# USADA Refusing to provide file to UCI



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Makes you wonder what the USADA is afraid of. The judge in the Armstrong case against the USADA said that the USADA's case would not survive in a court of law. Could it be that the house of cards that the USADA has built will come tumbling down? 

According to the USADA they have a open and shut case, even if a federal judge says they don't, so why would they refuse to send a copy of their file with all their evidence to UCI? 

Me thinks the USADA's house of cards will come tumbling down it they do because their case is so week.

UCI chief questions USADA delay on Armstrong file - CenturyLink™

The chief of world cycling's governing body is questioning why American anti-doping authorities have not sent him the file of evidence that prompted them to erase Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

Now it kinda makes sense why Armstrong stopped fighting.

USADA should have sent the evidence to UCI right away. They have been working on this case for many months and should have all the details by now.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

I would have posted the link to the story buy I don't have 10 posts yet.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

So I will work on that now.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Number nine


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Number 10


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

I totally agree the Pat McQuaid.......USADA should have all details and files and should send a copy to UCI if they want to strip Armstrong.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

AntiUSADA said:


> Makes you wonder what the USADA is afraid of. The judge in the Armstrong case against the USADA said that the USADA's case would not survive in a court of law. Could it be that the house of cards that the USADA has built will come tumbling down?
> 
> According to the USADA they have a open and shut case, even if a federal judge says they don't, so why would they refuse to send a copy of their file with all their evidence to UCI?
> 
> Me thinks the USADA's house of cards will come tumbling down it they do because their case is so week.



.....


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

goloso said:


> .....


How is it a troll if I posted the link to the article? 

Or is it the aritcle does agree with your anti Lance theam? 

You have a real hard time with real facts don't you?


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Just because they haven't provided it yet, doesn't mean they don't intend to or refuse to. Hence the accusation that you're trolling.

I expect they need to carefully weed it out so they don't impact their case against Bruyneel. There's a fine juggling act going on with the file. It may even be that they won't provide it to the UCI until AFTER the arbitration with Bruyneel in order to protect the integrity of their case and to follow the rules of arbitration.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I, for one, welcome AntiUSADA to these boards and look forward to his balanced and insightful posts.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

I believe Lance used the same things all the other riders were/are using. But he is still the winner of 7 TDF no matter what USADA says or anyone else for that matter. 

I do get a kick out of those who think getting Lance will mean anything.


----------



## vmiceli (Apr 26, 2011)

AntiUSADA said:


> I believe Lance used the same things all the other riders were/are using. But he is still the winner of 7 TDF no matter what USADA says or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> I do get a kick out of those who think getting Lance will mean anything.


So you think that Landis is also the winner of the TdF and Contador of his TdF and Giro? The rules must apply to everyone in the same way... coverups are not good.

E.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Everyone who wants the LA make-believe version can easily get it. We don't need him or his minion here. 

The fact is the arbitration did stand up in court. Lance's case was thrown out. If Lance had a case to make I don't think anyone in the world believes he wouldn't be making it. Well, except maybe LH. 

It will be very interesting to see how things play out when Johan and the others come to their hearings.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*Go back to the Lance Armstrong Facebook fanboy page...*

...and stop wasting our time.






AntiUSADA said:


> Makes you wonder what the USADA is afraid of. The judge in the Armstrong case against the USADA said that the USADA's case would not survive in a court of law. Could it be that the house of cards that the USADA has built will come tumbling down?
> 
> According to the USADA they have a open and shut case, even if a federal judge says they don't, so why would they refuse to send a copy of their file with all their evidence to UCI?
> 
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> Makes you wonder what the USADA is afraid of. The judge in the Armstrong case against the USADA said that the USADA's case would not survive in a court of law. Could it be that the house of cards that the USADA has built will come tumbling down?
> 
> According to the USADA they have a open and shut case, even if a federal judge says they don't, so why would they refuse to send a copy of their file with all their evidence to UCI?
> 
> ...


Are all your posts going to be lies or just this one?


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

AntiUSADA said:


> How is it a troll if I posted the link to the article?
> 
> Or is it the aritcle does agree with your anti Lance theam?
> 
> You have a real hard time with real facts don't you?


The "questions" you posed have all been answered many times over.

Back to your cult meeting or you will miss your chance to sniff the sacred chamois.


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

Has it occurred to anyone that USADA may be simply waiting until World's in Netherlands are over? Unlike L'Equipe USADA probably doesn't want to time their release with a major cycling race. Why not wait until the season is effectively over and then get on with it. After Wolds about the only thing left of major importance is Lombardy. At least one guy expected to be a protagonist tomorrow rode with LA on Postal....


----------



## bballr4567 (Jul 17, 2012)

Damn, seems like you have to believe that everything the USADA does is legal to post in the doping forum. 


The UCI sucks and so does the USADA and both of their processes are quite strange to folks who arent totally into biking. Its kind of like trying to understand the FIA governing Formula1 sometimes.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

What I like best is how they all disregard the judge saying how week the USADA's case was and that it would not fly in a court of law. 

Kind of makes the USADA's findings suspect. But when the USADA gets to hold all the cards and call all the shots what chance does anyone have of defending themsleves? 

USADA is scared and I doubt they will ever release anything other then the bare minimum which will not be enough to strip Armstrong of his 7 TDF wins.


----------



## wooglin (Feb 22, 2002)

Makes ME wonder what the UCI is hiding.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

AntiUSADA said:


> What I like best is how they all disregard the judge saying how week the USADA's case was and that it would not fly in a court of law.


What I have to wonder is if this is a deliberate misstatement of the decision or if you truly didn't understand what you were reading?

The rest is just piffle.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are all your posts going to be lies or just this one?


Sorry, but where is the lie? (Honest question!!) Its seems to me that someone posted a link to an article along with their opinion?

Here is another link to a similar article:
UCI chief questions USADA delay on Armstrong file - - SI.com

If you have any additional information to contribute please do, as some of us would be interested in knowing more. Your above post contributes nothing positive. 

The delay to me is somewhat confusing given that USADA evidently felt it had enough to strip Armstrong. One would think that they reasonably should have foreseen the need to share their case with other relevant agencies, and had copies ready to go once they announced LA's ban. Certainly they should have at least foreseen the need to share their conclusions with the UCI and WADA? 

I'm not questioning their conclusions, but it seems their methods were less than fully thought out, raising other questions regarding how they have handled the process.....

Could the delay be related to the immunity deals given by USADA in exchange for testimony? Is USADA worried that WADA or the UCI will not honour the immunity they granted?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> Sorry, but where is the lie? (Honest question!!)


For starters, here's one, "According to the USADA they have a open and shut case, even if a federal judge says they don't, ..." The judge never commented on the strength of USADA's case (an administrative hearing, not a legal trial). There are more inaccuracies and misdirections, but I don't feel like going through them all.


slegros said:


> I'm not questioning their conclusions, but it seems their methods were less than fully thought out, raising other questions regarding how they have handled the process.....


Everything USADA has done is in keeping with their published procedures and protocols which were developed years ago and applied to scores of athletes. Why do you think they should change them just for one athlete?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

[QUOTE

Everything USADA has done is in keeping with their published procedures and protocols which were developed years ago and applied to scores of athletes. Why do you think they should change them just for one athlete?[/QUOTE]

I don't doubt the above, and I don't think they should change their procedures for one athlete. 

It would seem though that they failed to foresee the need to share their evidence and conclusions with other relevant agencies and governing bodies, and that to me seems like a glaring oversight. If the case was developed to the point where sanctions were applied I find it confusing that its not as simple as forwarding the relevant info to the other agencies at this point. 

You would think they should have had copies ready to go as soon as they announced his sanctioning?

I don't doubt their conclusions, but their lack of transparency makes me wonder if there is a problem. The case wont hold up to independent scrutiny? There are procedural errors they are trying to correct?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Sorry, but where is the lie? (Honest question!!) Its seems to me that someone posted a link to an article along with their opinion?


It is a intentional attempt to spread misinformation. 

USADA is not "refusing" to provide their reasoned decision to the UCI, that is a lie

Federal Judge did rule on the strength of USADA's case, That is a lie

It is a lie that USADA's case is "Week". It is overwhelming, that is why Lance did not fight it. 

Another lie is from Pat McQuaid. He said there has been no communication with USADA. That is not true. They have been communicating. USADA even offered to give a more detailed overview of the evidence months ago but the UCI refused. 

If anyone is concerned about sport instead of inventing a smokescreen they should be questioning why the UCI is so eager to obstruct the process that they agreed to? The answer is simple, they will be exposed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> I believe Lance used the same things all the other riders were/are using. But he is still the winner of 7 TDF no matter what USADA says or anyone else for that matter.
> 
> I do get a kick out of those who think getting Lance will mean anything.


Really? Did they all pay off the UCI?

Are Ben Johnson and Marion Jones still Olympic Champions? Rosie Ruiz still won the Boston Marathon?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> I don't doubt their conclusions, but their lack of transparency makes me wonder if there is a problem.


What lack of transparency? The protocols have been published on line for years and anyone could read them at any time. They then followed those procedures as required. After a certain party leaked the charging letter, they released that when I don't believe they are required to (to protect the privacy of the athlete). Then Armstrong decided to waive his right to a hearing and accept the sanctions presented to him. At that point, there was no need, and in fact no forum, to present the evidence. So while we might be curious as to the evidence, we in the general public have no standing to demand it.

The format for presenting the evidence to an arbitration panel is not the same as for a justification to UCI and so USADA is currently working to prepare that documentation. I'm sorry if their pace is not to your liking, but just because they aren't moving as quickly as you (who are not in any way a party to this) want does not mean they aren't being transparent or have anything to hide. There's also the matter of the other two pending hearings which may require the evidence not be released.

I have no doubt that if they moved quickly many of the same people who are criticizing them for being too slow would question their rush to judgement for moving too fast.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

slegros said:


> Sorry, but where is the lie? (Honest question!!) Its seems to me that someone posted a link to an article along with their opinion?
> 
> Here is another link to a similar article:
> UCI chief questions USADA delay on Armstrong file - - SI.com
> ...


Look dude, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to familiarize yourself with the global picture rather than sponge off the posts of someone with 10 posts and the screen name AntiUSADA.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a intentional attempt to spread misinformation.
> 
> USADA is not "refusing" to provide their reasoned decision to the UCI, that is a lie
> 
> ...


Not trying to justify anyones actions here, just asking honest questions. 

If USADA indeed does have everything properly compiled and ready to go, then wouldn't there be a lot to be gained in terms of both public opinion and cleaning up the sport in USADA coming forward publicly with their evidence against LA?

If/when USADA evidence is made public and is available for all to see then I would think the UCI would be under additional pressure to follow USADAs lead, and efforts to obstruct the process would be somewhat short-circuited? Public disclosure would at least show that they have overwhelming evidence, and followed proper procedures.

Put another way, what does the USADA have to lose by sharing its evidence and making the full details of its case public?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Not trying to justify anyones actions here, just asking honest questions.
> 
> If USADA indeed does have everything properly compiled and ready to go, then wouldn't there be a lot to be gained in terms of both public opinion and cleaning up the sport in USADA coming forward publicly with their evidence against LA?
> 
> ...


The only person saying that USADA is refusing to share evidence is a troll. They will provide evidence, soon

USADA had been preparing for an arbitration case. They must now take all this evidence and put it into a format for their reasoned decision. This takes time. They have sent the witnesses copies of their affidavits to confirm, and sometimes add to. Each witness must then have their affidavit stamped by a notary and sent back to USADA. They also have to figure out what evidence they need to leave out for the Bruyneel arbitration This all takes time

McQuaid crying about this is just an attempt to deflect from the obvious. It appears some have taken the bait


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The only person saying that USADA is refusing to share evidence is a troll. They will provide evidence, soon
> 
> USADA had been preparing for an arbitration case. They must now take all this evidence and put it into a format for their reasoned decision. This takes time. They have sent the witnesses copies of their affidavits to confirm, and sometimes add to. Each witness must then have their affidavit stamped by a notary and sent back to USADA. They also have to figure out what evidence they need to leave out for the Bruyneel arbitration This all takes time
> 
> McQuaid crying about this is just an attempt to deflect from the obvious. It appears some have taken the bait


Makes sense. Has the USADA given the UCI or anyone else a time estimate? 

Why not release some sort of brief detailing the evidence and the case, along with an indication that yes they fully intend to comply with the UCIs request? There was nothing to that effect anywhere from USADA on USADAs website or elsewhere that I could find...... (Sorry if I missed it) 

Where do the immunity deals stand with other agencies/governing bodies? Are those who testified against LA in exchange for immunity from USADA in danger of being sanctioned elsewhere?


----------



## jpaschal01 (Jul 20, 2011)

Kristatos said:


> Has it occurred to anyone that USADA may be simply waiting until World's in Netherlands are over? Unlike L'Equipe USADA probably doesn't want to time their release with a major cycling race. Why not wait until the season is effectively over and then get on with it. After Wolds about the only thing left of major importance is Lombardy. At least one guy expected to be a protagonist tomorrow rode with LA on Postal....


I'm not taking a stance on either side of this debate, but the USADA has clearly demonstrated 2 times previously that they have no issue releasing information at times to receive the most press coverage possible. This case came to light just days prior to the start of the TDF and their press release with Lance's ban was during the final few days of the US Pro Tour Challenge.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> I, for one, welcome AntiUSADA to these boards and look forward to his balanced and insightful posts.



Me too. Balanced, insightful and great comedy.:thumbsup:


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The UCI should perma ban and blank out the records of everyone who testified against Lance as a thumb to the eye of US cycling.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a intentional attempt to spread misinformation.
> 
> USADA is not "refusing" to provide their reasoned decision to the UCI, that is a lie
> 
> ...


The federal judge only ruled on the arbitration process, he did state that the USADA's case was week and and questioned if it would make it in a court of law and he also commented that the case looked more like a witch hunt to get Armstrong then it did to clean up the sport. 

So according you we are to just believe what the USADA says and they should have outright authority to strip titles and such without any input from other agencies that are involved?

The only thing we know is USADA claims they have a bunch of witnesses whom have been full immunity yet USADA refuses to name who these witnesses are. Wow what a deal, hey you we have caught you doing something but if you will testify against Lance Armstrong we will turn our head the other way cough cough. Who are these witnesses who just got away with cheating all so the USADA could go after Armstrong? 

I hate to tell you this Falsetti but you are not the world authority and tell all end all of this or any other case. You love to throw mud on the wall and then come back latter if something sticks trying to make it look like you are some insider with all this information when the facts are you are just a Lance Armstrong hater who just has not come to terms with their anger yet. 

USADA has finished its case against Armstrong, release the files not only to UCI but the public as well. Oh wait that's right according to you USADA has no obligation to be forthright with anyone. Sorry but something stinks and the strong smell is coming from the USADA. 

By the way I could care less one way or the other about Lance Armstrong. I do however want due process to be fair for everyone. Face it the process used by outfits like the USADA are not fair, they are one sided and almost impossible to fight against. 

What choice does anyone have who wants to race but to agree with this one sided process because if you do not agree to it you can not race. Kind of like these arbitration deals companies make their customers sign or they refuse to sell you their product. The consumer rarely ever wins in those cases either but boy do the companies make out like bandits. This is the same thing only worse, the USADA controls the entire process.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

slegros said:


> Not trying to justify anyones actions here, just asking honest questions.
> 
> If USADA indeed does have everything properly compiled and ready to go, then wouldn't there be a lot to be gained in terms of both public opinion and cleaning up the sport in USADA coming forward publicly with their evidence against LA?
> 
> ...


They have nothing lose unless their case is so week as was indicated by the federal judge as he even said it looked more like a witch hunt then a sound legal case. 

I think the case is week and we will never see the evidence they claim to have. In that case I have to conclude that their entire case against Armstrong is invalid. The French went after Armstrong and failed, the United States Government went after Armstrong and gave up but the USADA all of the sudden has all the answers yet they are not being forthright after they have concluded their case against Armstrong and bragged about their punishment of him to include in their mind stripping all of his TDF titles in the press.

The only one here obstructing anything is the USADA but Falsetti tries to convince everyone that it is the UCI who is obstructing. How do you obstruct when you are not the one with the evidence in the case? Time for the USADA to come clean.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is a intentional attempt to spread misinformation.
> 
> USADA is not "refusing" to provide their reasoned decision to the UCI, that is a lie
> 
> ...


Falsetti, Don't question my honor boy! 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9496632/Lance-Armstrong-doping-case-by-USADA-needed-to-be-above-criticism-but-too-many-questions-left-unanswered.html

Lance Armstrong doping case by USADA needed to be above criticism but too many questions left unanswered

Lance Armstrong may have "done" with *USADA and their allegations – and their modus operandi were heavily criticised by at US Federal judge* earlier this week


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Falsetti, are you calling the Federal Judge a liar as well? Google the bolded text and you will see the statement in print. The fact is there are serious problems with the USADA's case. 

This is what Judge Sparks said about the USADA's charging document in the Armstrong case:

*Sparks also cautioned that ‘‘the deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.’’*


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

I did not write the following it is a reader comment from a news article but it says exactly what is going on:

All these self-righteous posters thinking they have something worthwhile to contribute but who, in reality, know nothing.

It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to strip Armstrong of his medals. The overwhelming majority of top Tour cyclists during those years was dirty, probably including Armstrong. So what. It is impossible to rewrite the history of those Tours. All we, at least we who are honest and not hypocrites, can do is accept that Armstrong was the winner of what are and always will be tainted Tours. That taint will accompany his legacy, but the fact is that Armstrong passed all the protocols of the time under which those Tours were conducted and he is and always will be the legitimate and deserving winner. Anything else is just ugly hypocrisy on the part of pygmies who are itching to bring down someone far bigger than they themselves could ever be.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

AntiUSADA said:


> I did not write the following it is a reader comment from a news article but it says exactly what is going on:
> 
> All these self-righteous posters thinking they have something worthwhile to contribute but who, in reality, know nothing.
> 
> It is the height of hypocrisy to claim to strip Armstrong of his medals. The overwhelming majority of top Tour cyclists during those years was dirty, probably including Armstrong. So what. It is impossible to rewrite the history of those Tours. All we, at least we who are honest and not hypocrites, can do is accept that Armstrong was the winner of what are and always will be tainted Tours. That taint will accompany his legacy, but the fact is that Armstrong passed all the protocols of the time under which those Tours were conducted and he is and always will be the legitimate and deserving winner. Anything else is just ugly hypocrisy on the part of pygmies who are itching to bring down someone far bigger than they themselves could ever be.


You stepped in it now dude..... ;-) Don't you know that Lance DID test positive, and the UCI and others buried positive tests as part of a massive conspiracy? Hang on a bit, I'm sure others here will politely and graciously fill you in...... LOL!!!


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Hey Falsetti here is more of what Judge Sparks said:

A federal judge wrote last week,* “USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”*


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

slegros said:


> You stepped in it now dude..... ;-) Don't you know that Lance DID test positive, and the UCI and others buried positive tests as part of a massive conspiracy? Hang on a bit, I'm sure others here will politely and graciously fill you in...... LOL!!!


Not to worry I have my flame retardent suit on.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The only person saying that USADA is refusing to share evidence is a troll. They will provide evidence, soon
> 
> USADA had been preparing for an arbitration case. They must now take all this evidence and put it into a format for their reasoned decision. This takes time. *They have sent the witnesses copies of their affidavits to confirm, and sometimes add to. Each witness must then have their affidavit stamped by a notary and sent back to USADA. *They also have to figure out what evidence they need to leave out for the Bruyneel arbitration This all takes time
> 
> McQuaid crying about this is just an attempt to deflect from the obvious. It appears some have taken the bait


Well there is your first problem with this case, the witnesses are being sent affidavits to confirm and then they have to get a notary to stamp them? 

That flys in the face of a valid sworn witness statement and sounds more like the USADA has written the statements for these guys. 

The more that Falsetti trys to cover for the USADA the worse he makes it for them.


----------



## eidolon (Jun 21, 2012)




----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

eidolon said:


>


I take it you are a blind Armstrong hater?


----------



## eidolon (Jun 21, 2012)

AntiUSADA said:


> I take it you are a blind Armstrong hater?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

eidolon said:


>


That's such a cute little troll. What did you name him?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> Falsetti, Don't question my honor boy!
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9496632/Lance-Armstrong-doping-case-by-USADA-needed-to-be-above-criticism-but-too-many-questions-left-unanswered.html
> 
> ...


You are confused. Sparks demonstrated that he did not understand USADA's process, He even admitted this. You are welcome to seize on this lack of understanding but we both know it means nothing. Luckily he is an expert on US law and ruled correctly on jurisdiction and constitutionality. 

We realize this has been hard for you to see your hero fail but repeating babble that has been proven false over and over will not change the fact lance is a doper


----------



## eidolon (Jun 21, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> That's such a cute little troll. What did you name him?


ántíüsádá. It's Spanish.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Again, 

*What if the UCI uses USADA's evidence to punish the riders who testified against Lance? *

What if they say, "Armstrong gets a permanent ban. Everyone who admitted to doping with Armstrong gets a permanent ban." ?


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Again,
> 
> *What if the UCI uses USADA's evidence to punish the riders who testified against Lance? *
> 
> What if they say, "Armstrong gets a permanent ban. Everyone who admitted to doping with Armstrong gets a permanent ban." ?


Works for me after all fair is fair right?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

The battle you think you're fighting is over. The cat is out of the bag, the train left the station, the poop is out of the horse and you look like a fool trying to shovel it back in. 

You can try all you want to shift the blame onto the people who worked for him or rode with him or who caught him, but the fact is that Lance is in disgrace that he richly deserves and has no one to blame but himself.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

What gets me is the same group who berates Lance adores Lemond. 

Now we know for a fact that doping was going on before Lemond and we know for a fact that doping was going on after Lemond but some how Lemond and his fans want everyone to believe that during the time he rode there was no doping going on. 

LOL

Yet Lemond set the worlds record for a section of the TDF and the reality is doping was going on during the time Lemond rode as well. So I can only conclud that Lemond had to be doping during his years riding as well because there is no way he could have set a world record in the TDF against riders who where doping and he was clean wink wink.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

This dude is putting on a troll clinic

What happens when USADA releases their evidence next week with a lot of new evidence? What will the talking points be then?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

AntiUSADA said:


> What gets me is the same group who berates Lance adores Lemond.
> 
> Now we know for a fact that doping was going on before Lemond and we know for a fact that doping was going on after Lemond but some how Lemond and his fans want everyone to believe that during the time he rode there was no doping going on.
> 
> ...


Are you daft?

Lemond set a TT record by utilizing an aero helmet and aero bars, which until then was unheard of.

Does that equate to doping now as well?

Get a grip. Your hero is dead.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

AntiUSADA said:


> What gets me is the same group who berates Lance adores Lemond.
> 
> Now we know for a fact that doping was going on before Lemond and we know for a fact that doping was going on after Lemond but some how Lemond and his fans want everyone to believe that during the time he rode there was no doping going on.
> 
> ...


Advent of aerobars, that's why there's a line on the TT graphs in 1989. He beat Fignon who was riding with bullhorns by 58 seconds.


----------



## uclamatt2007 (Aug 21, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This dude is putting on a troll clinic
> 
> What happens when USADA releases their evidence next week with a lot of new evidence? What will the talking points be then?


I haven't been following this all that closely, but I thought I remember reason on here that the evidence was supposed to be released 5 days after Armstrong declined arbitration. I think it was a Thursday. Was it ever explained why that didn't happen? I may have just missed it.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

robdamanii said:


> Are you daft?
> 
> Lemond set a TT record by utilizing an aero helmet and aero bars, which until then was unheard of.
> 
> ...


All true, but the course was also downhill and there was a tailwind. 
It should also be mentioned that experts of several stripes have said that doping in Lemond's era was much less effective than later so that clean riders could win over those who were using PED's, and despite massive efforts not a single rider could be found willing to state they thought Lemond was doping, while scores have gone on record by name saying he was violently opposed to it.
But then again, why reason with a troll?


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

bigbill said:


> Advent of aerobars, that's why there's a line on the TT graphs in 1989. He beat Fignon who was riding with bullhorns by 58 seconds.


Still does not explin how he could be beating riders who were doping. After all this forum has all but confirmed that those on the dope can not be beat by a rider who is clean. Sorry but Lemond was doping just like the rest.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

AntiUSADA said:


> Still does not explin how he could be beating riders who were doping. After all this forum has all but confirmed that those on the dope can not be beat by a rider who is clean. Sorry but Lemond was doping just like the rest.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Please try to keep up.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This dude is putting on a troll clinic
> 
> What happens when USADA releases their evidence next week with a lot of new evidence? What will the talking points be then?


Falsetti, did Lance beat you up in kindergarten or something? You sure do take this personal. 

How about it took them a month to rewrite all the documents from the federal government that they claim they never got to try and make this stuff look like it was not from the grand jury investigation. 

Will that one hold you over for a while.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

uclamatt2007 said:


> I haven't been following this all that closely, but I thought I remember reason on here that the evidence was supposed to be released 5 days after Armstrong declined arbitration. I think it was a Thursday. Was it ever explained why that didn't happen? I may have just missed it.


The WADA code states



> “USADA shall publicly report the disposition of anti-doping matters no later than five business days after … (2) such hearing has been waived.”


USADA did this back in August when they announced Armstrong was given a lifetime ban and stripped of all results back to 1998

The reasoned decision is far more detailed and should be out next week.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

AntiUSADA said:


> Still does not explin how he could be beating riders who were doping. After all this forum has all but confirmed that those on the dope can not be beat by a rider who is clean. Sorry but Lemond was doping just like the rest.


First this was pre EPO. His competition wasn't oxygen doping. Second, it was a short time trial, where doping is least effective. 

The people who raced against Lemond said he was clean. Including Fignon, who can't have been called a Lemond admirer, and Hampsten who was both teammate and opponent.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Guys, you're killing yourselves trying to convince LANCE (or his vanishing twin) with logic and facts. He fights with rage and bullying and misdirection.

Let it go, guys. Let it go.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm afraid a lot more people are reading Tyler's book than auntie's vacant rhetoric. Poor Lance--payback is a beeyotch.


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> The UCI should perma ban and blank out the records of everyone who testified against Lance as a thumb to the eye of US cycling.


Could they ban AntiUSADA too?


----------

