. George, Kevin, VDV, JV, Marty, Frankie, Mike, and many others. BTW, IV's have been banned for several years.
> 
> Armstrong's blood values were never normal. Even in the early 00's it was reported he had a 49 in the 3rd week of the Tour. Armstrong admitted a 47. Testing showed his baseline was a 38.5. This is a huge swing.
> 
> In 2009 he tested 17% baseline in the 3rd week of the Tour. Normal riders see a average of 13% *decrease* in the 3rd week. His rec's were also wacky.
> 
> USADA has a super strong case, which is why Armstrong's tactic is not to attack the case itself but claim it is "Unconstitutional"
> 
> ridiculous


Actually, I'm not a nice person at all, but thanks for the compliment. What I am is an retired international rower, so I have a very good understanding of drug testing, ways to get around it and how to dope without doping (read legally but unethically) and/ or getting caught (read, illegally and unethically). 

If you read my post properly, you'd have understood the inference about the syringes and the IV drips. Anybody who saw Armstrong taking these saw exactly that; a syringe or a IV drip. Anything could have been in those, either legal or illegal supplements. Without the back-up of a positive test, or rather opposed by a series of negative tests, any testimony about needles or IVs can be easily refuted by the fact the people testifying did not know exactly what was in them. Note that IV drips were banned after 2005, the last year Armstrong won the Tour. So anyone seeing Armstrong with an IV in his veins can't say for sure whether they really know if he took drugs.

The witnesses can say because they were taking drugs the same way, that Armstrong was too. But however likely that may be (and I personally believe that they are telling the truth), their assertion that he was also doping is legally just that. An assertion. A good lawyer, heck even a bad lawyer will shoot that down.

They got dope from him, what do you really believe Bruyneel with all his doctors and his planning would give drugs to his lead rider to distribute to the rest of the team? Bruyneel is a slick and professional operator. I personally believe he is guilty as accused by the USADA, but Bruyneel is not an idiot who would lose control of the drug distribution process. Again, where is the proof?

The only way they can make this stick is by convincing one of the doctors implicated with Armstrong and Bruyneel to give evidence in exchange for immunity. Then they have corroboration of what was in the drips, and what the drips were doing.

Blood values of athletes who train as intensely in so many different climates and altitudes seldom are normal. Armstrong's hematocrit % scores have varied, but a 49 or 47 is not out of the ordinary if someone has been training at altitude. Is it suspicious? Perhaps. Is it clear proof of blood doping. Not at all.

And where was his baseline hematocrit % 38.5? That is anaemic for sedentary males, let alone an athlete that trains at altitude. I find it impossible to believe that someone like Armstrong would deliver an average hematocrit level of someone who would otherwise be at home in bed.

USADA has no case without turning over one of the 6 accused.


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> As I stated above the ESPN piece covers this. Because it is a non-analytical case the USADA has jurisdiction.


Yes but the case the USADA is using to bust the SOL says something VERY interesting. In one part it states that if two rules are different the most advantageous to the defendant is the one you use. They used the example of SOL. If one is 8 years and the other 6 (the difference between the national fed and the governing body rules) the lower of the two must be applied. 

With that in mind under the WADA rules I think one could argue that the National Federation is given jurisdiction in anti-doping cases. Under the Sports Governing body it says 



> To require each of its National Federations to establish rules requiring all Athletes and each Athlete Support Personnel who participates as coach, trainer, manager, team staff, official, medical or paramedical personnel in a Competition or activity authorized or organized by a National Federation or one of its member organizations to agree to be bound by antidoping rules in conformity with the Code as a condition of such participation.


 Under the National Federation rules it says.



> To vigorously pursue all potential anti-doping rule violations within its jurisdiction including investigation into whether Athlete Support Personnel or other Persons may have been involved in each case of doping.


I think one could argue that WADA has a different idea of where prosecution jurisdiction lies. Not a certainly victorious one mind you but one with some validity. Of course there are counter arguments but that is why attorneys get paid and I have seen REAL courts make crazier decisions (such as a State that once said you had an expectation of privacy in the air surrounding your vehicle), Then you take the case the USADA is hanging it's hat on and you could end up at CAS to finally and firmly rule.


----------



## Knitapair

I hadn't heard of those accounts, only the allegations of people like landis and hamilton and accusations from french tabloids and obscure team assistants. And you can never totally trust the claims made by witnesses accepting plea bargains.

Simeoni and Bassons certainly do sound credible but the accusation that armstrong could do whatever he wanted sounds a bit of stretch. my understanding was that during his career armstrong was pretty unpopular with just about everyone except the peloton. i wasn't in the peloton at the time so i can't speak to it but that was my impression. and other top riders certainly weren't immune to being caught so i don't know why armstrong would have been.

I guess in the end I'm just tired of it. I'm a fan of his largely because he used the power of his celebrity to effect some real positive change in the world and for that I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If this latest investigation is about cleaning up the sport then I'm for it but if it's about bringing down armstrong at any cost then it's really wrong, even if he is guilty.


----------



## badge118

I think that is where a bunch of us stand...not whether he is guilty or not I for one think he is. My issues are basically; do members of the USADA have motives other than Justice and will they use this as the beginning of a new type of prosecution. If we see similar prosecutions in the future I have little problem, then there is consistency in the system and for a system to have the "high ground" it needs to function it must be consistent. If however this is simply a blip and in the future we go back to individuals being addressed then the system might as well pack up and go home as far as I am concerned. 

As I said earlier doping is no longer one athlete finding a personal prepatore in a shadowed back alley. Doping has had to become so high tech to stay hidden that it requires the cooperation of team doctors and/or trainers, DS's, other athletes and even reputable medical institutions (the Telekom case.) If they do not use this case as a test bed for a new future, then I think they show themselves to at least have in part an agenda that goes beyond simply enforcing the rules. It's like being on a drug unit with the police department. You can pick off street corner dealers until you are blue in the face and another one just pops up. However if you are patient and build a conspiracy case and go out one day and arrest everyone involved in a neighborhood drug crew, eventually a new crew may move in BUT for the short term the neighborhood is quite and if you keep doing the same thing in that neighborhood eventually the crews get the hint and go somewhere else.


----------



## spookyload

Mootsie said:


> The agency is doing what is tasked to do. So by its very existance it is using tax dollars. Either they do it or they shouldn't exist.


Is it their mission to go on a hunt of retired racers? Or is it to perform testing both at events and out of events for current racers?


----------



## den bakker

spookyload said:


> Is it their mission to go on a hunt of retired racers? Or is it to perform testing both at events and out of events for current racers?


it's a little bit hard to find, which may be why you are in doubt. But if you look closely at their webpage, roughly smack in the middle, their mission is stated. 

http://www.usantidoping.org/


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Simeoni isn't really a good one.


Here is what Vaughters had to say



> Simeoni/Bassons did nothing more than convey the truth of their experiences. The treatment they received as a result was deeply saddening.


Should Simeoni committed perjury to protect a doping doctor?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gordy748 said:


> Actually, I'm not a nice person at all, but thanks for the compliment. What I am is an retired international rower, so I have a very good understanding of drug testing, ways to get around it and how to dope without doping (read legally but unethically) and/ or getting caught (read, illegally and unethically).
> 
> If you read my post properly, you'd have understood the inference about the syringes and the IV drips. Anybody who saw Armstrong taking these saw exactly that; a syringe or a IV drip. Anything could have been in those, either legal or illegal supplements. Without the back-up of a positive test, or rather opposed by a series of negative tests, any testimony about needles or IVs can be easily refuted by the fact the people testifying did not know exactly what was in them. Note that IV drips were banned after 2005, the last year Armstrong won the Tour. So anyone seeing Armstrong with an IV in his veins can't say for sure whether they really know if he took drugs.
> 
> The witnesses can say because they were taking drugs the same way, that Armstrong was too. But however likely that may be (and I personally believe that they are telling the truth), their assertion that he was also doping is legally just that. An assertion. A good lawyer, heck even a bad lawyer will shoot that down.
> 
> They got dope from him, what do you really believe Bruyneel with all his doctors and his planning would give drugs to his lead rider to distribute to the rest of the team? Bruyneel is a slick and professional operator. I personally believe he is guilty as accused by the USADA, but Bruyneel is not an idiot who would lose control of the drug distribution process. Again, where is the proof?
> 
> The only way they can make this stick is by convincing one of the doctors implicated with Armstrong and Bruyneel to give evidence in exchange for immunity. Then they have corroboration of what was in the drips, and what the drips were doing.
> 
> Blood values of athletes who train as intensely in so many different climates and altitudes seldom are normal. Armstrong's hematocrit % scores have varied, but a 49 or 47 is not out of the ordinary if someone has been training at altitude. Is it suspicious? Perhaps. Is it clear proof of blood doping. Not at all.
> 
> And where was his baseline hematocrit % 38.5? That is anaemic for sedentary males, let alone an athlete that trains at altitude. I find it impossible to believe that someone like Armstrong would deliver an average hematocrit level of someone who would otherwise be at home in bed.
> 
> USADA has no case without turning over one of the 6 accused.


Thanks for prving my point, you clearly do not understand blood or blood doping

Baseline Hct varies from person to person. For some it is it is 38 for others 42. It is the baseline measurement in the off season when you are not in a heavy training load. 

NO amount of altitude training will raise a 38 to a 47, no possible. Most would be lucky to see a 1.5 point increase. So Armstrong would be lucky to get over 40. Even if you raise his baseline to 40 he still would be luckly to get to 41.5, no where close to 47.....especially in the 3rd week of a GT

So when multiple witnesses tell of the entire team taking a blood transfusion on the bus Lance's was actually filled with Grape juice? :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spookyload said:


> Is it their mission to go on a hunt of retired racers? Or is it to perform testing both at events and out of events for current racers?


Armstrong is retired? He is a licensed professional in a WADA sanction sport who has a race this weekend in France. 

Hardly retired.


----------



## asgelle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong is retired? He is a licensed professional in a WADA sanction sport who has a race this weekend in France.
> 
> Hardly retired.


Very true, but even if he were retired, what should USADA do when they find a conspiracy of six individuals five of whom are active and one is retired? Charge the five active and ignore the one just because he's retired? That could jeopordize the entire case because of the hole it left. The retired argument is simply absurd.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

smartyiak said:


> I have a question(s) that maybe the Dr. can answer.
> 
> First: Are the 10 witnesses individuals who testified at the Grand Jury?
> 2: If so, have they provided testimony to USADA or is USADA "piggybacking" off the Grand Jury testimony?
> 
> Which leads to my real question:
> If the latter is true and USADA is "piggybacking" could the witnesses tell the USADA that they won't talk to them?
> Farfetched: Could they even tell USADA that they lied during GJ? It's technically not perjury.
> 
> I assume USADA cant compel anyone to testify...so if a witness is retired by the time USADA inteviews them (Hincapie), all the sudden 10 witnesses become one or two.
> 
> I don't know the process and am curious if USADA actually has those witnesses "on the hook"
> 
> (I assume that they can't just use Grand Jury testimony b/c GJ testimony is sealed.)


Good questions

There are more then 10 people who gave evidence. Some non-riders also talked

Most of the riders volunteered to talk with the Feds. They did not go in front of the Grand Jury. Kevin Livingston would be the key witness who talked with the GJ. 

I doubt any GJ testimony was shared with USADA but the witness testimony was, the bulk of the case. 

The Federal evidence gives USADA leverage and saves them money. They confirm the witness statements with the various riders and staff. If any of them refuse to cooperate then they are open for a sanction based on their doping.


----------



## peabody

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong is retired? He is a licensed professional in a WADA sanction sport who *had* a race this weekend in France.
> 
> Hardly retired.


there let me fix that for ya


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for prving my point, you clearly do not understand blood or blood doping
> 
> Baseline Hct varies from person to person. For some it is it is 38 for others 42. It is the baseline measurement in the off season when you are not in a heavy training load.
> 
> NO amount of altitude training will raise a 38 to a 47, no possible. Most would be lucky to see a 1.5 point increase. So Armstrong would be lucky to get over 40. Even if you raise his baseline to 40 he still would be luckly to get to 41.5, no where close to 47.....especially in the 3rd week of a GT
> 
> So when multiple witnesses tell of the entire team taking a blood transfusion on the bus Lance's was actually filled with Grape juice? :thumbsup:



What's your sources for Lance's baseline for being 38%? I see no reason why someone like Lance couldn't have a normal HGB in the 15's. That would easily put his crit in the upper 40's. 

I work with a girl who consistantly bangs out upper 40's HCT's. Her hgb is almost always in the upper 15's.


----------



## Priit

*Lance Armstrong Responds to USADA Allegation*

_AUSTIN, TX -- June 13, 2012 -- I have been notified that USADA, an organization largely funded by taxpayer dollars but governed only by self-written rules, intends to again dredge up discredited allegations dating back more than 16 years to prevent me from competing as a triathlete and try and strip me of the seven Tour de France victories I earned. These are the very same charges and the same witnesses that the Justice Department chose not to pursue after a two-year investigation. These charges are baseless, motivated by spite and advanced through testimony bought and paid for by promises of anonymity and immunity. Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. USADA’s malice, its methods, its star-chamber practices, and its decision to punish first and adjudicate later all are at odds with our ideals of fairness and fair play.
I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence._


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> What's your sources for Lance's baseline for being 38%? I see no reason why someone like Lance couldn't have a normal HGB in the 15's. That would easily put his crit in the upper 40's.
> 
> I work with a girl who consistantly bangs out upper 40's HCT's. Her hgb is almost always in the upper 15's.


At one time Lance released his numbers publicly. He had multiple measurements in the 38,39, 40 range. Lowest was 38.2. When his numbers where questioned he first changed them then took them down 

Here is a good review. 

Analysis: Armstrong?s Tour Blood Levels Debated | Cyclingnews.com

Expect that USADA has more info on this. For example if they have a witness who says that he watched Armstrong transfuse on a certain date they could show corresponding change in values


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Enough of the personal stuff already everyone. Just make your point without resorting to references to a posters motivations ect.


----------



## fuzz-tone

> _Although USADA alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy extended over more than 16 years, I am the only athlete it has chosen to charge. _


Whether intentional or not, that quote sounds less like "I'm innocent" than "everybody else was doing it".


----------



## trailrunner68

fuzz-tone said:


> Whether intentional or not, that quote sounds less like "I'm innocent" than "everybody else was doing it".


It also leaves out that he, just like all the other riders, was given the opportunity to cooperate and get a deal, just like the others, but he chose not to.


----------



## trailrunner68

It looks like the mainstream press is changing its stance on Armstrong.

Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is good that USADA is pointing out Armstrong suspesion blood values from 2009-2010. This makes more sense 



> WADA has received complaints in recent months from several individuals and representatives of antidoping organizations who have raised concerns about the UCI's oversight.
> 
> This person said antidoping officials are particularly concerned about the status of five professional riders who were flagged for doping in December but have not yet been sanctioned by the UCI. The riders, whose names are known only to the UCI, were determined to be doping by an independent committee of nine scientists and experts that was appointed by the UCI to review data from blood and urine tests.


Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com

Some riders are too big to fail


----------



## hoopingkld

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ever heard of Mike Anderson? He was Armstrong's mechanic. he thought up the design for Mellow Johny's bike shop. When he found out about lance's drugs, money laundering, and tax evasion Armstrong fired him then harassed him until he had a seizure. He eventually moved to New Zeland
> 
> Or Frankie, fired from multiple jobs after he chose not to commit perjury for Lance.
> 
> I could go on but you get the idea. He tried hard to ruin lives



all due respect,,, we are pretty much a "hearsay" network here....please prove your facts and don't try to prove your point by saying here is what this person/that person said. The information must come from you to prove your point...i would appreciate it if you could point me to any link about Mike Anderson's book, or whatever...so we all can learn from the guy, Mike, bc words always got twisted after.

Like i said all along... LA is a human being and he holds grudges against anyone who threaten to destroy his reputation which is considered too large to lose. Have we not familiar with story about CEO, CFO...corporate politics destroy people's lives bc of personal gain/benefit...

If someone posed threat to you & your reputation, will you forgive that person or just make sure that person can no longer be a threat to you?... i would make sure that the person will no longer pose any threat to me and my reputation too if i were LA.

Give me a break people...we are all TYRANTs and will do the same thing if things like this happen to us.


----------



## badge118

I wouldn't even say it's individual athletes. Look at the NFL and MLB. It's nor about specific athletes it's about money. More home runs, harder hitting blocks and tackles, more insane mountain climbs mean more money. If Jan, Ivan et al had been as efficient and clever with doping they would have been given a Bio passport pass too.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hoopingkld said:


> all due respect,,, we are pretty much a "hearsay" network here....please prove your facts and don't try to prove your point by saying here is what this person/that person said. The information must come from you to prove your point...i would appreciate it if you could point me to any link about Mike Anderson's book, or whatever...so we all can learn from the guy, Mike, bc words always got twisted after.
> 
> Like i said all along... LA is a human being and he holds grudges against anyone who threaten to destroy his reputation which is considered too large to lose. Have we not familiar with story about CEO, CFO...corporate politics destroy people's lives bc of personal gain/benefit...
> 
> If someone posed threat to you & your reputation, will you forgive that person or just make sure that person can no longer be a threat to you?... i would make sure that the person will no longer pose any threat to me and my reputation too if i were LA.
> 
> Give me a break people...we are all TYRANTs and will do the same thing if things like this happen to us.


While you are OK with vindictiveness most are not. People wonder why it took so long to charge lance......it was because people saw what happened to those who told the truth 

Here is the Anderson Lawsuit 

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/sports/040105_lance.pdf

and an interview
Interview: Former Armstrong assistant ‘ashamed’ of working for him

Soon there will be even more on this. Your boy is no hero


----------



## pedalruns

trailrunner68 said:


> It looks like the mainstream press is changing its stance on Armstrong.
> 
> Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com



Yes.. I thnk they are.. Here is another good article from Sports Illustrated.. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20....ap.cyc.john.leicester.061412.1415/index.html

"Inspiration no more, Armstrong would become the face for the era when cycling became a freak show, with riders whose veins bulged but who, strangely, didn't seem that exhausted after sprinting up a French Alp. Other clowns in this circus were race organizers who pedaled the myth that nothing too serious was amiss, the cycling bureaucrats who didn't act decisively until the rot was entrenched so deep that the sport's future was in danger and journalists who breathlessly told the tales of hard men in the hardest race but, with some notable exceptions, didn't do enough to answer the question, "What am I on?'"


----------



## JohnnyG

trailrunner 68 said:


> Armstrong's own arrogance is responsible. He could have retired, sat on a beach, and not hired PR people to keep him in the news. He could have kept quiet and just enjoyed his money. But his ego would not allow him to do that. He had to keep poking the bear. He unretired and tried to dope his way to an eighth title. When that did not work out, he switched to triathlon. Until the provisional suspension today, he was racing as a professional triathlete. He kept poking the bear until it swatted him. Don't try to blame the bear. Blame Armstrong's stupidity.
> 
> If the USADA cannot go after current professional athletes then who are they supposed to go after?


THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS ^^^^^^ SO TRUE !!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Looks like this TIME - LA's Big Fat ego & bullying have back fired on him this time ...


----------



## hoopingkld

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While you are OK with vindictiveness most are not. People wonder why it took so long to charge lance......it was because people saw what happened to those who told the truth
> 
> Here is the Anderson Lawsuit
> 
> http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/sports/040105_lance.pdf
> 
> and an interview
> Interview: Former Armstrong assistant ‘ashamed’ of working for him
> 
> Soon there will be even more on this. Your boy is no hero



Don't put words in people's mouth now....he was never my hero... Never was...

OK. so Mike is suing Lance and LA is counter suing...The facts doesn't prove that the dude has been caught "red handed" yet. or in fact Mike has real proof of the dope LA took like a syringe that contain LA's DNA/blood...to back his claims.

Why don't we look at what USADA is doing right now and try to comprehend why there are no tougher procedures for blood testing and implement laws to restrict the use for vitamin and drugs that are currently allowed people to use for years on tours and sport events. 

My friend is a cat2 and he said the laws for athlete to use substance/vitamin are pretty vague...ie...he would be allowed to use certain kind but the other brands carry the same kind substance can't be used bc the ingredients has something else that was considered illegal...but he would push it to the limit ....bc there are too much money for the team and sponsorships than having a honestly clean sport. i did not believe him either....neither did i say i believe in LA ...


----------



## asgelle

hoopingkld said:


> My friend is a cat2 and he said the laws for athlete to use substance/vitamin are pretty vague...


If that's true, your friend should read this. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf
It doesn't look vague to me.


----------



## hoopingkld

asgelle said:


> If that's true, your friend should read this. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2012/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf
> It doesn't look vague to me.


So i guess the racers must know what was under those vitamins/endurance powder/massage cream...etc...too... 

Racers are not required and they don't really need to know that... team doctors and trainers are the one who deal with it...until the doctor said it's not OK to take.... 

Do we actually sit down and the study the by laws and then figure out just like the any medication we take from over the counter at drugstore?


----------



## asgelle

hoopingkld said:


> So i guess the racers must know what was under those vitamins/endurance powder/massage cream...etc...too...


What does that have to do with the rules being vague. The rule is clear - strict liability. The list is clear, just look at it. It may be hard (or not), but hard is not the same as vague or unclear.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hoopingkld said:


> So i guess the racers must know what was under those vitamins/endurance powder/massage cream...etc...too...
> 
> Racers are not required and they don't really need to know that... team doctors and trainers are the one who deal with it...until the doctor said it's not OK to take....
> 
> Do we actually sit down and the study the by laws and then figure out just like the any medication we take from over the counter at drugstore?


We are not talking about Vitamins, we are talking about bags of blood, HGH, Test. There is no confusion. 

So are George and Levi bitter liars? They talked to USADA about what they saw. 

Lance is going to need better talking points. USADA has over a dozen witnesses, the "Bitter" label only goes so far.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong, if guilty, is our worst sports cheat yet




> That’s actually sickening. It’s mean-spirited. He is playing off people’s belief in him, and they believe because of his cancer fight.





> this is quite a conspiracy theory that Armstrong wants us to buy into. So many people from so many angles.


----------



## trailrunner68

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong, if guilty, is our worst sports cheat yet


So above we have a link to CNN and here we have a link to Fox. You know things are bad when both of those are after you.


----------



## hoopingkld

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We are not talking about Vitamins, we are talking about bags of blood, HGH, Test. There is no confusion.
> 
> So are George and Levi bitter liars? They talked to USADA about what they saw.
> 
> Lance is going to need better talking points. USADA has over a dozen witnesses, the "Bitter" label only goes so far.



I didn't talk to you about this... Did you actually read thru my post or just want to throw your assumption at people?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hoopingkld said:


> I didn't talk to you about this... Did you actually read thru my post or just want to throw your assumption at people?


Do you read your own posts? 

You said that testimony from people like Mike is not good enough (it is). You also pretended there was confusion about what is, and is not, legal. There is no confusion. Transfusions, HGH, Test, etc. are not legal.


----------



## davidka

"Armstrong’s hematocrit readings on July 2nd and July 25th were almost identical at 42.8 and 43 percent respectively, with hemoglobin levels of 14.3 and 14.5g/dl. In contrast, his hematocrit levels at the start and finish of the Giro d’Italia were 43.5 versus 38.2 percent, a drop of over five points."

38.2 at the end of the Giro, not baseline. Dr. F, you cite this particular number a lot but it is disingenuous to claim that this is Armstrong's "baseline" to strengthen your assertions. I have never seen this number anywhere else. 

Also, I posted this little piece somewhere else but it seems important to this conversation as well:

"It is noted that the proceedings are the result of evidence gathered by USADA under its mandate and does not include evidence obtained by the investigation of the US Department of Justice.

Read more: WADA, Ironman, Livestrong and USADA react to charges against Lance Armstrong and others


----------



## badge118

But it would NOT be disingenuous to say if he had a drop a the Giro (not a real target for him) and none at the TdF ( his TARGET race) that it is suspicious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> "Armstrong’s hematocrit readings on July 2nd and July 25th were almost identical at 42.8 and 43 percent respectively, with hemoglobin levels of 14.3 and 14.5g/dl. In contrast, his hematocrit levels at the start and finish of the Giro d’Italia were 43.5 versus 38.2 percent, a drop of over five points."
> 
> 38.2 at the end of the Giro, not baseline. Dr. F, you cite this particular number a lot but it is disingenuous to claim that this is Armstrong's "baseline" to strengthen your assertions. I have never seen this number anywhere else.
> 
> Also, I posted this little piece somewhere else but it seems important to this conversation as well:
> 
> "It is noted that the proceedings are the result of evidence gathered by USADA under its mandate and does not include evidence obtained by the investigation of the US Department of Justice.
> 
> Read more: WADA, Ironman, Livestrong and USADA react to charges against Lance Armstrong and others


It appears you missed the 39 in December? And the 39 In October? Hard to tell as Armstrong changed the numbers multiple times. 

Disingenuous is that Armstrong modified many of his numbers after people started questioning them. Raised the off season values and lowered the high values He then took them down altogether.

Disingenuous is when he released a number of 45.8, a high number that was 16% jump over his off season numbers.....then changed it to a 43.1 when people questioned it. Funny was that high figure coincided with his first training camp with Contador. the old man had to show everyone he was still boss by slamming a bag of blood before training camp. 

Disingenuous is promising a testing program, then droping it 
Armstrong Abandons Independent Testing, Publication Of Blood Values | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## davidka

badge118 said:


> But it would NOT be disingenuous to say if he had a drop a the Giro (not a real target for him) and none at the TdF ( his TARGET race) that it is suspicious.


I agree. Strange, even impossible, but unfortunately not uncommon in pro cycling. I think it was 2009 when Chris Anker Sorensen put down his best 20 minute effort of the TdF pacing up the base of the Ventoux on Stage 20, as though 1-19 were just "training".

None of that changes the fact that citing 38.2 as LA's baseline is disingenuous. That is not his baseline and is probably not any pro's baseline. All arguments are stronger when they're honest. Start playing games with the facts and an argument loses it's validity.


----------



## hoopingkld

asgelle said:


> What does that have to do with the rules being vague. The rule is clear - strict liability. The list is clear, just look at it. It may be hard (or not), but hard is not the same as vague or unclear.


Yes, rules is written which is very clear in terms for doctor, farmacist ..scientists. to know...so they can verify for people like us...like lawyer/judge who interpret the laws. If you study biology or chemistry then you probably familiar with these...i don't

Please educate me on this: Can you breakdown the ingredients of those protein booster powder being sold at Performance or supplement shops to see the percentage of the those being mention in the rules book here...to see if they met the qualification or not.

What i'm quoting my friend here is "he neither know exactly down to .01% or give a rats to read the rule from USADA" what exactly being place in the cream or vitamin (booster) given by his Doctor and trainer. 

it's like i don't know what exactly in the pills we buy over the counter.(down to mili oz)..as long as our doctor said it's fine and FDA approved. Tylenol is being pulled off the shelves after kids were sick but FDA approved that medication and put them on the shelves in the first place.

I neither trying question the USADA laws/regulations nor believing in my friend (racer). i hope there will be authorized figure from USADA who can interpret the blood level of LA and analyze what was being pumped into his blood...until then say all we want but Justice Dept and TDF official failed to catch the guy while others were caught "mostly red handed" like Landis.or Contador.after the race.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I agree. Strange, even impossible, but unfortunately not uncommon in pro cycling. I think it was 2009 when Chris Anker Sorensen put down his best 20 minute effort of the TdF pacing up the base of the Ventoux on Stage 20, as though 1-19 were just "training".
> 
> None of that changes the fact that citing 38.2 as LA's baseline is disingenuous. That is not his baseline and is probably not any pro's baseline. All arguments are stronger when they're honest. Start playing games with the facts and an argument loses it's validity.


Honest? Is Armstrong changing his numbers honest? 

Armstrong's off season baseline was 38-40. A figure he managed to *increase* his Hct in the 3rd week of a GT, when a clean riders woudl drop 10-20%. His Rec's also went strange at the same time. Many experts questioned it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

hoopingkld said:


> Yes, rules is written which is very clear in terms for doctor, farmacist ..scientists. to know...so they can verify for people like us...like lawyer/judge who interpret the laws. If you study biology or chemistry then you probably familiar with these...i don't
> 
> Please educate me on this: Can you breakdown the ingredients of those protein booster powder being sold at Performance or supplement shops to see the percentage of the those being mention in the rules book here...to see if they met the qualification or not.
> 
> What i'm quoting my friend here is "he neither know exactly down to .01% or give a rats to read the rule from USADA" what exactly being place in the cream or vitamin (booster) given by his Doctor and trainer.
> 
> it's like i don't know what exactly in the pills we buy over the counter.(down to mili oz)..as long as our doctor said it's fine and FDA approved. Tylenol is being pulled off the shelves after kids were sick but FDA approved that medication and put them on the shelves in the first place.
> 
> I neither trying question the USADA laws/regulations nor believing in my friend (racer). i hope there will be authorized figure from USADA who can interpret the blood level of LA and analyze what was being pumped into his blood...until then say all we want but Justice Dept and TDF official failed to catch the guy while others were caught "mostly red handed" like Landis.or Contador.after the race.


You do realize we are talking about transfusions, not vitamins, right? You do realize Basso, Ullrich, Scarponi, Valverde, never tested positive? 

How many other riders paid off the UCI?


----------



## thechriswebb

A


hoopingkld said:


> So i guess the racers must know what was under those vitamins/endurance powder/massage cream...etc...too...
> 
> Racers are not required and they don't really need to know that... team doctors and trainers are the one who deal with it...until the doctor said it's not OK to take....
> 
> Do we actually sit down and the study the by laws and then figure out just like the any medication we take from over the counter at drugstore?


Actually, at the end of the day it is the racer's responsibility to manage what goes into his or her body. The Zirbel example is good to explain this. I think that I believe him that he didn't dope intentionally and took an accidentally tainted supplement. When it is all said and done though, he had a banned substance in his body and it was his responsibility make sure it didn't get there. He took his ban and didn't even fight it. 



It does have to be considered with Lance's statement that he is the only person being pursued by USADA that the letter suggests that he was among a group that was offered an opportunity to cooperate and that he was the one person that refused. 

I remember David Millar talking about Landis once and he said that if Floyd had just said he was sorry, cooperated, and taken his ban that he would likely be back in the peloton right now riding on a good team with a reasonable amount of respect.


----------



## ECXkid04

You guys are unbelievable. It makes my blood boil that CNN, SI, ESPN, or any of these other mainstream media outlets are even reporting on cycling. Our sport doesn't get a fair word - EVER. Only negative press, and there's no exception. For me, I've boycotted ESPN since Tony Kornheiser trashed cycling and offered up the most biased, ignorant, and uninformed commentary I've ever heard on his show PTI (which I used to like well enough). It's really pathetic, practically sacrilegious, that you all turn to the mainstream media that's roasting LA just because you want to see him burn; mainstream media is fine, but a baseball writer commenting on a sport that he knows 0 about... not okay in my book. Anybody who is anybody with respect to this sport already knows the truth, and IMHO, all this investigation is going to do is crush cycling to a point that it may never recover from, at least in the United States. For all you crusaders with nothing better to do than park yourselves in front of a computer screen and tag team others who haven't spent 2,000 hours fantasizing about LA's demise, please DO take some time, when the ship sinks, to crack a beer or two, turn on ESPN, and trade cyber arse slaps with your bffs on roadbikereview.com. Thanks for spreading the good word oh so selflessly for oh so many years.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Italian investigators reported as tracing $465,000 payment from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006

Doping riders is a nice job if you can get it


----------



## badge118

One thing. Has anyone thought of the complete farse this could result in? LA gets stripped of his titles and the jersey gets passed onto three other dopers, Zulle, Ullrich and Basso because of technicalities as to when their penalities stripped palmares and the like.

Tbh forget about methods I am honestly beginning to wonder wtf the point is if you are simply passing a win from one doper to another doper. With how prevelant doping was at the time it may actually make more sense to create a sporting version of a "truth and reconciliation committee" like they have in civil wars in the developing world. Pick a date and all cases before that date are dropped. I mean lets be honest what sense does it make to hand a win from one doper to another? All that would tell me as a junior cyclist is "if you don't get caught or can play with technicalities doping pays." After the date though no deals, no AC like wierd start and end dates to doping, you get the hammer.


----------



## JackDaniels

More complicated than just zulle, ullrich and basso...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> One thing. Has anyone thought of the complete farse this could result in? LA gets stripped of his titles and the jersey gets passed onto three other dopers, Zulle, Ullrich and Basso because of technicalities as to when their penalities stripped palmares and the like.
> 
> Tbh forget about methods I am honestly beginning to wonder wtf the point is if you are simply passing a win from one doper to another doper. With how prevelant doping was at the time it may actually make more sense to create a sporting version of a "truth and reconciliation committee" like they have in civil wars in the developing world. Pick a date and all cases before that date are dropped. I mean lets be honest what sense does it make to hand a win from one doper to another? All that would tell me as a junior cyclist is "if you don't get caught or can play with technicalities doping pays." After the date though no deals, no AC like wierd start and end dates to doping, you get the hammer.


Given that Ullrich, Basso, and Zulle have already been sanctioned should Lance be the only one given a free pass?


----------



## badge118

Oh I know but those are the most obvious just going into yellow. I don't think Klodi as an example ever got nailed for doping though his association with Telekom during the alleged team wide program makes it very likely.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Oh I know but those are the most obvious just going into yellow. I don't think Klodi as an example ever got nailed for doping though his association with Telekom during the alleged team wide program makes it very likely.


Yes, Kloden was nailed and paid a 25,000 fine to settle it


----------



## burgrat

ECXkid04 said:


> You guys are unbelievable. It makes my blood boil that CNN, SI, ESPN, or any of these other mainstream media outlets are even reporting on cycling. Our sport doesn't get a fair word - EVER. Only negative press, and there's no exception. For me, I've boycotted ESPN since Tony Kornheiser trashed cycling and offered up the most biased, ignorant, and uninformed commentary I've ever heard on his show PTI (which I used to like well enough). It's really pathetic, practically sacrilegious, that you all turn to the mainstream media that's roasting LA just because you want to see him burn; mainstream media is fine, but a baseball writer commenting on a sport that he knows 0 about... not okay in my book. Anybody who is anybody with respect to this sport already knows the truth, and IMHO, all this investigation is going to do is crush cycling to a point that it may never recover from, at least in the United States. For all you crusaders with nothing better to do than park yourselves in front of a computer screen and tag team others who haven't spent 2,000 hours fantasizing about LA's demise, please DO take some time, when the ship sinks, to crack a beer or two, turn on ESPN, and trade cyber arse slaps with your bffs on roadbikereview.com. Thanks for spreading the good word oh so selflessly for oh so many years.


So we should ignore everything, is that the plan? The story is about the biggest name in cycling and the mainstream media should not report on it? If cycling gets a bad rap in the media it is because it has been a dirty sport. Doping has been prevalent and this cannot be denied. This is a result of not only doping riders, but also the management, "doctors", and worst of all, the administration of the sport, the UCI. My God, just look at the past few Tours de France. Titles are being given retroactively! It's a joke. So we should just sweep it under the rug and be mad that CNN and ESPN aren't reporting what wonderful athletes the cyclists are and forget the rest? Right... 
I personally love professional cycling and I've followed it for many years. I don't give a rat's ass if ESPN, CNN, or any other American media reports on the sport or if it gets a "fair word". Mainstream America will never embrace the sport like they do football or baseball. I don't care. I know that pro cycling is more difficult than pretty much any other pro sport and I will continue to follow it. It is a beautiful sport. I want a clean sport too. I want a sport that I would have no problem encouraging my son to go into. If it means cutting the head off of the sport, then so be it. Whatever it takes. If Lance succeeded by cheating, then take him down. Take down Bruyneel and the others. PLEASE get McQuaid out of there. 
I hope they ream the crap out of the cheaters and set an example of them so that others are deterred from doping. Maybe "everyone else was doing it" too, but the buck has to stop somewhere and sometime. I hope it is here and now! Livestrong y'all!


----------



## Chris-X

*At this point,*



badge118 said:


> One thing. Has anyone thought of the complete farse this could result in? LA gets stripped of his titles and the jersey gets passed onto three other dopers, Zulle, Ullrich and Basso because of technicalities as to when their penalities stripped palmares and the like.
> 
> Tbh forget about methods I am honestly beginning to wonder wtf the point is if you are simply passing a win from one doper to another doper. With how prevelant doping was at the time it may actually make more sense to create a sporting version of a "truth and reconciliation committee" like they have in civil wars in the developing world. Pick a date and all cases before that date are dropped. I mean lets be honest what sense does it make to hand a win from one doper to another? All that would tell me as a junior cyclist is "if you don't get caught or can play with technicalities doping pays." After the date though no deals, no AC like wierd start and end dates to doping, you get the hammer.


it's really not about the wins or the race. The Festina scandal gave the sport the opportunity to start over. The French did start over, got their as$es kicked, and then got ragged on by people like Hinault.

Armstrong was a dope fiend and then labeled his vanquished foes, "chumps."

Armstrong basically had the opportunity to get the same deal as the other riders by talking honestly to the authorities. He chose not to.

That's what I don't get about you. You're the one who's been advancing the technicalities and ignoring the usual strategies LEO's employ. Mainly, if one cooperates with LE, there is a certain degree of leniency. Armstrong is being an obstinate jerk. Therefore, why is it any surprise to anyone, they're throwing the book at him?


----------



## pianopiano

ECXkid04 said:


> You guys are unbelievable. It makes my blood boil that CNN, SI, ESPN, or any of these other mainstream media outlets are even reporting on cycling. Our sport doesn't get a fair word - EVER. Only negative press, and there's no exception. For me, I've boycotted ESPN since Tony Kornheiser trashed cycling and offered up the most biased, ignorant, and uninformed commentary I've ever heard on his show PTI (which I used to like well enough). It's really pathetic, practically sacrilegious, that you all turn to the mainstream media that's roasting LA just because you want to see him burn; mainstream media is fine, but a baseball writer commenting on a sport that he knows 0 about... not okay in my book. Anybody who is anybody with respect to this sport already knows the truth, and IMHO, all this investigation is going to do is crush cycling to a point that it may never recover from, at least in the United States. For all you crusaders with nothing better to do than park yourselves in front of a computer screen and tag team others who haven't spent 2,000 hours fantasizing about LA's demise, please DO take some time, when the ship sinks, to crack a beer or two, turn on ESPN, and trade cyber arse slaps with your bffs on roadbikereview.com. Thanks for spreading the good word oh so selflessly for oh so many years.


Imho, think that your anger, as well as the anger of so many others who are obviously upset about these allegations against Lance, is quite misdirected. I think that it is Lance that you are really angry with, or should be angry with, for misleading you and so many fans for so many years. Not only is this a very valid and serious doping case, but it is a BIG news story as well. Major news organizations are obviously going to follow this as a result.


----------



## pianopiano

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Italian investigators reported as tracing $465,000 payment from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006
> 
> Doping riders is a nice job if you can get it


And I thought that Lance said that Ferrari was just a 'friend of the family'.


----------



## Chris-X

*The author*



pedalruns said:


> Yes.. I thnk they are.. Here is another good article from Sports Illustrated..
> 
> Column: Armstrong's past, if dirty, must be erased - - SI.com
> 
> "Inspiration no more, Armstrong would become the face for the era when cycling became a freak show, with riders whose veins bulged but who, strangely, didn't seem that exhausted after sprinting up a French Alp. Other clowns in this circus were race organizers who pedaled the myth that nothing too serious was amiss, the cycling bureaucrats who didn't act decisively until the rot was entrenched so deep that the sport's future was in danger and journalists who breathlessly told the tales of hard men in the hardest race but, with some notable exceptions, didn't do enough to answer the question, "What am I on?'"


is a disgrace with his "evolving" outlook on the saga. I'll retract this if I'm wrong but I believe this guy was a major defender of Armstrong up until recently.

The article below is a step towards honest reporting from him. 

Column: No matter what, Armstrong always wins - Boston.com

I don't know if they write or approve the headline but this is absurd.

Is Lance Armstrong on drugs? Probably not | Sports | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News


----------



## burgrat

To think that none of this would have happened if Armstrong had just stayed retired from pro cycling. He should have gone into triathlon after 2005.


----------



## mangotreat0808

burgrat said:


> To think that none of this would have happened if Armstrong had just stayed retired from pro cycling. He should have gone into triathlon after 2005.


True that..it's that old saying, "retirement" is good, since you can spend more time in your charity (i.e., livestrong, cancer fund-raising, etc). It's that good 'ol *ego* that always wants its grandiose way.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> it's really not about the wins or the race. The Festina scandal gave the sport the opportunity to start over. The French did start over, got their as$es kicked, and then got ragged on by people like Hinault.
> 
> Armstrong was a dope fiend and then labeled his vanquished foes, "chumps."
> 
> Armstrong basically had the opportunity to get the same deal as the other riders by talking honestly to the authorities. He chose not to.
> 
> That's what I don't get about you. You're the one who's been advancing the technicalities and ignoring the usual strategies LEO's employ. Mainly, if one cooperates with LE, there is a certain degree of leniency. Armstrong is being an obstinate jerk. Therefore, why is it any surprise to anyone, they're throwing the book at him?


You are missing the point. In law you do not say "okay bob you testify against your boss and we will make you the head of the crime family." You throw the guy in witness protection send him to live in the sticks and you keep such an eye on him that if he gets picked up for drunk and disorderly he goes away for 10 years.

The way things are now you are essentially handing the "head" to the other crooks. That is okay with you aparently though just because he is an obstinate jerk. **** his personality has been your primary motivation from the jump for christ sakes.

Oh and your festina example is wrong. That was just the first time a team got caught. That is not what you are trying to make it out to be but then again not unusual for you. Hell those idiots lied until they were testifying in criminal cases. Some after publishing books protesting their innocence. What cleaned up French cycling was that it became criminal in nature. Tbh I think WADA has had very little to do with cleaning up the sport. The fact that as time has gone on more countries have made it criminal has. Do you think it a coincidence that the bulk of prepatore were Spanish until not too long ago? Maybe the fact that Spain until after OP had no criminal legislation had something to do with it?

That is all beside the point though. Until I realized who would get the jerseys in the end debating this was an intellectual exercise for me. Now that I have considered that factor I think in the end we all loose and we need some other solution. Maybe just say ffff it and pretend for the record books there are no TdFs for 2006 back to 99. I don't care really but I will honestly consider pro cycling a complete joke and a side show NOT a sport if they just hand a win to another doper because of convenient timing on when they got caught. Just more proof I think the National federation system is a damn joke. Everyone should just give the money the spend to WADA and make then the FBI of sports doping. Only then is there going to be anything that resembles an orderly system.


----------



## trailrunner68

This could get ugly. Armstrong has turned into the John Edwards of cycling.

Lance Armstrong, Roger Clemens: Men in the same line of smirk - Chicago Sun-Times


----------



## Subterfuge

I've got to hand it to LA though....he is a master at the art of the flim-flam, a master manipulator who created this massive, iconic brand, and all based around his Livestrong cancer research foundation. How dare you question a cancer survivor who has dedicated his life finding a cure for cancer by accusing him of doping? But he messed up. He should have never come out of retirement. What a fall from grace if he's stripped of his TDF victories. He'll go from cycling icon, to a mechanic at a Trek store, and then Wal-Mart greeter.....


----------



## badge118

I think you are going a little over board. I have no doubt that Armstrong is completely genuine when it comes to his cancer work. He would not be the first person to have drastically different personalities. One Professional and one for his cause/family/"normal life."

I am sure when he doped he felt "this is just the way you race." The sport was full of dope since 1903 and wasn't seriously addressed until WADA was founded if we are going to be honest. He did use flim flam on the racing side don't get me wrong. You just seem to infer that his cancer work was a knowing and intelligently done act for the purposes of concealing his doping which I think is a little paranoid (if that is what you actually intended.)


----------



## Subterfuge

badge118 said:


> I think you are going a little over board. I have no doubt that Armstrong is completely genuine when it comes to his cancer work. He would not be the first person to have drastically different personalities. One Professional and one for his cause/family/"normal life."
> 
> I am sure when he doped he felt "this is just the way you race." The sport was full of dope since 1903 and wasn't seriously addressed until WADA was founded if we are going to be honest. He did use flim flam on the racing side don't get me wrong. *You just seem to infer that his cancer work was a knowing and intelligently done act for the purposes of concealing his doping which I think is a little paranoid* (if that is what you actually intended.)



His work on finding a cure for cancer is genuine, and I believe deep in my heart that he wants to find a cure for cancer. What he went through battling cancer is a big deal and he definitely managed to beat the odds. At the same time, he is also a master at public relations and will use anything to his advantage. Make no mistake about it.


----------



## asgelle

Subterfuge said:


> His work on finding a cure for cancer is genuine, and I believe deep in my heart that he wants to find a cure for cancer.


None of the foundation work is directed toward finding a cure for cancer. On the other hand, a great deal of their effort is spent making people think so.


----------



## JackDaniels

I'm not a huge armstrong fan or anything, but I think Livestrong is pretty open about the fact that they don't really have enough money to fund major cancer research. I think their primary function is to get treatment and other resources for people who actually have cancer right now.


----------



## Subterfuge

asgelle said:


> None of the foundation work is directed toward finding a cure for cancer. On the other hand, a great deal of their effort is spent making people think so.




okay...I stand corrected. So, does this mean that he has no shame at all? ouch!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Subterfuge said:


> okay...I stand corrected. So, does this mean that he has no shame at all? ouch!


Yes. 

The Foundation was started to insure employment for Lance, and his buddies, in the event he could not race again. It developed into a promotional tool for the Armstrong brand. 

In the last 2 years it has come under intense scrutiny and too it's credit has worked hard at "Putting the cookies back in the jar". It now does some good work.....but for the first 10+ years it did little more then promote Armstrong and pretend it was a "Program cost"


----------



## Subterfuge

Wow!....This guy is a bigger hustler and a pimp than I initially thought.


----------



## OldChipper

JackDaniels said:


> More complicated than just zulle, ullrich and basso...


So, the point here is that he did indeed win on a level playing field - just a level playing field that was artificially elevated? 

Not a Lance defender here, just sayin'


----------



## gearsnspokes

Wow...I'm a member of the 'uninformed' public, so this thread has been both illuminating and impressive. One question:

Nearly every news article suggests that Lance could lose his titles. Is this media sensationalism or is there a _real_ possibility of this happening?


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> None of the foundation work is directed toward finding a cure for cancer. On the other hand, a great deal of their effort is spent making people think so.


No, they never claim or even infer that. People just assume that is what any charity is about. I could actually name about a half dozen charities right now that do cancer awareness, help people directly with therapy etc. A perfect example is World Team Sports. They don't raise money for spinal injury research etc but every year they host disabled bike rides, even Mt. Climbs, to raise awareness that disabled people can do much of what "able" people can. One their ride from DC to Gettysburg (formerly Gettysburgh to DC) used to start in PA and end at Walter Reed to focus on disabled vets and actively recruits disabled vets to do the ride. Since they aren't raising money for injury research and don't trumpet to the stars that they don't do that, guess we should close up shop and say **** the vets that want to prove they can do it? Gtfo. LA is a dick but I know people personally who got in touch with specialists and even got assistance with the fees from Livestrong.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes.
> 
> The Foundation was started to insure employment for Lance, and his buddies, in the event he could not race again. It developed into a promotional tool for the Armstrong brand.
> 
> In the last 2 years it has come under intense scrutiny and too it's credit has worked hard at "Putting the cookies back in the jar". It now does some good work.....but for the first 10+ years it did little more then promote Armstrong and pretend it was a "Program cost"


The only thing it came under scrutiny for was the amount of money that went into the rides, advertising etc. There was an unusually high % of money going to stuff like that so it got like a "C" on efficiency, here is the main thing I think you are talking about ( a quote regarding the AIP study.) 



> The Lance Armstrong Foundation (now LiveStrong), founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100...



The issue is though if you are an organization that is primarily about raising awareness (like WTS is as well) those advertising budgets, that are smaller in other charities, will naturally have to be bigger because well that is the point of the organization, to advertise and increase awareness. What it comes down to really is do people agree with a charity that's main purpose is PR and networking. Depending on what that $45.00 was spent on it could actually also be considered as being a part of the mission. I don't have Livestrong's accounting records obviously, but this kind of charity is relatively new.


----------



## badge118

gearsnspokes said:


> Wow...I'm a member of the 'uninformed' public, so this thread has been both illuminating and impressive. One question:
> 
> Nearly every news article suggests that Lance could lose his titles. Is this media sensationalism or is there a _real_ possibility of this happening?


Real possibilty. 100% no, but I would not bet on him winning.


----------



## badge118

OldChipper said:


> So, the point here is that he did indeed win on a level playing field - just a level playing field that was artificially elevated?
> 
> Not a Lance defender here, just sayin'


Well that is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about to be honest and I think it needs to be part of the discussion. It doesn't justify doping, it was and is against the rules. That said if the point of the rules is to level the playing field BUT the rules at the time were almost impossible to enforce, do you just nail the people who got caught because bad luck? Do you just wipe a period clean of the record books? Do you say okay we are just going to put a little asterisk next to the top 10 from 19**- 2007? I don't know. All I know is that it is farsical to just give the jersey to the #2 guy.


----------



## OldChipper

badge118 said:


> Well that is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about to be honest and I think it needs to be part of the discussion. It doesn't justify doping, it was and is against the rules. That said if the point of the rules is to level the playing field BUT the rules at the time were almost impossible to enforce, do you just nail the people who got caught because bad luck? Do you just wipe a period clean of the record books? Do you say okay we are just going to put a little asterisk next to the top 10 from 19**- 2007? I don't know. All I know is that it is farsical to just give the jersey to the #2 guy.


^^^This. 

Honestly, given the apparent prevalence of doping during the period, I could be persuaded that the whole period should just be asterisk'ed and move on. NOT to let LA or anyone else get off, but because, face it, looks like most at the top of the sport were competing on an even basis and anything else smacks of selective persecution, oops, I meant prosecution.  I mean really, someone would have to be 9 sigma out on the bell curve to ride "clean" and trounce competitors who were demonstrably doping. 

No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't prosecute murder because some murderers get away with it, but this is a situation where everyone else REALLY WAS doing it! It was the norm sanctioned (tacitly or explicitly) by the sport itself (and lack of sufficiently sophisticated testing). 

Could even make the case that results should be reinstated and fines refunded. :yikes:


----------



## trailrunner68

OldChipper said:


> Honestly, given the apparent prevalence of doping during the period, I could be persuaded that the whole period should just be asterisk'ed and move on. NOT to let LA or anyone else get off, but because, face it, looks like most at the top of the sport were competing on an even basis and anything else smacks of selective persecution, oops, I meant prosecution.  I mean really, someone would have to be 9 sigma out on the bell curve to ride "clean" and trounce competitors who were demonstrably doping.
> 
> No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't prosecute murder because some murderers get away with it, but this is a situation where everyone else REALLY WAS doing it! It was the norm sanctioned (tacitly or explicitly) by the sport itself (and lack of sufficiently sophisticated testing).


How about this? We'll have an amnesty. The riders who come forward and admit what they did will keep their results. By exposing the truth, the sport can move forward.

Guess what? That is what we have here. Every teammate of Armstrong's who was approached by the USADA agreed to cooperate. Many of them will face personal costs, even if it is only having to live knowing that everyone knows what they did. Armstrong was offered the opportunity. He made the decision to continue lying. For that reason Armstrong deserves to be singled out and have the anvil dropped on his head.

You guys act like doping is no big deal. Everyone was doing it. Okay then why can't Armstrong tell the truth? Why does he continue to lie? Why does he treat the American people like they are a bunch of rubes who are too stupid to figure out that they have been taken advantage of?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gearsnspokes said:


> Wow...I'm a member of the 'uninformed' public, so this thread has been both illuminating and impressive. One question:
> 
> Nearly every news article suggests that Lance could lose his titles. Is this media sensationalism or is there a _real_ possibility of this happening?


There is a very high possibility he will lost his Tour Titles


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> ^^^This.
> 
> Honestly, given the apparent prevalence of doping during the period, I could be persuaded that the whole period should just be asterisk'ed and move on. NOT to let LA or anyone else get off, but because, face it, looks like most at the top of the sport were competing on an even basis and anything else smacks of selective persecution, oops, I meant prosecution.  I mean really, someone would have to be 9 sigma out on the bell curve to ride "clean" and trounce competitors who were demonstrably doping.
> 
> No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't prosecute murder because some murderers get away with it, but this is a situation where everyone else REALLY WAS doing it! It was the norm sanctioned (tacitly or explicitly) by the sport itself (and lack of sufficiently sophisticated testing).
> 
> Could even make the case that results should be reinstated and fines refunded. :yikes:


So what do you do with all the riders, Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Tyler, Landis, and many, many more, who have served bans? Is Lance the only one to get a free pass?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> The only thing it came under scrutiny for was the amount of money that went into the rides, advertising etc. There was an unusually high % of money going to stuff like that so it got like a "C" on efficiency, here is the main thing I think you are talking about ( a quote regarding the AIP study.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is though if you are an organization that is primarily about raising awareness (like WTS is as well) those advertising budgets, that are smaller in other charities, will naturally have to be bigger because well that is the point of the organization, to advertise and increase awareness. What it comes down to really is do people agree with a charity that's main purpose is PR and networking. Depending on what that $45.00 was spent on it could actually also be considered as being a part of the mission. I don't have Livestrong's accounting records obviously, but this kind of charity is relatively new.


Wrong

They spent over $6 million on one party that accomplished nothing. 
They wasted millions on travel, far more then comparable foundations
They spent millions of $$ on advertising that drove no increase in traffic, but did drive traffic to a for profit website that Lance financially benefited from
They had multiple entities in order to make their program ratios look better
The counted selling t-shirts as a program cost. 

I could go on, and on, and on. but you get the idea. 

The good thing is they have changed and are doing many good things now, after wasting hundreds of millions on promoting Lance


----------



## trailrunner68

gearsnspokes said:


> Wow...I'm a member of the 'uninformed' public, so this thread has been both illuminating and impressive. One question:
> 
> Nearly every news article suggests that Lance could lose his titles. Is this media sensationalism or is there a _real_ possibility of this happening?


The chance that he is stripped of the TDF titles of 2004 and 2005 plus all results from 2004 onward looks to be pretty high. Unless the witnesses back out then that is probably a done deal.

Stripping results prior to that looks more iffy. The statute of limitations needs to be tolled. While there is some precedence, there is nothing on this scale. This part of the case could easily fail. It is new ground. No doping conspiracy like this has ever been prosecuted. If the witnesses show up, and I assume that Vaughters and his riders will, then the USADA should have a damning body of evidence that stretches back to 1998. It then becomes a matter of whether the arbitrators (and ultimately CAS) are okay with going back fifteen years.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, Kloden was nailed and paid a 25,000 fine to settle it


That was cheap. I thought LA was the only one who bought his way out of trouble?

Does it matter that USADA didn't begin operating until 2000 or do they just refer to rules written before their authority?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> That was cheap. I thought LA was the only one who bought his way out of trouble?
> 
> Does it matter that USADA didn't begin operating until 2000 or do they just refer to rules written before their authority?


I agree, it was cheap. It always puzzled me why the UCI never went after Kloden. He paid the fine to the Prosecutor in Bonn

The impetus for setting up WADA was the Festina affair. It was clear that Feds like the UCI and the IAAF had little interesting in pursuing doping of their athletes. The UCI fought it for years and was the last Fed to sign in August 2004. 

WADA's recent success with tolling the SOL in the Hellebuyk case has given USADA confidence, and legal precedence

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

They referred to it in their letter and it seems they will try the same with lance


----------



## terzo rene

Whether or not the activities at Livestrong were ever criminal it's clear it's not managed to maximize the benefit to the cancer community.

For example: "At the time, Livestrong had four staffers and a budget of about $7 million. Now it has a staff of 88, and it took in $48 million in 2010." (Lance Armstrong and Livestrong - Page 4 | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com)

So a seven-fold increase in budget somehow required a 22-fold increase in staff. Size brings economies of scale in administration, not a geometric progression in expenses. That level of administrative overhead/waste/siphoning isn't something I would be bragging about...or donating to.


----------



## trailrunner68

terzo rene said:


> Whether or not the activities at Livestrong were ever criminal it's clear it's not managed to maximize the benefit to the cancer community.
> 
> For example: "At the time, Livestrong had four staffers and a budget of about $7 million. Now it has a staff of 88, and it took in $48 million in 2010." (Lance Armstrong and Livestrong - Page 4 | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com)
> 
> So a seven-fold increase in budget somehow required a 22-fold increase in staff. Size brings economies of scale in administration, not a geometric progression in expenses. That level of administrative overhead/waste/siphoning isn't something I would be bragging about...or donating to.


Hey, cancer awareness costs a lot. There may be a few people out there who have not heard of cancer. It takes a lot manpower to find them.


----------



## OldChipper

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So what do you do with all the riders, Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Tyler, Landis, and many, many more, who have served bans? Is Lance the only one to get a free pass?


Maybe not, but what about all the others who also doped and either didn't get caught or aren't high-profile enough to be pursued? Should only riders who finished top 10 in a race be investigated? Top 20? It's a deep rabbit hole and there's no good solution.

The lying aside, the core concern is that someone "cheated." If everyone is "cheating" everyone is on the same basis again and no one is getting an "unfair" advantage. It's the organized denial of the fact that everyone was cheating that engendered (or even required?) the lying. If the sport as a whole was up-front and just said: "Yep, you know what, most top pros over the last 15 years have been doping. It's a black mark on the sport and we now have methods to catch most cheats and we'll do everything we can to stop cheating going forward. We're terribly sorry" there would be no need to try to conform to a non-existent (in reality) norm i.e. clean riding. 

Just playing devil's advocate here.


----------



## davidka

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that they have reliable methods to catch the dopers. Given the effectiveness of the things they've been doing in the last 15 years, if the sport were cleaned up there should be an across the board decrease in performance. Races would have noticeably lower avg. speeds, TT's would show lower avg. speeds, guys would be weak at the end of 3 week races. None of that seems to be happening.


----------



## Chris-X

*I have no idea*



badge118 said:


> You are missing the point. In law you do not say "okay bob you testify against your boss and we will make you the head of the crime family." You throw the guy in witness protection send him to live in the sticks and you keep such an eye on him that if he gets picked up for drunk and disorderly he goes away for 10 years.
> 
> The way things are now you are essentially handing the "head" to the other crooks. That is okay with you aparently though just because he is an obstinate jerk. **** his personality has been your primary motivation from the jump for christ sakes.
> 
> Oh and your festina example is wrong. That was just the first time a team got caught. That is not what you are trying to make it out to be but then again not unusual for you. Hell those idiots lied until they were testifying in criminal cases. Some after publishing books protesting their innocence. What cleaned up French cycling was that it became criminal in nature. Tbh I think WADA has had very little to do with cleaning up the sport. The fact that as time has gone on more countries have made it criminal has. Do you think it a coincidence that the bulk of prepatore were Spanish until not too long ago? Maybe the fact that Spain until after OP had no criminal legislation had something to do with it?
> 
> That is all beside the point though. Until I realized who would get the jerseys in the end debating this was an intellectual exercise for me. Now that I have considered that factor I think in the end we all loose and we need some other solution. Maybe just say ffff it and pretend for the record books there are no TdFs for 2006 back to 99. I don't care really but I will honestly consider pro cycling a complete joke and a side show NOT a sport if they just hand a win to another doper because of convenient timing on when they got caught. Just more proof I think the National federation system is a damn joke. Everyone should just give the money the spend to WADA and make then the FBI of sports doping. Only then is there going to be anything that resembles an orderly system.


what you're talking about.

Just to not get into it, my primary motivation is that Armstrong has been the biggest fraud in cycling since 1999, and the chief enforcer of the omerta, and then hid behind his cancer charity which was really more of a PR firm for his financial interests.

Being a scumbag is the cherry on top. 

I didn't know enforcing the rules of what is supposed to be clean sport is a bad thing and have no idea wtf you're talking about with this "handing the head" silliness.

The point which you apparently have been sleeping through for 22 years is that Cycling _is_ a complete joke. Non dopers have very little chance to win. Maybe that will change when people see Armstrong like glory can turn to infamy if you don't follow the rules.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So what do you do with all the riders, Basso, Ullrich, Valverde, Tyler, Landis, and many, many more, who have served bans? Is Lance the only one to get a free pass?


You are focusing on the one guy and avoiding the larger issue you know that right? Pretty much doing what the sport has been doing forever which has done SO MUCH to solve the problem of doping in sport. No one is saying that LA should get away with it. What we are saying is that it is fff'd up that you give a guy a Yellow jersey because he didn't get a sanction until 2011 due to a long hard fought legal battle. That sir is a farse. Care to contribute something constructive?


----------



## badge118

Some countries are making head way. France did sometime ago, Italy is quickly catching up BUT imo until 2 things change there will never be a solution and since it is one of the few world wide big money sports signed up it will continue to look like a side show until 2 things happen.

1. All nations signed up with the UNESCO treaty on doping with sport pass Criminal Legislation against sports doping.
2. The national federations cede ALL doping enforcement to an international body. Just look at Contador as an example. The country now has laws against sports doping. The national federation was going to give him a one year ban. The Prime Minister Tweets that he trusts AC. Since the Spanish gov't gives the fed the bulk of their funding miraculously he is acquited.

Even this won't make it go away 100% but unless these two things happen we might as well just resign ourselves to the equivilent of the Drug War in the US and we all know how that has gone don't we? How long can you go buying the local paper and not see a drug arrest in the police blotter or such a story on the 6 or 11 oclock news?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, Kloden was nailed and paid a 25,000 fine to settle it


BOY was that disingenuous. He was never sanctioned. He paid less than $25k actually AND most importantly it wasn't even a fine. It was a donation/payment to a handicap facility as part of an agreement with the Bonn public prosecutor in a fine to make his CRIMINAL investigation into Sporting Fraud related to the Freiberg clinic to go away. Hell do you know what that settlement results in under German law? He is listed as "innocent" in the books so he paid money but has no conviction or other record showing ANY evidence of wrong doing.

Klöden, German Prosecutors Agree To End Investigation | Cyclingnews.com

He was never sanctioned by any sporting body, never had a palmare stripped and never had a ban or suspension leveled against himself personally. Even though the evidence against him in the Freiberg clinic issue was pretty much on par with what LA is getting hit with here. Testimony from other team members, records of 330,000 Euro payment contracts with Telekom to the Clinic etc. 

The year before he got the fine his contract was in the top 15 cyclists in terms of pay in 2007 at $1.3 million dollars for the season. Yeah that fine is SUCH a punishment. Dude your omitting key facts on occassion tends to get old.


----------



## captain stubbing

davidka said:


> I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that they have reliable methods to catch the dopers. Given the effectiveness of the things they've been doing in the last 15 years, if the sport were cleaned up there should be an across the board decrease in performance. Races would have noticeably lower avg. speeds, TT's would show lower avg. speeds, guys would be weak at the end of 3 week races. None of that seems to be happening.


you will find that they have slowed down, here are the fastest ascents of alpe d'huez, the 2011 times were way off the pace set during the 80s,90s and 00s......i'll let you make your own conclusions.

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland
16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy
19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain
20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan
23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States
24 41' 21" *Samuel Sánchez 2011 Spain*
25 41' 30" *Alberto Contador 2011 Spain*
26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008 Australia
27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France
28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987 Colombia
29 41' 57" *Pierre Rolland 2011 France*
30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain
31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011 Canada
32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011 United States
33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands
34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy
35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
36 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> BOY was that disingenuous. He was never sanctioned. He paid less than $25k actually AND most importantly it wasn't even a fine. It was a donation/payment to a handicap facility as part of an agreement with the Bonn public prosecutor in a fine to make his CRIMINAL investigation into Sporting Fraud related to the Freiberg clinic to go away. Hell do you know what that settlement results in under German law? He is listed as "innocent" in the books so he paid money but has no conviction or other record showing ANY evidence of wrong doing.
> 
> Klöden, German Prosecutors Agree To End Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> He was never sanctioned by any sporting body, never had a palmare stripped and never had a ban or suspension leveled against himself personally. Even though the evidence against him in the Freiberg clinic issue was pretty much on par with what LA is getting hit with here. Testimony from other team members, records of 330,000 Euro payment contracts with Telekom to the Clinic etc.
> 
> The year before he got the fine his contract was in the top 15 cyclists in terms of pay in 2007 at $1.3 million dollars for the season. Yeah that fine is SUCH a punishment. Dude your omitting key facts on occassion tends to get old.


If you are going to get worked up and start babbling you might want to read what I wrote. You must have missed/ignored this



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree, it was cheap. It always puzzled me why the UCI never went after Kloden. He paid the fine to the Prosecutor in Bonn


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You are focusing on the one guy and avoiding the larger issue you know that right? Pretty much doing what the sport has been doing forever which has done SO MUCH to solve the problem of doping in sport. No one is saying that LA should get away with it. What we are saying is that it is fff'd up that you give a guy a Yellow jersey because he didn't get a sanction until 2011 due to a long hard fought legal battle. That sir is a farse. Care to contribute something constructive?


Isn't it time you contributed something constructive and not just focus on one guy? 

There is no structure in place to whip the results for a generation. Most of Armstrong's key competitors have been sanctioned. Why should he be the only one to get a pass?


----------



## badge118

The point was it wasn't even technically a fine and if you don't read cycling sports news you won't even find a record that it was part of such a deal. It wasn't cheap it was free and that is an important difference sorry. 

As for the other issue, the lack of a mechanism, that is is simply an excuse to avoid the larger issue I am trying to raise, sorry.


----------



## gearsnspokes

captain stubbing said:


> you will find that they have slowed down, here are the fastest ascents of alpe d'huez, the 2011 times were way off the pace set during the 80s,90s and 00s......i'll let you make your own conclusions.
> 
> 1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
> 2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
> 3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
> 4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
> 5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
> 6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
> 7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States
> 8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
> 9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
> 10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
> 11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
> 12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
> 13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
> 14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
> 15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland
> 16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
> 17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
> 18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy
> 19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain
> 20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
> 21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
> 22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan
> 23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States
> 24 41' 21" *Samuel Sánchez 2011 Spain*
> 25 41' 30" *Alberto Contador 2011 Spain*
> 26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008 Australia
> 27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France
> 28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987 Colombia
> 29 41' 57" *Pierre Rolland 2011 France*
> 30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain
> 31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011 Canada
> 32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011 United States
> 33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands
> 34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy
> 35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
> 36 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States


Dumb question, but I assume asterisks represent probable doping, correct?

I had to laugh at #2 & 4. All that for just 42 seconds? jk


----------



## trailrunner68

gearsnspokes said:


> Dumb question, but I assume asterisks represent probable doping, correct?


They represent times set during a time trial.

The other times are subject to race tactics unless the rider went solo from the start of the climb. The riders also would have been fatigued from the previous kilometers of the stage. So Landis has a good time on the list and he was super strong on the Alpe during 2006 but he was more interested in preserving his lead and not blowing up than riding the best time he was capable of riding. He could have ridden faster.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

captain stubbing said:


> you will find that they have slowed down, here are the fastest ascents of alpe d'huez, the 2011 times were way off the pace set during the 80s,90s and 00s......i'll let you make your own conclusions.
> 
> 1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
> 2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
> 3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
> 4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
> 5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
> 6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
> 7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States
> 8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
> 9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
> 10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
> 11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
> 12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
> 13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
> 14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
> 15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland
> 16 39' 30" Bjarne Riis 1995 Denmark
> 17 39' 31" Carlos Sastre 2008 Spain
> 18 39' 44" Gianni Bugno 1991 Italy
> 19 39' 45" Miguel Induráin 1991 Spain
> 20 40' 00" Jan Ullrich 2001 Germany
> 21 40' 46" Fränk Schleck 2006 Luxembourg
> 22 40' 51" Alexander Vinokourov 2003 Kazakhstan
> 23 41' 18" Lance Armstrong 2003 United States
> 24 41' 21" *Samuel Sánchez 2011 Spain*
> 25 41' 30" *Alberto Contador 2011 Spain*
> 26 41' 46" Cadel Evans 2008 Australia
> 27 41' 50" Laurent Fignon 1989 France
> 28 41' 50" Luis Herrera 1987 Colombia
> 29 41' 57" *Pierre Rolland 2011 France*
> 30 42' 15" Pedro Delgado 1989 Spain
> 31 43' 12" Ryder Hesjedal 2011 Canada
> 32 43' 12" Thomas Danielson 2011 United States
> 33 45' 20" Gert-Jan Theunisse 1989 Netherlands
> 34 45' 22" Fausto Coppi 1952 Italy
> 35 48' 00" Bernard Hinault 1986 France
> 36 48' 00" Greg Lemond 1986 United States


FYI, these times are just a selection of the more notable times and riders. In 1997 alone 60 riders broke 45 minutes


----------



## gearsnspokes

Gotcha, thanks


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

One of the best things about the USADA case is that it will push people like Dr. García del Moral out of the sport for good. 

Cycling Doctor Luis García del Moral, Who Worked for Lance Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service Team, Under a Microscope - WSJ.com


----------



## cyclusaddictus

How many pros haven't doped? I lost faith in the whole pro tour years ago, just non-stop scandal and controversy. Those guys aren't the least bit natural, never have been. It's hard to stay interested really. Wow, even Lance was doping? NO, really?? So what, strip him and give it the next doper in line, just one that hasn't been analyzed to death. He soon will be. Maybe there should be a "natural" pro tour, like the "natural" body building series. Ha.


----------



## David Loving

Maybe they ought to bring the fabulous Justice Dept. lawyers on board. Nobody cares about this issue. The Clements jury just found him not guilty. They can't convict Lance either - that's why his case went nowhere. The Doping Bureaucrats are coming in behind the elephants in the circus parade sweeping up the manure. I just cannot fathom how an adult would enjoy spending a working life on such useless pursuits.


----------



## Urb

cyclusaddictus said:


> So what, strip him and give it the next doper in line


I see so much truth about this statement.


----------



## Chris-X

David Loving said:


> Maybe they ought to bring the fabulous Justice Dept. lawyers on board. Nobody cares about this issue. The Clements jury just found him not guilty. They can't convict Lance either - that's why his case went nowhere. The Doping Bureaucrats are coming in behind the elephants in the circus parade sweeping up the manure. * I just cannot fathom how an adult would enjoy spending a working life on such useless pursuits*.


It would be wonderful if there was no fraud in the world.

Now you're going for the "utility" argument?

You want to discuss "bread and circuses?"

While we're at it, maybe you can enlighten me as to the usefulness of anorexics in lycra riding bikes up the sides of mountains.:idea::idea:

We can talk about _Clements_ [sic] too if you'd like.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> I see so much truth about this statement.


So does this mean we will see a push to give Floyd, Tyler, Valverde, Basso, and Ullrich back their titles or does this apply just to one rider?


----------



## badge118

David Loving said:


> Maybe they ought to bring the fabulous Justice Dept. lawyers on board. Nobody cares about this issue. The Clements jury just found him not guilty. They can't convict Lance either - that's why his case went nowhere. The Doping Bureaucrats are coming in behind the elephants in the circus parade sweeping up the manure. I just cannot fathom how an adult would enjoy spending a working life on such useless pursuits.


The reason for this is pretty simple. Unlike in Europe doping in sport is not considered a crime. People aren't stupid. They know to be as big and fast as football players are they have to dope. To hit so many home runs or keep fit past a certain age in baseball the same. It's kinda like Bill Clinton. Yeah he perjured himself technically about having an affair but since the affair was not illegal and was thus "personal" business they think it wasn't even Ken Stars business to look into it. So public opinion makes an attempt at removing him from office unsuccessful.

Make sports doping an actual crime. Let the public see from investigations just how much money is made and spent. Let them see how because of the culture some parents try to get their kids in High School PEDs and how this is contributing to kids having heart attacks (heck a story in 2007 said 1% of ELEVEN year olds have used PEDs.) Do all this and maybe the climate changes. So long as the main enforcer of Sports Doping in the US is an NGO which follows guidelines set forth by other Non-US NGOs that is not going to change though.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> The reason for this is pretty simple. Unlike in Europe doping in sport is not considered a crime. People aren't stupid. They know to be as big and fast as football players are they have to dope. To hit so many home runs or keep fit past a certain age in baseball the same. *It's kinda like Bill Clinton. Yeah he perjured himself technically about having an affair but since the affair was not illegal and was thus "personal" business they think it wasn't even Ken Stars business to look into it. So public opinion makes an attempt at removing him from office unsuccessful.
> 
> Make sports doping an actual crime*. Let the public see from investigations just how much money is made and spent. Let them see how because of the culture some parents try to get their kids in High School PEDs and how this is contributing to kids having heart attacks (heck a story in 2007 said 1% of ELEVEN year olds have used PEDs.) Do all this and maybe the climate changes. So long as the main enforcer of Sports Doping in the US is an NGO which follows guidelines set forth by other Non-US NGOs that is not going to change though.


You want to make extra marital affairs a crime?


----------



## badge118

Oh my god that was the BIGGEST troll I have seen in this thread. You really need a hobby.

You know damn well I was not inferring that but rather since what he lied about was not a crime most people didn't give a damn that he later committed a crime by lying under oath (perjury) about it.

Same with sports doping. You rarely if ever hear people in the US refer to doping as cheating or fraud, at worst they talk about the bad example it sets for youth as athletes for some twisted reason are seen as role models by people. In terms of public reaction the two situations are not dissimilar. 

While you can NOT make a chase that adultery is criminal in nature (imo at least, I am sure some right wing evangelical may try based on the 10 commandments, you can make a case that doping is fraud, as well as illegal based on our current drug laws (many doping products are schedule IV through II substances.)

This illegality has gone a long way in Europe from turning sports doping from the romanticized "convicts of the road" of the past to the "get the cheats out of sport" we have today and I think the US should follow suit.

I am sure you will find a way to troll this answer though because heaven forbid anyone have an opinion different from yours.


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So does this mean we will see a push to give Floyd, Tyler, Valverde, Basso, and Ullrich back their titles or does this apply just to one rider?


Good question and seems to be a very simple answer. No. However my comment was more to do with the community and not an individual. I can understand how it could've been concieved as support for Lance, which for the record I do.


----------



## Urb

badge118 said:


> Oh my god that was the BIGGEST troll I have seen in this thread. You really need a hobby.


It's tactics. Much of the same employed by both sides for and against. Some facts with some unrelated logic. Throw in a couple of questions about credibility and that's pretty much the thread and the case vs Lance.


----------



## pianopiano

*Lance didn't do it*

Lance Armstrong's Bike: 'It Was Me' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source :thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X

*What did you call your hobby?*



badge118 said:


> Oh my god that was the BIGGEST troll I have seen in this thread. You really need a hobby.
> 
> You know damn well I was not inferring that but rather since what he lied about was not a crime most people didn't give a damn* that he later committed a crime by lying under oath (perjury) about it.
> *
> Same with sports doping. You rarely if ever hear people in the US refer to doping as cheating or fraud, at worst they talk about the bad example it sets for youth as athletes for some twisted reason are seen as role models by people. In terms of public reaction the two situations are not dissimilar.
> 
> While you can NOT make a chase that adultery is criminal in nature (imo at least, I am sure some right wing evangelical may try based on the 10 commandments, you can make a case that doping is fraud, as well as illegal based on our current drug laws (many doping products are schedule IV through II substances.)
> 
> This illegality has gone a long way in Europe from turning sports doping from the romanticized "convicts of the road" of the past to the "get the cheats out of sport" we have today and I think the US should follow suit.
> 
> I am sure you will find a way to troll this answer though because heaven forbid anyone have an opinion different from yours.


"Theory crafting" or something absurd like that.

At first I barely understood what you were talking about here.

Clinton did NOT committ a crime by lying about something that the Special Prosecutor had no business asking about. If you understood this it might go a long way to understanding the case we have in front of us, and what matters in that case.

FYI, Perjury is a MATERIAL misstatement. 

Perjury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, *concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding."
*

Lying about consensual affairs was completely immaterial to Jones v. Clinton.

Unless of course YOU want to make extramarital affairs crimes like I asked in the first place.

While I myself would be Lmao and generally tremendously entertained by having Armstrong questioned about hookers, blow, Mary Kate, the other Olsen, and all his other sexual escapades, I have to admit it's immaterial to whether he was doping or not. Now if he was blowing huge sums entertaining in the Yellow Rose, that might be indicative of some kind of fraud with his charities but I'm not certain that's the case.

Rather than overanalyzing and crafting theories why not just go with the facts in front of your face and spare us the speculative garbage.


----------



## badge118

And thank you again for proving you do not understand the law outside the often inaccurate world of wikipedia. Wrong about court proceedings, wrong about juries, wrong about expungements, now wrong about this, lol.

And I LOVE how since you now have an axe to grind you still manage to be myopic and yet again dodge addressing the fact that half the reason (at least) that doping is treated with kid gloves in the US, as opposed to Europe, especially in the court of public opinion is due to the lack of clear illegality.

Btw, to actually address your completely erroneous analysis of the Star investigation, that was regarding White Water. The question regarding the then rumored affair went to a matter of credibility. Such questions are actually relevant in court proceedings involving fraud and alleged corruption. I don't think Clinton did anything illegal, hell I voted for him in the second election. He did technically commit a crime however and benefited from a variation of Jury Nulification or people buying the argument make in this synopsis of the case, the full version of which appeared in the Kent Law review...

http://www.languageandlaw.org/PERJURY.HTM


----------



## Joeballz

Crazy


----------



## Chris-X

*Theory crafting again?*



badge118 said:


> And thank you again for proving you do not understand the law outside the often inaccurate world of wikipedia. Wrong about court proceedings, wrong about juries, wrong about expungements, now wrong about this, lol.


Dude, we're on a cycling forum talking about "New Charges for Armstrong." You're giving a million and one irrelevant reasons for Armstrong to get off. You set up all this extraneous legal nonsense and now you're knocking down that strawman.



badge118 said:


> And I LOVE how since you now have an axe to grind you still manage to be myopic and yet again dodge addressing the fact that half the reason (at least) that doping is treated with kid gloves in the US, as opposed to Europe, especially in the court of public opinion is due to the lack of clear illegality.


There we go! Add me to the long list of those with an "axe to grind." Bro, Armstrong is guilty of doping and a lot more. It's clear as day, unless you're in fanboy worship mode. That's the bottom line. Again for whatever reason you bring in side issues in an effort let your boy Armstrong slide. Tell me about the legality of even possessing doping products without a valid prescription? You're a cop, no? What's going to happen to me if I have Percoset's on me and they're not in the labeled bottle with my name on it? 

Just more silly diversions from you. Why are you bending over backwards to protect Armstrong? Insuring the "fairness" of criminal/legal procedure soley lies in your hands?

BTW, I don't believe USADA is pursuing criminal charges against Armstrong.



badge118 said:


> Btw, to actually address your completely erroneous analysis of the Star investigation, that was regarding White Water. *The question regarding the then rumored affair went to a matter of credibility. Such questions are actually relevant in court proceedings involving fraud and alleged corruption*. I don't think Clinton did anything illegal, hell I voted for him in the second election. He did technically commit a crime however and benefited from a variation of Jury Nulification or people buying the argument make in this synopsis of the case, the full version of which appeared in the Kent Law review...


That's why the Starr investigation was in fact a fishing expedition and a witch hunt. Because they had NOTHING. Money losing real estate deals couldn't hold the public's interest. If Jones v. Clinton was about a complex financial deal, the SCOTUS would have granted the temporary immunity Clinton was asking for. They erroneously ruled 9-0 to let Clinton v. Jones proceed during his term. The SCOTUS is not immune to the general stupidity the talking heads float out there. We all saw what happened. The US was a laughingstock. Do you really want the POTUS sidetracked with Non-criminal, politically motivated, nuisance lawsuits during his term? I don't and in recognition of this, the law grants even soldiers, lowly Privates, protection from civil suits. The CIC shouldn't be protected from this stupidity? Gimme a break!

Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act Provides Umbrella of Protection

If your bolded statement were correct, every single high powered executive or philanderer like Armstrong would be grilled about how much money they spent in the Yellow Rose or how much they spend on hookers in Vegas. Newsflash, it's not happening.

perjury index[/QUOTE]

http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/v...earch="judge wright mistake jones v. clinton"

First of all, your comparison of Armstrong to Clinton is completely irrelevant.

Secondly, Wiki is correct on the materiality requirement for perjury.

First, the applicable federal perjury statutes-18 U.S.C. §§ 1621
and 1623-contain their own built-in "Who cares?" defense: a defendant
cannot be prosecuted for telling trivial lies, even if the defendant
told such lies under oath and before a judge*. Perjury requires
false statements that were actually "material" to the
underlying proceedings.9 However, it is not clear how the requirement
of materiality should be applied in the context of civil discovery.
The federal circuits are split on the issue.'0 Should every
knowingly false answer to questions within the legitimate scope of
discovery be deemed material?* Or should materiality be construed
more narrowly? For example, should materiality depend on whether
the false statements could have been admitted into evidence at a subsequent
trial and, if so, whether they actually could have affected the
outcome of that trial?

Part IV
applies the approaches to materiality reviewed in Part III to Jones v.
Clinton, *concluding that Clinton's false deposition testimony regarding
Monica Lewinsky was not material to the Jones suit.*


----------



## Chris-X

More reading for the "theory crafters" and "over analyzers."

I apologize for this post but it is only in response to the COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT CONNECTION, of Clinton v Jones to Armstrong's USADA charges, BROUGHT UP BY 

badge118

The Impeachment Trial of President William Jefferson Clinton

*Lawyers for Clinton argued that the Jones suit would distract him from the important tasks of his office and should not be allowed to go forward while he occupied the White House.* Clinton's immunity claim eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously in May, 1997 against the President, and allowed discovery in the case to proceed. *As Federal Appeals Court Judge (and Reagan appointee) Richard A. Posner noted in An Affair of State*: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton, the *Court's "inept," "unpragmatic," and "backward-looking" decision in Clinton v Jones,* and an earlier decision by the Court upholding the constitutionality of the act authorizing the appointment of independent counsels, had major consequences:


*"Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, an affair intrinsically devoid of significance to anyone except Lewinsky, would have remained a secret from the public. The public would not have been worse for not knowing about it. * There would have been no impeachment inquiry, no impeachment, no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998, no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication. The Supreme Court's decisions created a situation that led the President and his defenders into the pattern of cornered-rat behavior that engendered a constitutional storm and that may have embittered American politics, weakened the Presidency, distracted the federal government from essential business, and undermined the rule of law."


As a result of the Supreme Court's action, Judge Susan Weber Wright allowed discovery to proceed in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Judge Wright ruled that lawyers for Jones, in order to help prove her sexual harassment claim, could inquire into any sexual relationships that Clinton might have with subordinates either as Governor of Arkansas or as President of the United States. A critical moment in the cascade of events that would eventually lead to impeachment came on December 5, 1997 when Jones's lawyers submitted a list of women that they would like to depose. Included on the list the name of Monica Lewinsky.

Badge 118, please tell me wth any of this has to do with Armstrong?


----------



## trailrunner68

I liked the Clinton v. Jones suit. It showed what should be a basic American principle: That no matter who someone is or what position he occupies, he is still subject to the same set of laws that the rest of the people are.

To sabotage a private citizen's lawsuit, Clinton lied about there not being a pattern of using government employees for sexual favors that had continued to the present. Just like Armstrong, Clinton has himself to blame. He could have avoided trouble by telling the truth but he thought that he could look America in the eye and brazenly lie. It is good that Clinton was exposed. It is good that Armstrong is being exposed.


----------



## Chris-X

trailrunner68 said:


> I liked the Clinton v. Jones suit. It showed what should be a basic American principle: That no matter who someone is or what position he occupies, he is still subject to the same set of laws that the rest of the people are.
> 
> To sabotage a private citizen's lawsuit, Clinton lied about there not being a pattern of using government employees for sexual favors that had continued to the present. Just like Armstrong, Clinton has himself to blame. He could have avoided trouble by telling the truth but he thought that he could look America in the eye and brazenly lie. It is good that Clinton was exposed. It is good that Armstrong is being exposed.


Sounds good on the surface but in reality not so good.

Important points.

Lawsuit was a civil suit, not criminal. Clinton was only asking for temporary immunity, not complete immunity. See Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act Provides Umbrella of Protection that even the lowliest active duty member of the US Armed forces gets these protections.

You say pattern of behavior but the FACT is that it was known Lewinsky affair was consensual which is not illegal behavior. Starr was on a fishing expedition and they caught Clinton in a Catch-22 net.

The general consensus in the legal community is that Starr's behavior was far more corrupt and dangerous than Clinton's.

"Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, an affair intrinsically devoid of significance to anyone except Lewinsky, would have remained a secret from the public. The public would not have been worse for not knowing about it. There would have been no impeachment inquiry, no impeachment, no concerns about the motives behind the President's military actions against terrorists and rogue states in the summer and fall of 1998, no spectacle of the United States Senate play-acting at adjudication. The Supreme Court's decisions created a situation that led the President and his defenders into the pattern of cornered-rat behavior that engendered a constitutional storm and that may have embittered American politics, weakened the Presidency, distracted the federal government from essential business, and undermined the rule of law."

Richard A. Posner, appointed to federal Appeals Court by Reagan.

_Yet the outrageously monstrous Ken Starr *(about whom longtime Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau said, 'He violated every [prosecutorial] rule in the book')* conducted, with federal authorization and funding no less, a seven-year, $70 million investigation of Bill Clinton's involvement in a small and losing real estate venture (Whitewater) in Arkansas fifteen years before his presidency, and finding nothing, decided to investigate Clinton's private and consensual sexual life. In the process, Starr almost destroyed the Clinton presidency, substantially incapacitated the executive branch of government, and made America a laughingstock around the world." _

- Vincent Bugliosi


----------



## trailrunner68

Chris-X said:


> Sounds good on the surface but in reality not so good.
> 
> Important points.
> 
> Lawsuit was a civil suit, not criminal. Clinton was only asking for temporary immunity, not complete immunity.


It does not matter what he asked for. The courts did not give it him. He then decided that he would handle the situation by lying in his deposition. It was especially noxious because he had the responisibility for upholding the law.

Just like Armstrong, he thought he was above the rules the rest of us play by and he could get away with breaking them.



> You say pattern of behavior but the FACT is that it was known Lewinsky affair was consensual which is not illegal behavior. Starr was on a fishing expedition and they caught Clinton in a Catch-22 net.


A cornerstone of sexual harrassment law was and still is that a gross imbalance of power between two people in the workplace is intrinsically coercive. That idea was fully supported by a political faction that supported Clinton. They abandoned their principles when their guy was caught.

Clinton brought the "fishing expedition" on himself. His supporters can moan all they want about witch hunts and the evil of Kenneth Starr, but just like Armstrong complaining about the USADA and Travis Tygart, he brought everything on himself.


----------



## Chris-X

trailrunner68 said:


> *It does not matter what he asked for. The courts did not give it him. * He then decided that he would handle the situation by lying in his deposition. It was especially noxious because he had the responisibility for upholding the law.
> 
> Just like Armstrong, he thought he was above the rules the rest of us play by and he could get away with breaking them.


The impartiality and fairness of the courts is the bedrock of our legal system. They rely on the rule of law, not just $hit they make up because they don't like someone.

Maybe you can tell me what law Clinton broke by making immaterial lies? What if he lied about having a vegan meal when he actually had a Super sized Big Mac meal deal?

What don't you understand about this; Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act Provides Umbrella of Protection ...keep in mind POTUS is CIC.

The rules the rest of us play by? I didn't know there were the secret sexual morality police in the USA? 

You're way off, and back to the original post, Bill Clinton has absolutely nothing to do with Lance Armstrong. No parallels can be made at all.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Maybe the Clinton conversation could be continued in Politics only?

Armstrong is threatening to file a lawsuit in Federal court against USADA. 5 others have tired and 5 others have failed. 

Armstrong lawyers are salivating at the billable hours


----------



## Local Hero

I would give my right testicle to be Armstrong's lawyer.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Maybe the Clinton conversation could be continued in Politics only?
> 
> Armstrong is threatening to file a lawsuit in Federal court against USADA. 5 others have tired and 5 others have failed.
> 
> Armstrong lawyers are salivating at the billable hours


I'm with you 100%.


----------



## pianopiano

*truth*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong lawyers are salivating at the billable hours


LOL :thumbsup:


----------



## trailrunner68

Local Hero said:


> I would give my right testicle to be Armstrong's lawyer.


Good money for the next two years but it would be frustrating when Armstrong continually ignores advice. Every other week you would need to worry about the latest stupid thing Armstrong wrote on Twitter, said to the press, or privately threatened.


----------



## Local Hero

Where you see challenge, I see opportunity.


----------



## trailrunner68

Local Hero said:


> Where you see challenge, I see opportunity.












Armstrong: Well you know they don't allow doping in the cycling. So I had to conspire with my team manager to get the good stuff.

Jackie Chiles: Yeah, see they like a fair competition.

Armstrong: Yeah, now is that going to be a problem?

Jackie Chiles: Yeah that's going to be a problem. It's gonna be a problem for them. This a clear violation of your rights as a rider. It's an infringement on your constitutional rights. It's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Maybe the Clinton conversation could be continued in Politics only?
> 
> Armstrong is threatening to file a lawsuit in Federal court against USADA. 5 others have tired and 5 others have failed.
> 
> Armstrong lawyers are salivating at the billable hours


Yes but as I noted before and everyone kept ignoring, those prior cases all involved courts being able to weasel out of a real decision as to the USADA's rights and authority using the fact the case was started by analytical evidence obtained by tests in foreign countries.

I don't pretend to know what the outcome of such a suit will be in this case but as it is very different that those others I think it would be unwise to simply assume the same decision here as that rationale is not applicable.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Yes but as I noted before and everyone kept ignoring, those prior cases all involved courts being able to weasel out of a real decision as to the USADA's rights and authority using the fact the case was started by analytical evidence obtained by tests in foreign countries.
> 
> I don't pretend to know what the outcome of such a suit will be in this case but as it is very different that those others I think it would be unwise to simply assume the same decision here as that rationale is not applicable.


You should ask Valverde how he thinks about evidence collected in foreign countries

USADA is not a court so all of that stuff just does not matter


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should ask Valverde how he thinks about evidence collected in foreign countries
> 
> USADA is not a court so all of that stuff just does not matter


That is not applicable. He was first banned again in another country, Italy. His own gov't and the Spanish courts freaked. The UCI then simply went to expand the Italian ban based on the DNA (not a non-analytic) finding.

Now imagine what happens if, now note I say if, all a US judge does is say he will hear the case and orders an injunction on all proceedings? A federal court can indeed do that and the AAA would have to comply and suspend any such proceeding. The USADA could cry all it wanted.

Also as in Spain where the Spanish Authority could not use OP evidence by court order a US federal judge could even in theory rule (note I said in theory) that evidence obtained by the Federal investigation can't be used here. Without that evidence the only eye witnesses they have are likely Landis, Hamilton and Andrieu because even in arbitrations there are rules regarding admissibility of evidence including the fruit of the poisonous tree. I think you are being FAR to dismissive of the potential head aches of federal court intervention here. If he does go to federal court it is going to get messy as hell. 

Do you realize the complete nightmare for WADA if the US court derails this case? US case law actually influences case law in many countries, it could cause a mess for the anti-doping system as it applies to non-analytic cases.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> That is not applicable. He was first banned again in another country, Italy. His own gov't and the Spanish courts freaked. The UCI then simply went to expand the Italian ban based on the DNA (not a non-analytic) finding.
> 
> Now imagine what happens if, now note I say if, all a US judge does is say he will hear the case and orders an injunction on all proceedings? A federal court can indeed do that and the AAA would have to comply and suspend any such proceeding. The USADA could cry all it wanted.
> 
> Also as in Spain where the Spanish Authority could not use OP evidence by court order a US federal judge could even in theory rule (note I said in theory) that evidence obtained by the Federal investigation can't be used here. Without that evidence the only eye witnesses they have are likely Landis, Hamilton and Andrieu because even in arbitrations there are rules regarding admissibility of evidence including the fruit of the poisonous tree. I think you are being FAR to dismissive of the potential head aches of federal court intervention here. If he does go to federal court it is going to get messy as hell.
> 
> Do you realize the complete nightmare for WADA if the US court derails this case? US case law actually influences case law in many countries, it could cause a mess for the anti-doping system as it applies to non-analytic cases.


Wrong again

Valverede has a global ban because any ban by one WADA entity (CONI) is recognized automatically by the others. CAS upheld this obvious rule

5 Athletes have tried, and failed, the Federal court route. It does not work. The precedent is on USADA's side. Others have tired and failed, but Lance's paid liars get $1,000 per hour so maybe they are better then the others who have failed before them

I appears you missed the part in the USADA filing that said that none of their testimony came from the Federal investigation. NONE. George, VDV, Dave Z, and others all talked to USADA directly.


----------



## badge118

Wrong UCI and WADA moved to have it made world wide. Originally all CONI did was ban him in Italy. Read the history again.
You r right on the rule but not in how it had to be applied. CONI originally just banned him from racing in Italy. You also are missing the point. Since the federal court can't just say "it was a race and lab test in france complain there" they may now see fit to address the issue. There is NO guarentee using the prior cases the courts will not rule in LAs favor. What then is the question.


----------



## Local Hero




----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> I'm with you 100% Because I keep posting things not precisely on point using wikipedia and not an actual educated understanding of the law. A lack of understand I have demonstrated through out this thread.


Fixed it for ya but I am done beating any horse regarding you. Welcome to the ignore list.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong again
> 
> Valverede has a global ban because any ban by one WADA entity (CONI) is recognized automatically by the others. CAS upheld this obvious rule
> 
> 5 Athletes have tried, and failed, the Federal court route. It does not work. The precedent is on USADA's side. Others have tired and failed, but Lance's paid liars get $1,000 per hour so maybe they are better then the others who have failed before them
> 
> I appears you missed the part in the USADA filing that said that none of their testimony came from the Federal investigation. NONE. George, VDV, Dave Z, and others all talked to USADA directly.


here is the time line.

Valverde banned in ITALY only by CONI. UCI and WADA do nothing as appeal to CASE is made. Valverde loses the Appeal. ITALY ONLY ban upheld. UCI and WADA then and only then make a motion for it to be world wide. Valverde loses. So this was not the cut and dry "he had a world wide ban and lost" case you make it out to be. That may be a distinction unimportant to you but the little stuff is important to me.

Next as I said the 5 cases you note were all off of analytical positives done outside the US. Thus the judges dodged it by saying it was outside their Jurisdiction and the athletes were referred to the courts that had jurisdiction where the samples were taken and the labs were. Asw such IF this case goes before a judge we have NO assurance whatsoever there will be a summary dismissal of the case as in the previous 5 cases as they clearly do have jurisdiction in terms of what Nation State is the location of the alleged violation of civil rights. You are missing what I said. I did not state they would admit those statements but rather use them. One case use a statement from another agency as an invetigatory tool and never admit it as testimony in your case. 

What is important is whether such statements were used during their investigation and if so to what extent. While the Exclusionary Rule typically only applies to Criminal case, the United States Supreme Court has held that, in determining whether to invoke the exclusionary rule outside of the criminal trial context, courts must balance the benefits of deterrence against the costs to society. So in this case they would have to determine a few things. First if they believed the Federal Gov't simply turned over the evidence in a case they could not make an arrest in and were in essence trying to use an arguably quasi-government body with a lower burden of proof as a proxy we could have a head ache. Also there is an interesting case in Dallas Texas from 2010 (which Armstrong and his attorney's likely know about). A Dallas DA admitted Grand Jury testimony into a civil case regarding wrong doing. The court ruled the statements inadmissible and the case had to be dropped. If and note I say if Grand Jury testimony was used to get the testimony the USADA is actually going to use this case could potentially be used to make that testimony inadmissible.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/comm...-Dallas-County-DA-misused-grand-jury-8527.ece

I am not saying the argument would win BUT if it could be shown that the USADA would not have interviewed subjects A,B and C themselves without the testimony pointing them in their direction OR that the subjects testified fearful that said statements would be used against THEM you could have an interesting legal pickle. Depending on the nature of the testimony you could make an argument that said statements never should have been given to the USADA. If they never should have had the statements then the court would need to use the metric as dictated by the US Supreme Court regarding the Exclusionary Rule. This could mean that a Federal Court could argue that a proceeding before the AAA can not use said evidence.

The key thing will be how the Arbitration is addressed. In terms of Arbitrations in the US the Supreme Court has ruled...where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine the enforceability of the agreement, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge, but if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator....basically usually federal courts validity questions, butif the case targets the entire contract (basically the USADA code) rather than a specific clause, the arbitrator decides the validity of the argument. Due to jurisdictional issues the prior courts could completely avoid this ruling. This time they can't and will have to make a ruling of some sort. This is a good thing imo. If they do rule that the USADA system is fair and legal the it's done, finito. If they state there are issues then it gets messy of course but really with other sports now struggling with these issues (Baseball again most recently) there does need to be guidance.

Now this does NOT stop the UCI or WADA, who are interested parties, from them appealing to CAS and that CAS could then not rule outside the jurisdiction of the US Courts. CAS already ruled twice in the Valverde case ignoring the order on evidence from a Spanish Judge so why not that of a US Judge? This would be consistent. In the end Armstrong could well be firmly fudged. The point I am trying to make is only that in terms of an AAA hearing, depending on the actions of a Federal court (if he bothers to start such a case) this could be a LONG and messy process that raises A LOT of head aches and issues for how non-analytical doping cases get handled in the US.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Wrong UCI and WADA moved to have it made world wide. Originally all CONI did was ban him in Italy. Read the history again.
> You r right on the rule but not in how it had to be applied. CONI originally just banned him from racing in Italy. You also are missing the point. Since the federal court can't just say "it was a race and lab test in france complain there" they may now see fit to address the issue. There is NO guarentee using the prior cases the courts will not rule in LAs favor. What then is the question.


You really should contact Lance as the "French Samples" defense is not one he is exploring

You can pretend there is a chance the Feds will ignore legal precedence and kill USADA.....there is also a chance of a bigfoot sighting in downtown Los Angeles tomorrow. 

You still have it wrong on Valverde CONI sanctioned Valverde. All WADA signatory are supposed to honor the sanction but the Spanish Fed refused to do so so Valverde was free to race. UCI and WADA appeal to CAS, who confirmed that CONI was correct, Valverde is a doper. They forced the Spanish Fed to do what they should have done months prior, suspend Valverde. 

Of course the Valvdere case has nothing to do with the Armstrong case, except they are both about dopers who will ultimately lose after wasting time and money. As this thread is about Armstrong you may want to reopen one of the many thread that discussed the Valverde case .......you also might want to actually read the CAS decision before you comment further

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...Library/Case_Law/CAS-2007-A-1396-Valverde.pdf

If you want to discuss Valverde you might want to post in a Valverde thread and not clutter this one with unrelated topics. 
Here is one
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/valverde-banned-214319.html


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Next as I said the 5 cases you note were all off of analytical positives done outside the US. Thus the judges dodged it by saying it was outside their Jurisdiction and the athletes were referred to the courts that had jurisdiction where the samples were taken and the labs were. .


Nope. At least one of them was a positive for Testosterone at the US Olympic trials.Trevor Graham was also not even a test 

USADA cases are not treated as state action. USADA is a NGO. 

If you want to know what what his tactics are read this. 
http://www.law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p645McCaffrey.pdf

he will try to argue that USADA got all their evidence from the Feds. You will note the USADA made a preemptive strike in their letter saying they did not base their case on any Federal evidence. 

They would also take a position that would be similar to this

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw


It is the playbook they will be using to try to sue USADA in Federal court. While 5 other athletes have failed in similar attempts Armstrong is far wealthier so who know

Some friendly advice, have you ever thought of using bullet points? Your posts are hard to read. I am sure you have some valid points but they are lost in a sea of words


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

How funny is it that the rules that lance is currently crying about where written by his long business partner and agent:thumbsup:



> The agency, which started operations in 2000, was a result of a recommendation made by the United States Olympic Committee, which developed how the agency would work and what rules it would follow. The committee, its athletes advisory council — of which *Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, was the chair* — and the national governing bodies of the Olympic sports in the United States worked together to design and eventually approve the protocol the antidoping agency uses now.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/s...strong-case.html?pagewanted=1&ref=julietmacur


----------



## Chris-X

Chris-X said:


> I'm with you 100%.





badge118 said:


> Fixed it for ya but I am done beating any horse regarding you. Welcome to the ignore list.


Do NOT "fix" anything I write.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. At least one of them was a positive for Testosterone at the US Olympic trials.Trevor Graham was also not even a test
> 
> USADA cases are not treated as state action. USADA is a NGO.
> 
> If you want to know what what his tactics are read this.
> http://www.law.wustl.edu/Journal/22/p645McCaffrey.pdf
> 
> he will try to argue that USADA got all their evidence from the Feds. You will note the USADA made a preemptive strike in their letter saying they did not base their case on any Federal evidence.
> 
> They would also take a position that would be similar to this
> 
> http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw
> 
> 
> It is the playbook they will be using to try to sue USADA in Federal court. While 5 other athletes have failed in similar attempts Armstrong is far wealthier so who know
> 
> Some friendly advice, have you ever thought of using bullet points? Your posts are hard to read.* I am sure you have some valid points* but they are lost in a sea of words


Don't be so sure!

I've heard Luskin described as brilliant on here too, but having a wild imagination for "theory crafting" and no morals doesn't really qualify as brilliance.


----------



## gordy748

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Some friendly advice, have you ever thought of using bullet points? Your posts are hard to read. I am sure you have some valid points but they are lost in a sea of words


Some friendly advice, have you thought of using correct grammar in your posts? I could say the same thing about your valid points being lost in a puddle of discombobulation.


----------



## badge118

I know they are an NGO but the Federal Ct system still has jurisidiction as to how the AAA operates and it is the AAA that actually makes the decision. That case law was decided by a case regarding not a state action but an action between to private parties that went before an independent arbitrator. In that case they basically said you can not argue the "system" in Federal court but you can argue specific points (such as obtaining of evidence, specific jurisdiction rather than global.) So a federal court could not say "the USADA can not bring an arbitration case"...BUT they could say "you can't use that evidence as presented." This I think is largely consistent with your first link.

As I under stood the USADA did not say they didn't use the Federal Information, what they said was that such information would not be presented before the panel. I know LA said he was going to question the Federal info forwarded. As such it is not theory crafting but a damn good bet that he is going to try and apply the exclusionary rule. Basically "you can't admit grand jury testimony to a civil case. They would not have interviewed these people without said testimony so under the theory of the exclusionary rule that fresh testimony to the USADA also has to be inadmissible." Pretty sure that will be the argument.


----------



## Chris-X

*Huh?*



badge118 said:


> I know they are an NGO but the Federal Ct system still has jurisidiction as to how the AAA operates and it is the AAA that actually makes the decision. * That case law was decided by a case regarding not a state action but an action between to private parties that went before an independent arbitrator*.



Some punctuation and the number "two" perhaps?

You were saying something about my uneducated opinions?


----------



## Local Hero

Oh come on. 

This discussion would be better if it didn't devolve into an English class or descend any further into personal attacks.


----------



## badge118

Reduced to avoiding the facts and questioning sentence structure when someone is on a smart phone. /facepalm.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How funny is it that the rules that lance is currently crying about where written by his long business partner and agent:thumbsup:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/s...strong-case.html?pagewanted=1&ref=julietmacur


You know how sometimes internet hackers end up working for the government as the top security experts? 

I think the ideal outcome here would be if Armstrong keeps his titles, never races again, does regular charity rides, and takes a new job leading an anti-doping campaign to clean up cycling.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Oh come on.
> 
> This discussion would be better if it didn't devolve into an English class or descend any further into personal attacks.


You mean like the following discussion?



Local Hero said:


>






badge118 said:


> Reduced to avoiding the facts and questioning sentence structure when someone is on a smart phone. /facepalm.


Dude, I'm not altering your comments, and you're not reading mine that are decimating your off topic rambling about Clinton. 

I believe I quoted 3 legal authorities that shredded your silly Clinton assertions, which were off topic to begin with.

Ok, back to the regularly scheduled programming where you desperately search for something; any preposterous legal theory to get Armstrong off.

Why you're doing this? I have no idea. Oh, I thought you were ignoring me anyway?


----------



## Local Hero

Chris, 

Well, I was trying to get the conversation back on track. Since you've addressed me personally I'll respond: Posting an image of a person eating popcorn typically means that the conversation is getting good. At least, that's what I meant when I posted it. I found the legal discussion and exchange between badge and falsetti to be interesting and entertaining. On the other hand, I find your personal attacks against other posters to be exceedingly boring. I can see you're all about the invective and going for a gotcha moment. Examining others' motives and dime store psychology seem to dominate your posts.That's not what interests me. So maybe we can drop it now? Or maybe you can just leave me out of it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I know they are an NGO but the Federal Ct system still has jurisidiction as to how the AAA operates and it is the AAA that actually makes the decision. That case law was decided by a case regarding not a state action but an action between to private parties that went before an independent arbitrator. In that case they basically said you can not argue the "system" in Federal court but you can argue specific points (such as obtaining of evidence, specific jurisdiction rather than global.) So a federal court could not say "the USADA can not bring an arbitration case"...BUT they could say "you can't use that evidence as presented." This I think is largely consistent with your first link.
> 
> As I under stood the USADA did not say they didn't use the Federal Information, what they said was that such information would not be presented before the panel. I know LA said he was going to question the Federal info forwarded. As such it is not theory crafting but a damn good bet that he is going to try and apply the exclusionary rule. Basically "you can't admit grand jury testimony to a civil case. They would not have interviewed these people without said testimony so under the theory of the exclusionary rule that fresh testimony to the USADA also has to be inadmissible." Pretty sure that will be the argument.


This has been covered many times. There will be no Grand Jury testimony used. The only key witnesses who talked to the Grand Jury were Tyler and Kevin L. Tyler ended up crying so much his testimony was useless. He then gave multiple interviews outside the Grand Jury to Federal investigators. 

Again, none of this matters as USADA used none of the evidence collected by the Feds. They had each witness give their own testimony to their investigators. 

So far Armstrong has not filed anything in Federal court so it appears the meeting on the 22nd will go forward. Lance has indicated what his legal reasoning for a Federal case are and they do not resemble yours.


----------



## Coolhand

*moderators note*



Local Hero said:


> Oh come on.
> 
> This discussion would be better if it didn't devolve into an English class or descend any further into personal attacks.


Indeed- stop it. Stick to the points. Also- realize you are mostly arguing for arguments sake. Nobody is "changing" anyone's minds in this forum. And that's fine. But don't get so wrapped up in your position that you step over the line into personal attacks and childish antics. It does not help your case, and frankly scares off intelligent dialog which is what I believe we all want. 

It is ok to have strong opinions and express them as such- just don't be a jerk. And if someone's strong opinion annoys you- just put them on ignore. Problem solved.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Chris,
> 
> Well, I was trying to get the conversation back on track. Since you've addressed me personally I'll respond: Posting an image of a person eating popcorn typically means that the conversation is getting good. At least, that's what I meant when I posted it. I found the legal discussion and exchange between badge and falsetti to be interesting and entertaining. On the other hand, I find your personal attacks against other posters to be exceedingly boring. I can see you're all about the invective and going for a gotcha moment. Examining others' motives and dime store psychology seem to dominate your posts.That's not what interests me. So maybe we can drop it now? Or maybe you can just leave me out of it?


Local,

I don't think the conversation is "on track" at all. While the Armstrong case is ostensibly about legal issues, the much more important issues in how this case, and many cases, are decided are public relations issues.

Even though you don't recognize this, Armstrong does, which is why he pays Public Strategies, and his political hack friends Mark McKinnon and Mark Fabiani a small fortune for PUBLIC RELATIONS!!!!

Even though the case will be decided by an arbitration panel/ and or legal channel, it's been shown time and time again that those decisions are often whimsical, arbitrary, and nonsensical counter to what people like Badge 118 thinks. Words are subjective,open to interpretation and not as precise as someone who functions as a police officer would like to believe.



Obviously you haven't been reading the threads or don't understand that we have a poster here Samahdi, who doesn't even care if Armstrong is guilty of the charges or not because he perceives Armstrong to be a strong backer of the fight against cancer..

Then there are obviously many corrupt people like McQuaid or Verbruggen, who represent the type of person who could be an arbiter of the case.

Why is voir dire such an important part of a jury trial? You don't think the attorneys are trying to discern the attitudes, motives and opinions of prospective jurors?

We have other posters who are concerned with opinion polls on the various dopers and that those polls should dictate the disposition of the cases.

You want to be able to denigrate and characterize my arguments which you apparently don't even come close to understanding, and insult me but then I'm to leave you out of it?

Here's an exchange we had.



Local Hero said:


> Let's continue with this thought experiement:
> 
> IF Lance's 2003 TdF victory is taken away, will it be given to Ullrich? Does Ullrich want that asterisk? What about 2005 and Basso?
> 
> Would Telekom/T-Mobile survive the scrutiny that USPS endured?
> 
> 
> And what of the individual stage victories?
> 
> 
> Landis is correct: It was an era of doping.


You completely miss the point that any victory gained through doping is tainted? Does it really matter who is recognized as victor in any of these races?

I went on in the next post to discuss why Hamilton was quick to give up his Olympic Gold even though technically he was not disqualified from the Olympics at the time he surrendered it.




Chris-X said:


> thinking has moved way beyond your "thought experiment."
> 
> a millstone around neck - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> A millstone around your neck | The King's English
> 
> A heavy burden weighing you down. Inescapable. And probably self-inflicted. That’s how we think of a millstone around our necks. A job, a relationship, an ongoing commitment – these things can often be called “millstones around our neck.”
> 
> What about a commitment to a lie?
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what the aforementioned means?
> 
> Why the heck do you think TH got rid of the gold medal as soon as he confessed?
> 
> As the Toto Turns 255 | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


You go on to dismiss my analysis as "pop psychology?"



Local Hero said:


> The pop psychology does nothing for me. Sorry.


Here'a a news flash. A "millstone around your neck" is biblical, the exact opposite of your derogatory dismissal. It's not "pop psychology" as you phrase it because the popular thing to do these days is to sweep everything under the rug and don't worry, be happy... And do what you suggest in your following quote, which is completely absurd.



Local Hero said:


> You know how sometimes internet hackers end up working for the government as the top security experts?
> 
> I think the ideal outcome here would be if Armstrong keeps his titles, never races again, does regular charity rides, and takes a new job leading an anti-doping campaign to clean up cycling.


You really believe Armstrong's ceramic cake stands from his TdF "victories" signify anything other than fraud?

I guess this comment following, keeps the conversation "on track?"



Local Hero said:


> I would give my right testicle to be Armstrong's lawyer.


It's clear that an overwhelming % of people who know the facts of the case know Armstrong is guilty.

Obviously we have different interests. Idiotic legal gambits by scumbags like Robert Luskin don't interest me in the least. Apparently they interest you.

Evidently you're a lawyer? You know, just because someone comes to you with a lot of money doesn't mean that you _have_ to represent them??:thumbsup:

There are prominent attorneys who choose not to work 100 hours a week representing clients they know are obviously guilty.


----------



## Local Hero

*Armstrong can still race, just not at Kona. *

http://triathlon.competitor.com/201...-lance-armstrong-eligible-for-our-races_55462

“*Lance Armstrong is currently still eligible to compete in all USA Triathlon-sanctioned races*, with the exception of Ironman events as stated earlier by the World Triathlon Corporation,” said Chuck Menke, USA Triathlon’s marketing and communications director.

While the WTC does own and operate a large percentage of triathlons in the United States with prize purses, there are other races that Armstrong could choose to jump into.



*

Triathlete.com Poll: Should Armstrong Race In A Non-Ironman Event?
*

*Yes, there are other great options. 86.36%* (2,476 votes)

No, if he can't qualify for Kona why bother. 13.64% (391 votes)




It seems like the majority of people want to see him race.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> *Armstrong can still race, just not at Kona. *
> 
> USA Triathlon: Lance Armstrong Eligible For Our Races
> 
> “*Lance Armstrong is currently still eligible to compete in all USA Triathlon-sanctioned races*, with the exception of Ironman events as stated earlier by the World Triathlon Corporation,” said Chuck Menke, USA Triathlon’s marketing and communications director.
> 
> While the WTC does own and operate a large percentage of triathlons in the United States with prize purses, there are other races that Armstrong could choose to jump into.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Triathlete.com Poll: Should Armstrong Race In A Non-Ironman Event?
> *
> 
> *Yes, there are other great options. 86.36%* (2,476 votes)
> 
> No, if he can't qualify for Kona why bother. 13.64% (391 votes)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like the majority of people want to see him race.


Given that we are a democracy all sanctions should be decided by popular vote. 

kinda sad Lance is banned from Ironman. Was looking forward to him screwing up that sport as well


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> kinda sad Lance is banned from Ironman. Was looking forward to him screwing up that sport as well


Come on now. Cheap shot at best. By far the consensus is positive for Lance Armstrong's participation in Ironman. Deny and argue if you wish but there would be many positives for the sport.


----------



## Chris-X

Urb said:


> Come on now. Cheap shot at best. By far the consensus is positive for Lance Armstrong's participation in Ironman. Deny and argue if you wish but there would be many *positives* for the sport.


What do you mean by "positives?"

The kind that require a flush of the toilet?

The guy is still doping like a maniac.

Does anyone in their right mind think you can go through your whole career jacked to high heavens and then stop?

Quitting caffeine is next to impossible.


----------



## Urb

Chris-X said:


> What do you mean by "positives?"


Actually that was quite funny. Nice one.

However there was, and it mainly is pass tense now, excitement around the sport. He would increase interest and through that participation of athletes in the future. As Craig Alexander said he would up the level of the sport for all the pros. More money. Just plain more fun.

Deflating to many that he's not going to be participating in the worlds. Huge let down. the reasons really don't matter to the fans and there are many.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Given that we are a democracy all sanctions should be decided by popular vote.


Of course the sanctions should not be decided by popular vote. 

I quoted the survey to show some of the pro-Armstrong sentiment. 

No, it's not scientific. But earlier in this thread (or the other thread) there was a poll that analyzed sentiment based on facebook comments, or something similar. When I commented that a few triathletes I know are pro-Armstrong, my personal experience was dismissed and that other survey was mentioned. Well, now there's a survey that tends to support exactly what I was saying. 

So take it for what its worth. Many people are pro-Armstrong. Many want to see him race while he is being investigated. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. 

Someone argued in this thread that those who "know the facts" are against Armstrong. We have to be able to differentiate between facts and allegations.


----------



## Chris-X

Urb said:


> Actually that was quite funny. Nice one.
> 
> However there was, and it mainly is pass tense now, excitement around the sport. He would increase interest and through that participation of athletes in the future. As Craig Alexander said he would up the level of the sport for all the pros. More money. Just plain more fun.
> 
> Deflating to many that he's not going to be participating in the worlds. Huge let down. the reasons really don't matter to the fans and there are many.


I hear what you're saying, but you're still going to do your thing whoever is riding, right?

Nice bikes btw....

I spoke to some execs at Trek and a big guy at Specialized about these kinds of issues. My opinon is that it's much smarter to expand the base of cycling, and/or cycling related sports like Tri's by making cycling more of a lifestyle through advocacy, than by focusing efforts on the elite.

They don't see it that way and according to them they feel they have the numbers to back up their marketing strategies. I think they're being shortsighted by putting a lot of their eggs in the "superstar" basket. 

I'm kind of leery of the "fandom" LA generates. I believe it's ephemeral. Oh well.


----------



## Chris-X

*Quick question*



Local Hero said:


> Of course the sanctions should not be decided by popular vote.
> 
> I quoted the survey to show some of the pro-Armstrong sentiment.
> 
> No, it's not scientific. But earlier in this thread (or the other thread) there was a poll that analyzed sentiment based on facebook comments, or something similar. When I commented that a few triathletes I know are pro-Armstrong, my personal experience was dismissed and that other survey was mentioned. Well, now there's a survey that tends to support exactly what I was saying.
> 
> So take it for what its worth. Many people are pro-Armstrong. Many want to see him race while he is being investigated. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
> 
> Someone argued in this thread that those who "know the facts" are against Armstrong. We have to be able to differentiate between facts and allegations.


Do you think his current performances are real?

IMHO, he's on a pretty good doping program right now just based on his performances.


----------



## Local Hero

I think he's dirty based on his appearance alone. He doesn't have the look of an endurance guy. 

Also, I tend to agree with what you said about guys who spend a long period of time doping: They can't get by without it, mentally or physically. Body builders fall apart almost immediately when they get off the sauce. Guys over 50 on testosterone replacement therapy -- non athletes just regular Joes -- crash REALLY HARD when they get off the TRT. The endocrine system isn't made to endure long-term manipulation. Male menopause is a *****. 

Now maybe there's something I don't know about. Maybe human chorionic gonadotropin prevents testicular shrinkage and the correct post cycle therapy cocktail eases the transition from dirty to clean. Maybe it's something even more exotic. I don't know! But since we're speculating and you asked for my opinion, I've given it to you. I think he's dirty. 

All of that is based on the presumption that the guy has been dirty this entire time. Maybe that presumption is false and he's just a freak of nature...


Also, everything I just said was in regard to hormonal doping. EPO, other blood doping, transfusions, et cetera...those are all possibilities too. 


Luckily for Lance, merely thinking that he's dirty falls short of anything actionable. Luckily for all of us, evidence must be presented and due process must be followed. 


There's something else going on here. Even during the height of its popularity, many American fans of the WWF knew that the wrestling was fake. They knew that their favorite performers were on steroids. Yet they were still entertained. Imagine how much less they would care about those wrestlers if the wrestlers beat cancer and were curing cancer?


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> I think he's dirty based on his appearance alone. He doesn't have the look of an endurance guy.
> 
> Also, I tend to agree with what you said about guys who spend a long period of time doping: They can't get by without it, mentally or physically. Body builders fall apart almost immediately when they get off the sauce. Guys over 50 on testosterone replacement therapy -- non athletes just regular Joes -- crash REALLY HARD when they get off the TRT. The endocrine system isn't made to endure long-term manipulation. Male menopause is a *****.
> 
> Now maybe there's something I don't know about. Maybe human chorionic gonadotropin prevents testicular shrinkage and the correct post cycle therapy cocktail eases the transition from dirty to clean. Maybe it's something even more exotic. I don't know! But since we're speculating and you asked for my opinion, I've given it to you. I think he's dirty.
> 
> All of that is based on the presumption that the guy has been dirty this entire time. Maybe that presumption is false and he's just a freak of nature...
> 
> 
> Also, everything I just said was in regard to hormonal doping. EPO, other blood doping, transfusions, et cetera...those are all possibilities too.
> 
> 
> Luckily for Lance, merely thinking that he's dirty falls short of anything actionable. Luckily for all of us, evidence must be presented and due process must be followed.
> 
> 
> There's something else going on here. Even during the height of its popularity, many American fans of the WWF knew that the wrestling was fake. They knew that their favorite performers were on steroids. Yet they were still entertained. Imagine how much less they would care about those wrestlers if the wrestlers beat cancer and were curing cancer?


I agree for the most part. Btw, EPO is hormonal doping too.


----------



## Local Hero

I stand corrected. My use of "hormonal" was a reference to sex hormones. But you are correct: EPO is a hormone.


----------



## Urb

Chris-X said:


> I hear what you're saying, but you're still going to do your thing whoever is riding, right?
> 
> Nice bikes btw....
> 
> I spoke to some execs at Trek and a big guy at Specialized about these kinds of issues. My opinon is that it's much smarter to expand the base of cycling, and/or cycling related sports like Tri's by making cycling more of a lifestyle through advocacy, than by focusing efforts on the elite.
> 
> They don't see it that way and according to them they feel they have the numbers to back up their marketing strategies. I think they're being shortsighted by putting a lot of their eggs in the "superstar" basket.
> 
> I'm kind of leery of the "fandom" LA generates. I believe it's ephemeral. Oh well.


I agree. The sport cycling or tri's should not revolve around any one individual and if any one believes they are greater than sport they are sorely wrong. I can't even imagine how much return trek has gotten from Lance and It would be a huge hit on their bottom line if Lance is found guilty.

True I would continue to train regardless. I'm purely in it for fun. I can admit it would thrill me to no end to be in the same ironman event Lance or Chrissie. Seems the Lance plan will not happen anytime soon and Chrissie is taking a break for now. Oh well.

@Local Hero, doesn't matter what he looks like. Drugs or not 7 litres of lung capacity is a huge advantage and great start for an endurance athlete.

After reading the doping threads I've come to respect some of the opinions and arguments against Lance. Many roads seem to point to one direction and that would be unfortunate. I'm not ready to convict the guy but I see many things I didn't before.


----------



## Local Hero

The look I'm describing is the increased muscle mass. When he did his comeback to radioshack, he looked musclebound to me. More recently, Lance put on about 10 lbs of muscle. From what I understand, packing on 10lbs of muscle (without gaining fat) isn't easy for a guy over 35. 



















Don't get me wrong. I know the explanation. I'm a cyclist and I starve myself -- I'd pack on some muscle if I let off a little. So I know what Lance says about his gain in mass. 

Again, it's speculation and not definitive by any means. Like I said before, the guy is a freak of nature (clean or dirty). So I cannot really say what his body would do or how it would react to training. Maybe he's been clean the entire time. I don't know. 

And my position is that he's innocent until proven guilty. Let him race until he gets his due process.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The look I'm describing is the increased muscle mass. When he did his comeback to radioshack, he looked musclebound to me. More recently, Lance put on about 10 lbs of muscle. From what I understand, packing on 10lbs of muscle (without gaining fat) isn't easy for a guy over 35.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I know the explanation. I'm a cyclist and I starve myself -- I'd pack on some muscle if I let off a little. So I know what Lance says about his gain in mass.
> 
> Again, it's speculation and not definitive by any means. Like I said before, the guy is a freak of nature (clean or dirty). So I cannot really say what his body would do or how it would react to training. Maybe he's been clean the entire time. I don't know.
> 
> And my position is that he's innocent until proven guilty. Let him race until he gets his due process.


It is a common strategy with oxygen vector doping. The doping is so effective that the blood transports more oxygen then the muscles can consume. The key is to add muscle mass in the off season then try to lose as much weight as possible while maintaining muscle density. Very tricky but if he had not been banned Lance would have showed up at Kona super skinny. 

Ullrich was legendary for this. His body would change so much in the space of 6 months it was disturbing. Wonder why Contador used Clen in the weeks leading up to the Tour? Becuase it is great for losing weight not losing muscle. Ullrich did the same when he would disappear in the month before the Tour


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> Come on now. Cheap shot at best. By far the consensus is positive for Lance Armstrong's participation in Ironman. Deny and argue if you wish but there would be many positives for the sport.


I disagree. Armstrong is a toxic element that the sport of Triathlon would be better to distance themselves from. 

It just gets worse from here.


----------



## pedalruns

JUNE 22nd.... I think LA as until Midnight tonight to respond. 

Also.. what about Johan Bruyneel? What will this mean for his current position on RS?? What will he do??


----------



## Coolhand

Details on the deadline and such:

Friday a key deadline as Armstrong case ramps up - Yahoo! News


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I disagree. Armstrong is a toxic element that the sport of Triathlon would be better to distance themselves from.
> 
> It just gets worse from here.


I can see argument to support your opinion. However from where I am standing most of the negatives are irrelevant. I'm more of a fan that a competator. I found it exciting Lance being in the field. Taking Lance out of the field takes away from my enjoyment. I have to believe many feel the same way.

Perhaps I should be more aware of the issues and take a higher stand but that just isn't fun. Ignorance yes but such is life.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a common strategy with oxygen vector doping. The doping is so effective that the blood transports more oxygen then the muscles can consume. The key is to add muscle mass in the off season then try to lose as much weight as possible while maintaining muscle density. Very tricky but if he had not been banned Lance would have showed up at Kona super skinny.
> 
> Ullrich was legendary for this. His body would change so much in the space of 6 months it was disturbing. Wonder why Contador used Clen in the weeks leading up to the Tour? Becuase it is great for losing weight not losing muscle. Ullrich did the same when he would disappear in the month before the Tour


Cyclists--clean and dirty--go through changes throughout the season. Many put on a few pounds of muscle and fat during the off season. Having a little extra fat (and muscle) really adds to the strength. What you're describing is burning off that excess fat while keeping the muscle. 

I agree that many cyclists go through changes during the season. Even Cavendish puts on a few pounds in the winter. Nobody accuses him of doping, not as far as I know. He has a reputation for his attitude. But not doping. He was a little muffintop at Revolution in November. 

Again, yes. I agree that bodies change over the season. But it can be completely natural. My body changes and I know I'm natural. So a change alone doesn't mean much. Body composition change in itself is not indicative of doping. 

What I'm talking about with Lance is a 40 year old man bulking up with 10+lbs of muscle, and looking a little musclebound.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Cyclists--clean and dirty--go through changes throughout the season. Many put on a few pounds of muscle and fat during the off season. Having a little extra fat (and muscle) really adds to the strength. What you're describing is burning off that excess fat while keeping the muscle.
> 
> I agree that many cyclists go through changes during the season. Even Cavendish puts on a few pounds in the winter.* Nobody accuses him of doping*, not as far as I know. He has a reputation for his attitude. But not doping. He was a little muffintop at Revolution in November.
> 
> Again, yes. I agree that bodies change over the season. But it can be completely natural. My body changes and I know I'm natural. So a change alone doesn't mean much. Body composition change in itself is not indicative of doping.
> 
> What I'm talking about with Lance is a 40 year old man bulking up with 10+lbs of muscle, and looking a little musclebound.


Definitely has the reputation for "automotive," "sticky bottle" doping.

There was also talk after MSR. These guys have to get to the sprint to be able to sprint.


----------



## trailrunner68

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a common strategy with oxygen vector doping. The doping is so effective that the blood transports more oxygen then the muscles can consume. The key is to add muscle mass in the off season then try to lose as much weight as possible while maintaining muscle density. Very tricky but if he had not been banned Lance would have showed up at Kona super skinny.
> 
> Ullrich was legendary for this. His body would change so much in the space of 6 months it was disturbing. Wonder why Contador used Clen in the weeks leading up to the Tour? Becuase it is great for losing weight not losing muscle. Ullrich did the same when he would disappear in the month before the Tour


Armstrong had roid gut in the spring of 2010. Super low subcutaneous body fat but a huge gut. Although it is mistakenly thought to be caused by HGH, it is actually caused by insulin. Although there may be some role played by HGH when it is used in conjunction with insulin. Visceral fat gets built around the organs in the belly. Come Tour time it was gone.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Cyclists--clean and dirty--go through changes throughout the season. Many put on a few pounds of muscle and fat during the off season. Having a little extra fat (and muscle) really adds to the strength. What you're describing is burning off that excess fat while keeping the muscle.
> 
> I agree that many cyclists go through changes during the season. Even Cavendish puts on a few pounds in the winter. Nobody accuses him of doping, not as far as I know. He has a reputation for his attitude. But not doping. He was a little muffintop at Revolution in November.
> 
> Again, yes. I agree that bodies change over the season. But it can be completely natural. My body changes and I know I'm natural. So a change alone doesn't mean much. Body composition change in itself is not indicative of doping.
> 
> What I'm talking about with Lance is a 40 year old man bulking up with 10+lbs of muscle, and looking a little musclebound.


What I described to the methods doping doctors have been using ever since Ferrari changed the sport with Gewiss in 93-94


----------



## Chris-X

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong had roid gut in the spring of 2010. Super low subcutaneous body fat but a huge gut. Although it is mistakenly thought to be caused by HGH, it is actually caused by insulin. Although there may be some role played by HGH when it is used in conjunction with insulin. Visceral fat gets built around the organs in the belly. Come Tour time it was gone.



Here's the opinions of some of the geniuses who've turned themselves into human guinea pigs.

Bloated Belly Help (Roid Gut?)


----------



## respro

From what I've heard lance used human growth hormone testosterone allegedly, EPO also. Testosterone levels have been measurable for a long, long time. HGH and EPO testing a little later I think. I don't. Claim he did or didn't but it's obvious that many in professional cycling hate Lance and will do anything to bring him down.


----------



## trailrunner68

respro said:


> it's obvious that many in professional cycling hate Lance and will do anything to bring him down.


Uh-huh. That is why pro riders and staff are lighting up Twitter with their glee about Armstrong being finally charged just like they did for Ricco. 

Oops. I guess not. Aside from Adam Myerson, they are all tweeting that they hope Armstrong gets away with it.


----------



## badge118

Interesting tactic... especially in light of the "i give up" interview...

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...iew-board-to-dismiss-usada-allegations_225392

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...-allegations/2012/06/22/gJQACsPauV_story.html 

Now the only rules I have been able to find regarding discovery are regarding analytical findings. These rules state when the USADA forwards a case to the panel they must not only give the laboratory documentation (the key evidence in such a hearing) to the panel but the accused. Since part of the allegation appear to be based on bio-passport test results I would say that at least this evidence should have been provided by now. Additionally there are AAA ruling that state that unless the USADA or WADA rules specifically state otherwise the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do apply to such actions and under those rules withholding the names of witnesses is not permitted due to the right of the defendant to prepare a proper defense in order to properly confront their accusers. 

In the Hellebuyck case the AAA panel actually dismissed some charges for violating one of these supplemental rules, stating that non-compliance created an impression that one party controls the process and thus invalidates the needed appearance of impartiality of the panel.

If this accusation, that upon request proper discovery was not performed, is true and not simply spin there could be an issue. An additional issue, as noted in the WP article is Tygart's participation in the Federal Investigators questioning and how this could creat the issue of improperly using the testimony in that investigation.

Now one might complain about my "theory crafting" but it seems that thus far my "theory crafting" as to the actions Armstrong's legal team may take have been fairly accurate at this point in terms of the arguments that would be raised. This is going to get messy to say the least.


----------

