# Witnesses named and give evidence against Armstrong



## gizzard

According to De Telegraf , Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie and Vaughters have given evidence against Armstrong and have all received six-month bans, due to come into force at the end of this season. Vaughters' 'censure' is less clear, however. 

Report: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters Give Evidence Against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## trailrunner68

Game over, man. Game over.

As I said about this in the other thread, it will be Armstrong and Baghdad Bob against every American cyclist the casual fan has ever heard of.


----------



## MG537

Yep! There goes Lance's disgruntled employee theory. 
Unless Hincapie and Leipheimer are also disgruntled?


----------



## EuroSVT

JV just said this isn't the case, at least no slipstream riders were given a suspension

Vaughters: No Slipstream Sports USADA Suspensions | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Dwayne Barry

MG537 said:


> Yep! There goes Lance's disgruntled employee theory.
> Unless Hincapie and Leipheimer are also disgruntled?


Well Horner says he thinks Armstrong was clean. He didn't use to until Radioshack gave him a ride and put him in the TdF team this year. Kinda funny how that all works 

For the benefit of the delusional and ill-informed the Armstrong camp will now trot out the "who you gonna believe, guys who have admitted to cheating or the guy who has passed 5000 tests and fights cancer" mantra.


----------



## MG537

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well Horner says he thinks Armstrong was clean. He didn't use to until Radioshack gave him a ride and put him in the TdF team this year. Kinda funny how that all works
> 
> For the benefit of the delusional and ill-informed the Armstrong camp will now trot out the "who you gonna believe, guys who have admitted to cheating or the guy who has passed 5000 tests and fights cancer" mantra.


I'd like to see Horner take the stand in support of the Lance and Johan cartel . Chances are he will abandon ship as well, come make or break time in November.


----------



## Samadhi

gizzard said:


> According to De Telegraf , Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie and Vaughters have given evidence against Armstrong and have all received six-month bans, due to come into force at the end of this season. Vaughters' 'censure' is less clear, however.
> 
> Report: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters Give Evidence Against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com


NBC Sports is reporting these riders are giving testimony "in exchange for leniency" in their own doping cases.

If true, that would make their testimony somewhat suspect.


----------



## pretender

**it gets real.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Samadhi said:


> If true, that would make their testimony somewhat suspect.


Just out of curiosity, do you find Armstrong's claims of innocence somewhat suspect? Given that there are multiple independent types of evidence that he was doping?

E.g. the fact that he paid a hematologist who is banned from cycling due to his doping practices 6 figures/year is just one reason out of about a dozen to believe these guys rather than Armstrong.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

So it is not just a bunch of bitter haters who sold their stories?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> NBC Sports is reporting these riders are giving testimony "in exchange for leniency" in their own doping cases.
> 
> If true, that would make their testimony somewhat suspect.


Ahh yes, George sold out, invented stuff about his buddy Lance. Always knew he was a bitter hater 

Only to someone desperate to believe in fairy tails would buy that talking point, it will have little effect on the arbitrators.


----------



## trailrunner68

EuroSVT said:


> JV just said this isn't the case, at least no slipstream riders were given a suspension
> 
> Vaughters: No Slipstream Sports USADA Suspensions | Cyclingnews.com


All the Slipstream riders with the exception of Zabriskie left Armstrong more than eight years ago. Zabriskie left seven and a half years ago. I think we can read JV's tweet to mean that he and his riders won't be suspended. If anyone gets a suspension it will be Hincapie or Leipheimer.


----------



## psycleridr

Ironic isn't it? Leipheimer is irrelevant in racing and should retire and Hincapie has already said he would retire. Giving them a ban means sh!t. 
You think USADA will go after them for doping once season is over with the same fervor as LA?


----------



## smartyiak

Dwayne Barry said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you find Armstrong's claims of innocence somewhat suspect? Given that there are multiple independent types of evidence that he was doping?


The two are not mutually exclusive.

I do not find Armstrong's claims of innocence suspect...I find them down right ridiculous...however, I find it disconcerting that at least two of the guys (Levi and George) were offered meaningless suspensions in exchange for their testimony. 

What were they told? Was it: you get a two year ban...or tell us Lance doped and you can finish out the year, retire with respect...and we'll "suspend" you for 6mos.

That is certaintly fertile ground for an attorney to attack.


----------



## trailrunner68

psycleridr said:


> Ironic isn't it? Leipheimer is irrelevant in racing and should retire and Hincapie has already said he would retire. Giving them a ban means sh!t.
> You think USADA will go after them for doping once season is over with the same fervor as LA?


They were smart enough to talk to the USADA when offered a chance. Armstrong refused to cooperate. He is now paying the price for continuing to lie about his doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance was offer the same deal as George, Dave, Levi. They all took the deal, told the truth. Despite saying multiple times that he would aid the investigation in the end Lance told USADA to f*ck off. He then became co-conspirator instead of a witness. 

Dumb move


----------



## pretender

psycleridr said:


> You think USADA will go after them for doping once season is over with the same fervor as LA?


What part of "will receive six month bans after they confessed to doping" are you failing to grasp?


----------



## Mulowe

Said it before. MAN UP LANCE do the right things. Better late than never.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

BTW, the leak of these names did not come from USADA, Vaughters, or any of the riders. It came from Johan who writes column for De Telegraaf 

None of the riders have received a sanction yet.


----------



## Samadhi

psycleridr said:


> Ironic isn't it? Leipheimer is irrelevant in racing and should retire and Hincapie has already said he would retire. Giving them a ban means sh!t.
> You think USADA will go after them for doping once season is over with the same fervor as LA?


They won't have to.

It's quite possible that, despite doing the right thing, their careers in pro cycling could be over. They've been outted as rolling over on a former teammate and by extension, the team. Their reasoning for doing this is self-serving - to avoid sanctioning. Team managers may take a long look at that before offering a contract.

Case in point: A F1 driver, Nelson Piquet Jr. was given team orders to crash out in a race in order to force a yellow-flag condition which would allow the team's #1 driver to catch up to the leader and challenge for the win. He rolled over on the team principal and both were sanctioned. Although not permanently banned from F1 by the FIA, Piquet has't sat a F1 car since, even though he "did the right thing" and has had trouble finding meaningful work in other forms of motorsport. His career is essentially over, not because he "did the right thing", it's over because he rolled over on his team to save his own skin. A person like that cannot be trusted in an atmosphere where team play is essential. If he rolled over on his boss to save his own ass, what won't he do?

The same situation could apply to those people outted in the press.


----------



## Samadhi

Mulowe said:


> Said it before. MAN UP LANCE do the right things. Better late than never.


There's nothing to be gained in that. If you do the right thing is this country, here's what happens:

Lifeguard Tomas Lopez Fired After Helping Rescue Swimmer Outside Beach Zone (VIDEO)


----------



## thechriswebb

psycleridr said:


> Ironic isn't it? Leipheimer is irrelevant in racing and should retire and Hincapie has already said he would retire. Giving them a ban means sh!t.
> You think USADA will go after them for doping once season is over with the same fervor as LA?


Well, it is important ideologically and means a lot. George and Levi are both popular riders in the US and Levi is far from irrelevant (he wins an awful lot more often than Andy Schleck) and Levi and George are both associated with Armstrong. As opposed to guys like Landis and Hamilton, Leipheimer, Hincapie, and Vandevelde are all well liked and respected people and thought of as generally honest and stable. I don't think that the argument that they are a bunch of old, irrelevant men that are saying whatever the hell they have to say to stay out of trouble (and will thus be ignored) is a very strong argument. I think people will listen to what they say and that it will matter.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> It's quite possible that, despite doing the right thing, their careers in pro cycling could be over. They've been outted as rolling over on a former teammate and by extension, the team. Their reasoning for doing this is self-serving - to avoid sanctioning. Team managers may take a long look at that before offering a contract.


:yikes: Quite possibly the funniest thing written on the topic so far. :thumbsup:

Certainly a few years ago Lance would have made sure they had no future in the sport but these days telling the truth only increases Dave Z and VDV' value. The fans appreciate honesty.


----------



## Cpk

Apparently they are now all (george, levi, etc..) denying the report....


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> :yikes: Quite possibly the funniest thing written on the topic so far. :thumbsup:
> 
> Certainly a few years ago Lance would have made sure they had no future in the sport but these days telling the truth only increases Dave Z and VDV' value. The fans appreciate honesty.


But it's not about the fans. It's about the team. Fans don't win races, the team does. 

I'm not saying teams will look unfavorably upon these attempts by these riders to save themsleves, but it's happened before.

I watched GH's statement to the press this morning. He's not a happy camper. For someone who's doing the right thing, he seems uncharacteristically unhappy - like he just lost his best friend and shot his mother. Hardly the demeanor of man who concience is clear, know what I mean?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Seems like this isn't real, USADA is saying no suspensions have been determined yet.

Meanwhile, Liggett is doing his best apologetics bit on NBC at the moment.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

USADA on Armstrong witness report: 



> No indiv cases have been finalized & any attempt to guess...only leads to inaccurate info being reported





> "any attempt to circumvent the proper procedures in order to bully or silence people...cannot be tolerated."


----------



## Marc

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA on Armstrong witness report:


Yup the Eurosport guys just read that report verbatim on air.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cpk said:


> Apperently they are now all (george, levi, etc..) denying the report....


I see that they are denying the sanctions but none have denied giving evidence to USADA.


----------



## Chris-X

Kübler-Ross model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Stages

1.1 Children grieving in divorce
1.2 Grieving a break-up
1.3 Grieving in substance abuse
1.4 Unrequited Bromance/Man-Crush ended by scandal(parody)

The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:[2]
1.Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage.
2.Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
3.Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..."
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time..." People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?.." when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it's a matter of life or death.
4.Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It's natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation.
5.Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

USADA responds to Dutch report, says attempts to guess at witnesses can lead to errors or intimidation

Johan's attempt to smear the witnesses appears to be backfiring.



> “It is important to remember that the truth would often be suppressed without witnesses who at great cost to themselves are willing to tell the truth under oath about what they saw and experienced,” he stated. “Any attempt to circumvent the proper procedures in order to bully or silence people who may or may not be witnesses cannot be tolerated.”


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I see that they are denying the sanctions but none have denied giving evidence to USADA.


Yeah, I'd say at this point the probability is pretty high, maybe all but a certainty, these guys have all spilled the beans.


----------



## Cpk

USADA just put a lid on it too but that doesn't mean that it didn't happened but it is pretty irresponsible of the dutch paper, what's new?

OK a bit late

Watching Lance win year after year was the reason I became re-interested in biking, from my late youth to mid-30's there was a large gap where music and other took precedent. But if you question whether he doped all you have to do is look at the video of lance and marco dueling up Mt. Ventoux and compare that to the current top climbers and you realize those guys were kicking the last 8-9 min. nobody currently can climb like that and for good reason.

I just think it is a waste of money so many better thing to spend it on but that’s nothing new, keep the current crop clean the past is, well the past, it would be good if Lance helped with that. Eddy Merckx doped but he’s held in the highest esteem, why is it any different?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Cpk said:


> USADA just put a lid on it too but that doesn't mean that it didn't happened but it is pretty irresponsible of the dutch paper, what's new?
> 
> OK a bit late
> 
> Watching Lance win year after year was the reason I became re-interested in biking, from my late youth to mid-30's there was a large gap where music and other took precedent. But if you question whether he doped all you have to do is look at the video of lance and marco dueling up Mt. Ventoux and compare that to the current top climbers and you realize those guys were kicking the last 8-9 min. nobody currently can climb like that and for good reason.
> 
> I just think it is a waste of money so many better thing to spend it on but that’s nothing new, keep the current crop clean the past is, well the past, it would be good if Lance helped with that. Eddy Merckx doped but he’s held in the highest esteem, why is it any different?


USADA's job is to pursue doping in sport, should they ignore over a dozen direct witnesses of Armstrong's doping? Should they ignore his wacky blood values from 2009 and 2010? 

For years Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI. The UCI's inaction was a stain on their reputation and damaged the sport. USADA ignoring Lance's doping would just reinforce the idea that some riders get preferential treatment.


----------



## SicBith

Now there is more evidence the USADA should have dropped this when the Feds did. If whatever has been leaked is true the timing is spot on. 
We now have another TOF mired in doping scandal, arguably the most respected American rider retiring in disgrace, LL will have some questions to answer about his successes last year and this year, guys like DZ and CVV who seem to have managed their careers well will be be convicted dopers. Press speculation on riders with BMC, Garmin, Omega will be the topic at every stop when it should be on the day's racing.
Obviously those riders who took themselves out of the running for the olympic team were going to be involved in this case, as they and USADA didn't want this to cast any shadow on the USA during the olympics, but TD and TP will be asked for their opinions on it now. 
Will BMC, Omega, Garmin sack those guys off the tour teams right now. They might have clauses in their contracts which leave them no other choice.
I know these opinions are a little dramatic, but what a s**t show over something which went down almost a decade ago. Someone is going to say this is about what happened in 2009 and 2010. LA's doping may have continued, who knows maybe even LL, but it seems to me these witness's testimonies are all about LA's tour wins not his return from retirement. I would compare this to the US going after Clinton now for the blowies he got in 1999, but unfortunately for cycling it's GH, LL, DZ, CVV, and JV with the dirty dress.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance was offer the same deal as George, Dave, Levi. They all took the deal, told the truth. Despite saying multiple times that he would aid the investigation in the end Lance told USADA to f*ck off. He then became co-conspirator instead of a witness.
> 
> Dumb move


Even coming from you I find this hard to believe. The USADA spent all this time and resources to offer LA a 6 month suspension for doping, conspiracy, aiding, intimidation, fraud, and the list goes on.......


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Now there is more evidence the USADA should have dropped this when the Feds did. If whatever has been leaked is true the timing is spot on.
> We now have another TOF mired in doping scandal, arguably the most respected American rider retiring in disgrace, LL will have some questions to answer about his successes last year and this year, guys like DZ and CVV who seem to have managed their careers well will be be convicted dopers. Press speculation on riders with BMC, Garmin, Omega will be the topic at every stop when it should be on the day's racing.
> Obviously those riders who took themselves out of the running for the olympic team were going to be involved in this case, as they and USADA didn't want this to cast any shadow on the USA during the olympics, but TD and TP will be asked for their opinions on it now.
> Will BMC, Omega, Garmin sack those guys off the tour teams right now. They might have clauses in their contracts which leave them no other choice.
> I know these opinions are a little dramatic, but what a s**t show over something which went down almost a decade ago. Someone is going to say this is about what happened in 2009 and 2010. LA's doping may have continued, who knows maybe even LL, but it seems to me these witness's testimonies are all about LA's tour wins not his return from retirement. I would compare this to the US going after Clinton now for the blowies he got in 1999, but unfortunately for cycling it's GH, LL, DZ, CVV, and JV with the dirty dress.


This response is what Lance is hoping for from his strategy. 

The "Leak" came from Johan not USADA. If Lance is going down he is going to insure that the sport, and all involved, are damaged as much as possible. 

The USADA case was leaked to the Washington Post by Lance, forcing it into the public eye. In an effort to push witnesses into the public eye so they can be harassed and smeared Johan leaks incorrect info to his newspaper. All during the Tour. All thanks to Lance. 

There is only one person to blame for the delay in addressing this mess, lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Even coming from you I find this hard to believe. The USADA spent all this time and resources to offer LA a 6 month suspension for doping, conspiracy, aiding, intimidation, fraud, and the list goes on.......


As I have said from the start the focus is on the doctors who organized and executed the doping program for many riders, not just Lance. I have written many times that Lance is just one rider. Sure, he was influential in riders doping but it is doctors like Marti, del Moral, Celya and directors like Brunyeel who pushed dozens of riders into doping. del Moral especially is a very toxic influence on the sport


----------



## EuroSVT

Mulowe said:


> Said it before. MAN UP LANCE do the right things. Better late than never.


Being that he will likely be financially in a hurt when it does drop, I'd *bet* he's saving the confession for, what would it be, book #3? Book deal, and maybe one of those cool Oliver Stone type documentary movies 


* I've followed this closely the past few years, just never chime in on it. Carry On!


----------



## pianopiano

*how sad*



Samadhi said:


> There's nothing to be gained in that. If you do the right thing is this country, here's what happens:
> 
> Lifeguard Tomas Lopez Fired After Helping Rescue Swimmer Outside Beach Zone (VIDEO)


I feel very sorry for you because you think that there is nothing to be gained by telling the truth.


----------



## 95zpro

Dirty pool by leaking witnesses, suspected following of USADA personnel etc. does not change the facts of the case or the evidence that has been provided and that will be presented in November. This could and is probably just the icing on the cake because I think that all though the feds might not have turned over any evidence it appears the Italians and other countries have helped in this investigation. 
LL, GH, DZ, JV and CV might have given testimony but remember the charging letter said more than ten riders and team personnel will be giving testimony. It could be 15-20 people before it's all said and done; after a while if you are LA how do you discredit this many people?


----------



## Cpk

No they shouldn't but why didn't they deal with those in 09 & 10 when they were taken and the tests were done? Why wait? To me that doesn't make sense.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This response is what Lance is hoping for from his strategy.
> 
> The "Leak" came from Johan not USADA. If Lance is going down he is going to insure that the sport, and all involved, are damaged as much as possible.
> 
> The USADA case was leaked to the Washington Post by Lance, forcing it into the public eye. In an effort to push witnesses into the public eye so they can be harassed and smeared Johan leaks incorrect info to his newspaper. All during the Tour. All thanks to Lance.
> 
> There is only one person to blame for the delay in addressing this mess, lance.


I understand and agree with you my response is what LA is hoping for in the court of public opinion but it stays consistent with my argument from the start. 
For me is still comes down to why now (1999-2005), why not in 2009, 2010 when the results from testing were suspect. Why was he not busted by passport controls? If the answer if he was given a blind eye by the UCI, WADA, and whatever agencies are in charge of testing athletes, that should have been exposed then with its own investigation of those agencies. The LA case should have stayed focused on his offenses in 2009, 2010 and been dealt with at that time as other offenders the passports caught without positive tests. The USADA could have managed this much better, and in my opinion they are both (LA & USADA) at fault for the crap American cycling now needs to wade through.
It's a sad day for American cycling.


----------



## MG537

What I find ironic is that once upon a time, our super hero Lance, threatened to find people to say that Greg Lemond doped.
I guess karma's one big beeeeyotch! Ain't she Lance?


----------



## goloso

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well Horner says he thinks Armstrong was clean. He didn't use to until Radioshack gave him a ride and put him in the TdF team this year. Kinda funny how that all works


I suspect this has less to do with LA and more to do with JB. Presumably it worked. He was off the tour team, he makes a statement and viola', he is on. Coincidence? Who knows...


----------



## adimiro

Does someone have a link to the original article (in English please).?

Hope it also includes Johan listed as the author.


----------



## goloso

SicBith said:


> I understand and agree with you my response is what LA is hoping for in the court of public opinion but it stays consistent with my argument from the start.
> For me is still comes down to why now (1999-2005), why not in 2009, 2010 when the results from testing were suspect. Why was he not busted by passport controls? If the answer if he was given a blind eye by the UCI, WADA, and whatever agencies are in charge of testing athletes, that should have been exposed then with its own investigation of those agencies. The LA case should have stayed focused on his offenses in 2009, 2010 and been dealt with at that time as other offenders the passports caught without positive tests. The USADA could have managed this much better, and in my opinion they are both (LA & USADA) at fault for the crap American cycling now needs to wade through.
> It's a sad day for American cycling.


It seems to be pretty clear that the reason for the delay was LA, JB et al corrupting the process with money through direct payments to the UCI and investments in other businesses like Paul Sherwin's gold mine with UCI executives. For me, this is the big story. By choosing who gets away with doping and who gets punished, they turned cycling into professional wrestling. I still enjoy the sport but until the UCI staff is purged, I place no importance on results. To me it is all just an exhibition.

Why is this news anyway? When all these guys withdrew from consideration for the Olympic team everyone knew why. 

Stay classy Lance.


----------



## humble

Were the witnessed questioned during the federal investigation under under oath or in some USADA investigation? I was not aware USADA did anything other than receive testiminony gathered during that investigation. If it was during the federal investigation wouldn't witnesses testifying under oath have been in jeopardy of perjuring themselves? 

If it ever came out that the USADA was handed a bucket full of evidence of organized cheating in a sport that it is responsible to oversee, as it has been described in the press about cycling, and failed to act, how would that failure reflect on the leaders of the organization, if it came to light?

The end of the Federal Investigation into this matter meant only that criminal charges were off the table. It left a huge invisible wake almost like a tsunami, because the information gathered, if it ever comes to light, will impact many individuals. Careers and livelihoods are at risk, and when that's the case, all bets are off and it's every man, woman and child for themselves!

/h


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I understand and agree with you my response is what LA is hoping for in the court of public opinion but it stays consistent with my argument from the start.
> For me is still comes down to why now (1999-2005), why not in 2009, 2010 when the results from testing were suspect. Why was he not busted by passport controls? If the answer if he was given a blind eye by the UCI, WADA, and whatever agencies are in charge of testing athletes, that should have been exposed then with its own investigation of those agencies. The LA case should have stayed focused on his offenses in 2009, 2010 and been dealt with at that time as other offenders the passports caught without positive tests. The USADA could have managed this much better, and in my opinion they are both (LA & USADA) at fault for the crap American cycling now needs to wade through.
> It's a sad day for American cycling.


The BioPassport is a UCI program, not a WADA program. For years the UCI refused to share the results with WADA

WADA Voices Concerns On UCI Biological Passport | Cyclingnews.com



> Pat McQuaid has explained that the UCI does not divulge the biological passport panel’s recommendations to WADA as it is not obliged to do so


If you are looking for someone to blame for the delay look to Lance and the UCI, not WADA


----------



## terry b

Man I sure wouldn't want any of you guys on my jury. If I found myself in front of one.


----------



## Samadhi

piano said:


> I feel very sorry for you because you think that there is nothing to be gained by telling the truth.


Well out in the real world there's no paostive payoff.

Will LA comming clean, change anything in the here & now? Nope. What then, is the point of coming clean? Also, in this country, you are to be considered innocent until proven guilty and there are contitutional rights that state clearly you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself, even under oath.

Those 5 riders, former teammates, all have their butts in a sling because word got out they were rolling over to save their own skins, not because it was the "right" thing to do. This brings their trustworthiness into serious question and they may find themselves unemployable in the future as a result. That may not be fair, but that's how these things often work.

Telling the truth is always commendable and should be rewarded rather than punsihed, but the sad truth is, ours is not a perfect world. The fact is that good people doing good things are often punsihed for doing so.

They are double screwed as well. The USADA probably offered confidentiality as well as immunity in exchange for their testimony. Now they probably have neither.

This also screws the USADA as well. Their rep took a hit today. This story shows they can offer zero security when it comes to witnesses or the evidence they provide. Who will be coming forward next? Doubtful if anyone does.

I wonder too, if anyone in Washington is looking at the USADA's funding. They get millions from the feds and here's what the taxpayers get in return - a huge [email protected] This has become one collossal joke - that ain't funny.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

humble said:


> Were the witnessed questioned during the federal investigation under under oath or in some USADA investigation? I was not aware USADA did anything other than receive testiminony gathered during that investigation. If it was during the federal investigation wouldn't witnesses testifying under oath have been in jeopardy of perjuring themselves?
> 
> If it ever came out that the USADA was handed a bucket full of evidence of organized cheating in a sport that it is responsible to oversee, as it has been described in the press about cycling, and failed to act, how would that failure reflect on the leaders of the organization, if it came to light?
> 
> The end of the Federal Investigation into this matter meant only that criminal charges were off the table. It left a huge invisible wake almost like a tsunami, because the information gathered, if it ever comes to light, will impact many individuals. Careers and livelihoods are at risk, and when that's the case, all bets are off and it's every man, woman and child for themselves!
> 
> /h


So far the Feds have given USADA nothing but Travis was involved in much of the investigation so I assume he is aware of the evidence. Witness gave their own statements to USADA.

I agree, it would serious damage their creditably if USADA ignored so much evidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

USADA Chief Aims To Protect Witnesses | Cyclingnews.com

Given Lance's history of harassing people who tell the truth Travis' concerns are legit


----------



## txzen

*That's one way to put it.*



Samadhi said:


> But it's not about the fans. It's about the team. Fans don't win races, the team does.
> 
> I'm not saying teams will look unfavorably upon these attempts by these riders to save themsleves, but it's happened before.
> 
> I watched GH's statement to the press this morning. He's not a happy camper. For someone who's doing the right thing, he seems uncharacteristically unhappy - like he just lost his best friend and shot his mother. Hardly the demeanor of man who concience is clear, know what I mean?


He's also reacting to witness intimidation. And the intimidation is from someone who he has had close ties to. He and Lance were really close. Of course this is a difficult situation for him - how could it not be?


----------



## Chris-X

terry b said:


> Man I sure wouldn't want any of you guys on my jury. If I found myself in front of one.


I sure wouldn't want to work for a company that had people like LA in positions of power.

That's like 99.9% of companies.


----------



## OldChipper

SicBith said:


> I understand and agree with you my response is what LA is hoping for in the court of public opinion but it stays consistent with my argument from the start.
> For me is still comes down to why now (1999-2005), why not in 2009, 2010 when the results from testing were suspect. Why was he not busted by passport controls? If the answer if he was given a blind eye by the UCI, WADA, and whatever agencies are in charge of testing athletes, that should have been exposed then with its own investigation of those agencies. The LA case should have stayed focused on his offenses in 2009, 2010 and been dealt with at that time as other offenders the passports caught without positive tests. The USADA could have managed this much better, and in my opinion they are both (LA & USADA) at fault for the crap American cycling now needs to wade through.
> It's a sad day for American cycling.


^^^^^ This!

The concept of a statute of limitations is around inability to gather evidence, NOT unwillingness to or laziness in acting on evidence. If they had it, they should have acted on it, otherwise they're condoning it.


----------



## il sogno

Samadhi said:


> NBC Sports is reporting these riders are giving testimony "in exchange for leniency" in their own doping cases.
> 
> If true, that would make their testimony somewhat suspect.


What is your reasoning with this? Why would leniency make their testimony somewhat suspect?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As I have said from the start the focus is on the doctors who organized and executed the doping program for many riders, not just Lance. I have written many times that Lance is just one rider. Sure, he was influential in riders doping but it is doctors like Marti, del Moral, Celya and directors like Brunyeel who pushed dozens of riders into doping. del Moral especially is a very toxic influence on the sport


What's the deal with del Moral?


----------



## The Tedinator

I think that Lance doped. I think he is going down. I hope that the UCI gets a house cleaning too. Yet, because this story in one form or another happens every June into July like clockwork, I can't help but feel that someone somewhere is manipulating all of us for some hidden reason other than "clean sport".

Lance is playing the fan boys like a violin, but who is playing the "haters", and why?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> ^^^^^ This!
> 
> The concept of a statute of limitations is around inability to gather evidence, NOT unwillingness to or laziness in acting on evidence. If they had it, they should have acted on it, otherwise they're condoning it.


How long has USADA been "Sitting" on George, Levi, VDV, and Dave Z's statements? A few months? How long have they been "Sitting" on Lance's 2010 blood values? Considering the UCI refused to give them to them for almost a year I do not see any evidence of "Sitting"

If they moved any faster the talking point would be "Rush to judgement"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> What's the deal with del Moral?


I know 4 guys who were told by del Moral "Take the shot or you do not ride tomorrow" He is a pusher. A POS


----------



## Chris-X

The Tedinator said:


> I think that Lance doped. I think he is going down. I hope that the UCI gets a house cleaning too. Yet, because this story in one form or another happens every June into July like clockwork, *I can't help but feel *that someone somewhere is manipulating all of us for some hidden reason other than "clean sport".
> 
> Lance is playing the fan boys like a violin, but who is playing the "haters", and why?


Look into that.


----------



## NextTime

For those who posted that JB is the source of the leak, please confirm whether this claim is based on solid fact or is your speculation. Thanks.


----------



## MikeBiker

For an,as yet to be named, sum, I could be persuaded to testify for Lance. After all, I can truthfully say that at no time did I observe Lance injecting or consuming any prohibited substances. I just hope that the prosecution doesn't bring up the fact that I've never seen Lance at all.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

NextTime said:


> For those who posted that JB is the source of the leak, please confirm whether this claim is based on solid fact or is your speculation. Thanks.


The consensus at the Tour is it came from Lance's camp, especially as Johan writes for the paper. 

http://drupal-sporten.tv2.dk/tour/2012-07-05-doping-indrømmelser-komplot-af-armstrong

Matt Rendell has been covering the sport for decades. He wrote the book "The Death of Marco Pantani" and commentates for ITV. 



> "Armstrong camp working on the same scale as political campaigns. And the news has come out today, aims to bring the four riders into disrepute and make life miserable for them in the Tour de France. "





> "Armstrong camp has private investigators on all involved parties. I think everyone who had anything to do with Lance Armstrong, will be on the front page of the newspapers the next week,"


----------



## Tomahawk

Okay, I don't really think anyone can deny anymore Lance doped. That ship has sailed with the latest testimony of "credible" riders in tandem with Landis and Hamilton, if it hadn't already. 

I know this is an unpopular position on these boards but I'm still an Armstrong fan.

Everybody knows that to be competitive in the 2000's, 90's and certainly for decades before then that the athletes had to take performance enhancing drugs. I have no doubt in my mind that LeMond (pathetic joke of a hypocrite), Indurain and Merckx were all on something also. It's not like performance enhancing drugs are a new thing - at the top level, where money is involved and any chance to gain an edge over your competitors is seized upon... you're naive not to expect it. Caffeine is a proven performance enhancing drug, everyone uses it - but it's legal.

Taking performance enhancing drugs at that level and at least in that era didn't make you a cheater in the peleton if they were all doing the same thing. It doesn't make you a bad person either. I still admire riders like Jan Ullrich, Andreas Kloden (wasn't caught), Alexander Vinokourov, David Millar and others even though they all certainly doped.

I think the biggest crime Armstrong is guilty of is dishonesty and lying for so long. But I can understand why he's done it - and why he may still feel 100% innocent when everyone else did the same thing. At the time he was defending his career and the sport's integrity, then he's defending his non-profit organization that fights cancer and promotes good health, now he's defending his legacy and his sponsorships which support his family.

That said I think it's game over. His best move is to just be honest and face the consequences that USADA hit him with. USADA's venture by the way is totally pointless and has nothing to do with cleaning up the sport - their methods of securing testimony obviously scream vendetta and unfair play. The best Armstrong should do now is tell it like it is - cycling clearly doesn't care to defend him, he doesn't need to defend cycling anymore either. 

He can play the victim of USADA's picking on him alone in a field of dopers and his public image mightn't be too badly damaged if he's just honest. No he won't have the same sponsorships as before, maybe his tour victories will be taken away (only to be given to another doper) and he'll be able to continue racing Triathlon (I think/hope) and get on with his life.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Tomahawk said:


> Okay, I don't really think anyone can deny anymore Lance doped. That ship has sailed with the latest testimony of "credible" riders in tandem with Landis and Hamilton, if it hadn't already.
> 
> I know this is an unpopular position on these boards but I'm still an Armstrong fan.
> 
> Everybody knows that to be competitive in the 2000's, 90's and certainly for decades before then that the athletes had to take performance enhancing drugs. I have no doubt in my mind that LeMond (pathetic joke of a hypocrite), Indurain and Merckx were all on something also. It's not like performance enhancing drugs are a new thing - at the top level, where money is involved and any chance to gain an edge over your competitors is seized upon... you're naive not to expect it. Caffeine is a proven performance enhancing drug, everyone uses it - but it's legal.
> 
> Taking performance enhancing drugs at that level and at least in that era didn't make you a cheater in the peleton if they were all doing the same thing. It doesn't make you a bad person either. I still admire riders like Jan Ullrich, Andreas Kloden (wasn't caught), Alexander Vinokourov, David Millar and others even though they all certainly doped.
> 
> I think the biggest crime Armstrong is guilty of is dishonesty and lying for so long. But I can understand why he's done it - and why he may still feel 100% innocent when everyone else did the same thing. At the time he was defending his career and the sport's integrity, then he's defending his non-profit organization that fights cancer and promotes good health, now he's defending his legacy and his sponsorships which support his family.
> 
> That said I think it's game over. His best move is to just be honest and face the consequences that USADA hit him with. USADA's venture by the way is totally pointless and has nothing to do with cleaning up the sport - their methods of securing testimony obviously scream vendetta and unfair play. The best Armstrong should do now is tell it like it is - cycling clearly doesn't care to defend him, he doesn't need to defend cycling anymore either.
> 
> He can play the victim of USADA's picking on him alone in a field of dopers and his public image mightn't be too badly damaged if he's just honest. No he won't have the same sponsorships as before, maybe his tour victories will be taken away (only to be given to another doper) and he'll be able to continue racing Triathlon (I think/hope) and get on with his life.


Yeah, they all did it.....did they all pay off the UCI?


----------



## Tomahawk

Would they have done if they had the means that Armstrong had, and had as much to defend - not just for himself as Lance did? My assumption is probably yes. 

As Tyler Hamilton said something along the lines of:

"With a little luck I'd still be out there today being a cheat and a liar."


----------



## 95zpro

Well said Tomahawk! I think it is safe to say that it is pretty far fetched that a clean athlete could compete or in this case dominate against unclean athletes! I think that the majority of people will and could forgive LA if he had owned up to what he had done. He could have said that he had to do what he had to do in order to compete and perform at the top level of the sport during that era. However, the arrogant way that he destroyed people that opposed him and then the coverup when he could have come clean is preposterous and the reason why so many people dislike him. This has turned out to be a situation where the coverup wound up being 20x's worse than the actual crime.


----------



## Chris-X

Tomahawk said:


> Would they have done if they had the means that Armstrong had, and had as much to defend - not just for himself as Lance did? My assumption is probably yes.
> 
> As Tyler Hamilton said something along the lines of:
> 
> "With a little luck I'd still be out there today being a cheat and a liar."


The whole idea of a level playing field has been debunked.

Also, you don't have any basis whatsoever for your defamation of LeMond. 

There is not one single shred of evidence or credible witness who says LeMond doped.

To say you have no doubt in your mind about LeMond doping speaks far more about you than LeMond.


----------



## Tomahawk

Chris-X said:


> The whole idea of a level playing field has been debunked.
> 
> Also, you don't have any basis whatsoever for your defamation of LeMond.
> 
> There is not one single shred of evidence or credible witness who says LeMond doped.
> 
> To say you have no doubt in your mind about LeMond doping speaks far more about you than LeMond.


It has? How so then? Talk to and listen to some of the public statements by actual cyclists and form your own opinion. This idea of "clean riders fighting the good fight" at the time is bs. It's a naive concept for public consumption. No one cared about clean riders and certainly none of them were anywhere close to the podium of the Tour de France.

What makes you think 5 years prior to the years doping becoming a public issue for cycling was any different? Were performance enhancing drugs invented in 1995? Were drug tests better in the 80's than they are now? No, no and no.
But what has been consistent is the careers, money, competitiveness and need for new heroes, records to be broken and entertainment for millions of fans. That breeds cheating.
Of course riders were on performance enhancing drugs then, maybe even more so with poorer drug controls - and for LeMond to win - obviously he was too.


----------



## Chris-X

Tomahawk said:


> It has? How so then? Talk to and listen to some of the public statements by actual cyclists and form your own opinion. This idea of "clean riders fighting the good fight" at the time is bs. It's a naive concept for public consumption. No one cared about clean riders and certainly none of them were anywhere close to the podium of the Tour de France.
> 
> What makes you think 5 years prior to the years doping becoming a public issue for cycling was any different? Were performance enhancing drugs invented in 1995? Were drug tests better in the 80's than they are now? No, no and no.
> But what has been consistent is the careers, money, competitiveness and need for new heroes, records to be broken and entertainment for millions of fans. That breeds cheating.
> Of course riders were on performance enhancing drugs then, maybe even more so with poorer drug controls - and for LeMond to win - obviously he was too.


You realize a top tier doping program costs around 100k a year? 

Ben Johnson got disqualified in the '88 Olympics. LA would have just paid off the IAAF. 

LA was flying private jets and was blowing through customs with bags of drugs. Other riders are able to do this?

Certainly doping is rampant. That is not to say everyone is on drugs. Again, I'm sure you'll continue to defame LeMond but that says more about you than him.

It would take me too long to address each of your hyperbolic and unfounded statements so I won't.


----------



## Tomahawk

Chris-X said:


> You realize a top tier doping program costs around 100k a year?
> 
> Ben Johnson got disqualified in the '88 Olympics. LA would have just paid off the IAAF.
> 
> LA was flying private jets and was blowing through customs with bags of drugs. Other riders are able to do this?
> 
> Certainly doping is rampant. That is not to say everyone is on drugs. Again, I'm sure you'll continue to defame LeMond but that says more about you than him.
> 
> It would take me too long to address each of your hyperbolic and unfounded statements so I won't.


You realize EPO isn't the only PED in the world? Just because they can't get the best doesn't mean they won't take it. Teams like T-Mobile, CSC, Cofidis, Phonak and other big ones definitely had the resources. 

LA was also more under the spotlight, seeing how he got away with it - others couldn't??? Really? 

No not all of them were on drugs. The ones that mattered, the ones big teams were looking to sign and the best coaches were directing were. If you weren't willing to dope then you were less likely to get a contract.

LeMond is perfectly willing to defame others, LA and anyone else can defame him all they want. The man is envious and hypocritical. I'm gonna assume you used to be more of a cycling fan and LeMond was your hero before there was so much controversy, those were the good old days huh? - and that's why you're assuming him innocent.

Hahaha yeah okay "it would take to long to respond, I have better things to do etc"... yeah me too - bye bye.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Tomahawk said:


> You realize EPO isn't the only PED in the world? Just because they can't get the best doesn't mean they won't take it. Teams like T-Mobile, CSC, Cofidis, Phonak and other big ones definitely had the resources.
> 
> LA was also more under the spotlight, seeing how he got away with it - others couldn't??? Really?
> 
> No not all of them were on drugs. The ones that mattered, the ones big teams were looking to sign and the best coaches were directing were. If you weren't willing to dope then you were less likely to get a contract.
> 
> LeMond is perfectly willing to defame others, LA and anyone else can defame him all they want. The man is envious and hypocritical. I'm gonna assume you used to be more of a cycling fan and LeMond was your hero before there was so much controversy, those were the good old days huh? - and that's why you're assuming him innocent.
> 
> Hahaha yeah okay "it would take to long to respond, I have better things to do etc"... yeah me too - bye bye.


There are plenty of LeMond threads, lets not high jack this one. 

The fact is none of the others paid off the UCI, got advance notice of surprise testing, had access to Hemassit,,,,etc. While Armstrong was celebrated by a uninformed press in America Ullrich was crucified by a vengeful press in Germany. 

The level playing field never existed.


----------



## tjeepdrv

Samadhi said:


> Case in point: A F1 driver, Nelson Piquet Jr. was given team orders to crash out in a race in order to force a yellow-flag condition which would allow the team's #1 driver to catch up to the leader and challenge for the win. He rolled over on the team principal and both were sanctioned. Although not permanently banned from F1 by the FIA, Piquet has't sat a F1 car since, even though he "did the right thing" and has had trouble finding meaningful work in other forms of motorsport. His career is essentially over, not because he "did the right thing", it's over because he rolled over on his team to save his own skin. A person like that cannot be trusted in an atmosphere where team play is essential. If he rolled over on his boss to save his own ass, what won't he do?


He won a NASCAR race a couple of weeks ago. Something he never would have done as a 2nd tier teammate in F1. I'd say his career is better off now.


----------



## CHL

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA Chief Aims To Protect Witnesses | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Given Lance's history of harassing people who tell the truth Travis' concerns are legit


How is Travis going to protect any of these alleged witnesses? If Lance doped and he needs to hang, then fine. However, there is truth to Armstrong's assertion that this amounts to a witch hunt and he's being singled out. All of these alleged witnesses participated in the doping conspiracy. Neither is any less guilty than the other. Armstrong and Bruyneel just had the money and brains to put the operation together. If anything, some of these charlatans owe their careers to the time they spent riding for USPS. 

I'm not a fan of Armstrong by any means. However, if he gets his head lopped off by USDA then the other guilty parties should suffer the same fate. 

Can the article be correct? Six months sentence after the major races have completed? Shouldn't this mean that all these guys are under investigation and ineligible to participate in any races? Appreciate help on clarifying some of cycling's regulations in this matter.

chl


----------



## trailrunner68

CHL said:


> How is Travis going to protect any of these alleged witnesses? If Lance doped and he needs to hang, then fine. However, there is truth to Armstrong's assertion that this amounts to a witch hunt and he's being singled out. All of these alleged witnesses participated in the doping conspiracy. Neither is any less guilty than the other. Armstrong and Bruyneel just had the money and brains to put the operation together.


So you are saying that Armstrong and Bruyneel are the kingpins of a doping conspiracy but they should not be treated differently than anyone else? They put it together. They funded it. But it is unfair that Armstrong is being singled out. Uh-huh. Good luck with that argument in front of a judge or an arbitrator.

This use of the term "witch hunt" is becoming as idiotic as Armstrong's apologists misuse of the word "hearsay." Jeebus. Words and terms have meanings and definitions. It is not a witch hunt if the accused is guilty, and in this case the evidence is so overwhelming that he is guilty that his fanboys have resorted to whining that he is being unfairly singled out.


----------



## Just James

95zpro said:


> I think that the majority of people will and could forgive LA if he had owned up to what he had done.


Floyd owned up to what he did after lying about it. He was never forgiven. Same with Tyler. People hate those two more than ever after telling the truth and Lance just piled on the hatred too. If I recall, he went looking for Tyler at a bar and tried to bully him around after telling his side of the story. 

Hopefully this time justice will be done.


----------



## DIRT BOY

RATS! That's what Hincapie, Levi,et al are, RATS!
Take your punishment like man, pull out I the TDF, take your lifetime suspensions and then talk!

Anytime a witness takes abut offer like this, there testimony must. E considered suspect, sorry!

Yes, Lance doped. Yes, this is a witch hunt! No matter what anyone thinks, to be tested this many times and not get caught is suspect! This weans there is corruption form top to bottom, including the UCI and USADA!!

If I was Lance, I would roll on the entire sport! Everyone including sponsors, politicians, ASO, governments, etc that new and hid/financed his doping.

If your going to go down with this witch hunt, go down flaming and expose the sport as the fraud it is!


----------



## juno

I agree it is a witch hunt with no real value today other then to defame Lance. 
That appears to to be the USADA agenda unless someone can explain to me how ruining the reps of every top American rider is going to help the American view of bike racing or clean up the sport.
Seriously, can someone explain how this is a good thing? If there is anything good to come out of this I would like to start hearing about it.
Am I a Lance fan-boy? Yes, he dominated and apparently cheated better then everyone else at the time.

If these testimonies are true:
I feel sad for big George, Levi, Vandevelde, Vaughters, et al. Well not really sad, they are fools. Trying to do the right thing?
Maybe I am missing something but how is this the right thing? So they can sleep better at night?
99% of american fans will never remember poop about any of their careers. In America they will forever be known as cheaters and the guys who rolled on Lance.
In Europe they may fare better because fans will remember their careers but I still think they will take a hit on the cheating and informing.


----------



## Samadhi

tjeepdrv said:


> He won a NASCAR race a couple of weeks ago. Something he never would have done as a 2nd tier teammate in F1. I'd say his career is better off now.



With time he would have accomplished a lot in F1. He had a future.

Nationwide? After driving F1 and working your whole life to get there, the Nationwide series must be like dying and going to hell.

He can sleep well at night, but that's about it. Damn shame about his career.


----------



## roddjbrown

juno said:


> 99% of american fans will never remember poop about any of their careers.


That's quite a worrying statement on the knowledge of American fans! 

I can't believe that 99% of American cycling fans will not remember anything of George Hincapie's career!


----------



## adimiro

1) "Lance never tested positive" ,
(a) yes he did, several times
(b) many detection tests for epo, hgh, etc were not even available at the time

2) "Lance was tested more that 500 times"
(a) absolutely no proof or documentation of this. If there was, I'm sure it would be published everywhere.


3) "This is a witch hunt'
(a) Investigating fraud and cheating is not a witch hunt. 


4) "Why go after a retired racer'
(a) He is not retired and was very much still racing triathlons professionally (same antidoping governing body
(b) Even if fully retired, why should that give you immunity on past offenses?



I just wish the Lance supporters would get the facts right instead of just repeating every propaganda headline from the Lance camp. THough I suppose that's why he pays his legal and publicity team millions of $$$$ to get done.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

CHL said:


> How is Travis going to protect any of these alleged witnesses? If Lance doped and he needs to hang, then fine. However, there is truth to Armstrong's assertion that this amounts to a witch hunt and he's being singled out. All of these alleged witnesses participated in the doping conspiracy. Neither is any less guilty than the other. Armstrong and Bruyneel just had the money and brains to put the operation together. If anything, some of these charlatans owe their careers to the time they spent riding for USPS.
> 
> I'm not a fan of Armstrong by any means. However, if he gets his head lopped off by USDA then the other guilty parties should suffer the same fate.
> 
> Can the article be correct? Six months sentence after the major races have completed? Shouldn't this mean that all these guys are under investigation and ineligible to participate in any races? Appreciate help on clarifying some of cycling's regulations in this matter.
> 
> chl


You are under the mistaken assumption that all the witnesses are riders and all the witnesses doped. They are not. There are over a dozen witness, some are riders some are not


----------



## juno

roddjbrown said:


> That's quite a worrying statement on the knowledge of American fans!
> 
> I can't believe that 99% of American cycling fans will not remember anything of George Hincapie's career!


Yes it is a sad thing. Maybe my estimate was a little high but my faith in the casual american racing fan is not! 

It would be a great thing for the american fan base if more people actually are into it more then I think.


----------



## David Loving

I do not understand what is in it for any of the fellow competitors to testify. If there is a sporting fraud exposure they have the right to remain silent and should exercise that right. The new action may be based on solid scientific advances. If that is so, it is stupid for the anti-doping agency to play games with discovery because that is a sure way to screw up the case. The witnesses do not need the agency's 'protection.' Can offering the cooperators a deal be held to be a bribe in this context? Most are near retirement. Then you have the usual round-up of the sleazy liars, Hamilton, et al. If the science is good, why foul up your case with iffy testimony - you know the teammates are going to testify like Andy Petit did in the Clements trial. He hurt the government more than he helped. Just my take on it, but if the case is as strong as the USADA hints it is, they should go in with guns blazing - which they are not doing so far. I do not think they are managing this case well, at all. We had a saying that if the state had a perfect case, it was the only one that can get screwed up - it looks like USADA is doing all it can to roll into the bar-ditch. What do we expect of an agency that has the presence of mind to appoint a sex offender to an important office?


----------



## DIRT BOY

David Loving said:


> I do not understand what is in it for any of the fellow competitors to testify. If there is a sporting fraud exposure they have the right to remain silent and should exercise that right. The new action may be based on solid scientific advances. If that is so, it is stupid for the anti-doping agency to play games with discovery because that is a sure way to screw up the case. The witnesses do not need the agency's 'protection.' Can offering the cooperators a deal be held to be a bribe in this context? Most are near retirement. Then you have the usual round-up of the sleazy liars, Hamilton, et al. If the science is good, why foul up your case with iffy testimony - you know the teammates are going to testify like Andy Petit did in the Clements trial. He hurt the government more than he helped. Just my take on it, but if the case is as strong as the USADA hints it is, they should go in with guns blazing - which they are not doing so far. I do not think they are managing this case well, at all. We had a saying that if the state had a perfect case, it was the only one that can get screwed up - it looks like USADA is doing all it can to roll into the bar-ditch. What do we expect of an agency that has the presence of mind to appoint a sex offender to an important office?


The reason why they are not going in "guns a blazing" is they don't have a string case and evidence. Try need former teamates to say anything to save thier asses for testimony. They might have evidence against the pawn and they are leveraging it, but not the King. 
That's the issue. Guys are selling out and possibly telling everyone what they want to hear to save thier own hydes and face. Sad IMHO.


----------



## SicBith

adimiro said:


> 1) "Lance never tested positive" ,
> (a) yes he did, several times
> (b) many detection tests for epo, hgh, etc were not even available at the time
> 
> 2) "Lance was tested more that 500 times"
> (a) absolutely no proof or documentation of this. If there was, I'm sure it would be published everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) "This is a witch hunt'
> (a) Investigating fraud and cheating is not a witch hunt.
> 
> 
> 4) "Why go after a retired racer'
> (a) He is not retired and was very much still racing triathlons professionally (same antidoping governing body
> (b) Even if fully retired, why should that give you immunity on past offenses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wish the Lance supporters would get the facts right instead of just repeating every propaganda headline from the Lance camp. THough I suppose that's why he pays his legal and publicity team millions of $$$$ to get done.



1) please provide one positive test published and acknowledged by any anti-doping agency. If there are acknowledged positive tests please provide the governing body responsible for them not being published. 

2) Please provide proof he has not been tested 500+ times 

3) how many times has LA's doping been investigated with no guilt established on LA's part. Investigating the same evidence until someone finally says ok let's see if it sticks is a witch hunt

4) road racing and triathlons are different sports entirely with different governing bodies. This case involves LA's road racing career which he has retired from (twice now). If this case concerned his Tri career he would be investigated on whatever tests he completed since turning Pro as a Triathlete.
5) If that is your stance, lets go after all the retired admitted and non admitted dopers of the TOF. why just single out one?

I'm sure once the case is heard in November the evidence for or against LA will provide light to some of these responses, I felt compelled to show the elements of your opinion which are 100% hearsay at this point as only accusations have officially been released by the UCI, USADA, WADA etc. There is propaganda oozing from cracks in LA's, UCI's, USADA's and even your position. Those are the facts my friend.


----------



## Big-foot

"2) Please provide proof he has not been tested 500+ times "




Lance's paid liars have invent the myth that lance has passed 500 tests. That he never tested positive. That he was the most tested athlete in history. They offer no evidence to support it, because it is a lie. One that is rather easy to prove wrong

You can look up the WADA testing history of any American rider on the USADA website. 

Athlete Test History | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Since 2001 Lance has been tested 29 times. By comparison

George Hincapie 38
levi Leipheimer 40
Kirsten Armstrong 66

In 2004 le Equipe published Armstrong's UCI testing figures

* 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes)
* 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels 
* 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO 
* 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO 
* 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO 
* 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO . 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse .

Total UCI tests: 63

Total tests: 92 ........Nowhere close to 500 tests. 

The number of tests is not the only lie. He also likes to pretend he has never tested positive

It started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal and won their lawsuit with USAC

*Strock Speaks*

*Six years later, Strock case comes to court*

During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
which were ignored by USA cycling

"a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have
a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was
considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio
was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

*Sports Illustrated reports new information on Lance Armstrong - More Sports - SI.com*

Anyone who knows about cancer knows that Lance's Hcg levels would have been elevated, but never showed up in any UCI tests. Wonder why?

In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright. Thanks UCI 

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level

Of course there are also the 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO

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

Then there was the positive for EPO a the 2001 Tour de Swiss that was ignored up by the UCI in exchange for a nice "Donation"

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...-on-60-minutes

USADA said that Armstrong blood tests from 2009 and 2010 showed clear signs of manipulation and EPO use. This during the same period the UCI ignored 5 Biopassport positives and refused to share Armstrong's Biopassport testing results with WADA

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


----------



## adimiro

Sicbith, I have followed this case closely and have read most of the available documents published from a variety of sources. I do not keep a running file on every Armstrong document to provide you for reference. However, my comments are facts and I stand by them. Seems all you can do to rebuttal is ask to prove the 'negative' . You are entitled to believe whatever you like and not get confused by the facts.


PS see above


----------



## CHL

trailrunner68 said:


> So you are saying that Armstrong and Bruyneel are the kingpins of a doping conspiracy but they should not be treated differently than anyone else? They put it together. They funded it. But it is unfair that Armstrong is being singled out. Uh-huh. Good luck with that argument in front of a judge or an arbitrator.
> 
> This use of the term "witch hunt" is becoming as idiotic as Armstrong's apologists misuse of the word "hearsay." Jeebus. Words and terms have meanings and definitions. It is not a witch hunt if the accused is guilty, and in this case the evidence is so overwhelming that he is guilty that his fanboys have resorted to whining that he is being unfairly singled out.


No, what I'm saying is that they all benefited from their association with LA. They all willfully cheated alongside LA. They shouldn't be treated differently and should receive the maximum penalties under the regulations. USADA is not going hard enough on these witnesses."


These guys have no higher moral or ethical ground on which to stand. They willingly participated in an enterprise which went against the regulations of their sport and against the laws of certain countries. To see them off for six months is disgraceful.


----------



## SicBith

Big-foot said:


> "2) Please provide proof he has not been tested 500+ times "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lance's paid liars have invent the myth that lance has passed 500 tests. That he never tested positive. That he was the most tested athlete in history. They offer no evidence to support it, because it is a lie. One that is rather easy to prove wrong
> 
> You can look up the WADA testing history of any American rider on the USADA website.
> 
> Athlete Test History | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
> 
> Since 2001 Lance has been tested 29 times. By comparison
> 
> George Hincapie 38
> levi Leipheimer 40
> Kirsten Armstrong 66
> 
> In 2004 le Equipe published Armstrong's UCI testing figures
> 
> * 1999 : 15 contrôles urinaires conventionnels (1 positif à la triamcinolone acétonide - corticoïdes)
> * 2000 : 12 contrôles urinaires conventionnels
> * 2001 : 10 contrôles urinaires conventionnels, dont 5 avec détection de l'EPO
> * 2002 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 8 avec détection de l'EPO
> * 2003 : 9 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 6 avec détection de l'EPO
> * 2004 : 8 contrôles urinaires conventionnels incluant la recherche d'HES, dont 7 avec détection de l'EPO . 1 contrôle sanguin de détection des hémoglobines de synthèse .
> 
> Total UCI tests: 63
> 
> Total tests: 92 ........Nowhere close to 500 tests.
> 
> The number of tests is not the only lie. He also likes to pretend he has never tested positive
> 
> It started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal and won their lawsuit with USAC
> 
> *Strock Speaks*
> 
> *Six years later, Strock case comes to court*
> 
> During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
> which were ignored by USA cycling
> 
> "a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
> from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have
> a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was
> considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio
> was lowered to 4.0-to-1."
> 
> *Sports Illustrated reports new information on Lance Armstrong - More Sports - SI.com*
> 
> Anyone who knows about cancer knows that Lance's Hcg levels would have been elevated, but never showed up in any UCI tests. Wonder why?
> 
> In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright. Thanks UCI
> 
> Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.
> 
> Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level
> 
> Of course there are also the 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO
> 
> *Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events*
> 
> Then there was the positive for EPO a the 2001 Tour de Swiss that was ignored up by the UCI in exchange for a nice "Donation"
> 
> https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hami...-on-60-minutes
> 
> USADA said that Armstrong blood tests from 2009 and 2010 showed clear signs of manipulation and EPO use. This during the same period the UCI ignored 5 Biopassport positives and refused to share Armstrong's Biopassport testing results with WADA
> 
> *Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com*


Yes I have read all this to. 
My question would be the time frame and what LA considers to be a test. Hair, Urine, Blood, drive by to see if he is home...... 
Yes he tested positive for cort, but in the legal court not the public opinion one that was thrown out. 
If all this evidence has been available since 99 why was he not busted then? Why was he not busted in 04 or 05 with the SCA trial? If the testing from 09 was suspect why not then? Alberto tested in 2010 and got his in 2012 so LA should have had his 09 samples outed and if they are as bad as what is being released to the media he should be racing in Kona as his sanction would have ended in 2011? I know DF will say LA, and I would imagine JB more so have the UCI on retainer to hold back any positive test. That could be and will come out in this case, but that in of itself is a completely different case than LA doping and I don't believe the USADA has the jurisdiction to go after the UCI, so this case should focus on LA's doping, not paying off the UCI's sketchy management. What I'm really getting at is there is so much hearsay on this case that making statements of guilt based on it is not something I would do.


----------



## SicBith

I just jumped on the USADA website and some of our most high profile athletes in a winter sport that we are owning right now were not tested in an Olympic year. I find that suspect.


----------



## SicBith

Just looked on the USADA site for cycling under Lance Armstrong testing all in 2009 and 2010. Both results were 0 yet the claim THEY tested his blood to be consistent with manipulation. I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying it is not up on the USADA testing site as far I my inquiry is concerned.


----------



## roddjbrown

SicBith said:


> 2) Please provide proof he has not been tested 500+ times


HA! Using this knowledge can someone prove that I'm not Elvis Presley?

If I say it about myself it's true right?


----------



## SicBith

roddjbrown said:


> HA! Using this knowledge can someone prove that I'm not Elvis Presley?
> 
> If I say it about myself it's true right?


That's the point. What he is saying might not be true, but what the original poster was saying might not be true. It's all hearsay. As for you being Elvis..... can I get an autograph?


----------



## The Tedinator

How could he have only been tested 29 times since 2001? Isn't the yellow jersey as well as the daily stage winner tested each day at the TdF? That number sounds as dubious as Lance's "500" number.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Tedinator said:


> How could he have only been tested 29 times since 2001? Isn't the yellow jersey as well as the daily stage winner tested each day at the TdF? That number sounds as dubious as Lance's "500" number.


The 29 times is how many times he was tested by WADA/USADA. The UCI/ASO add up to about 85 more. 

There is nothing to support 500 tests. Proving 1/2 of that would be a real challenge


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Just looked on the USADA site for cycling under Lance Armstrong testing all in 2009 and 2010. Both results were 0 yet the claim THEY tested his blood to be consistent with manipulation. I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying it is not up on the USADA testing site as far I my inquiry is concerned.


I am not sure what site you are looking at but if I go to the USADA website I find 6 in 2009 and 9 in 2010. 

Athlete Test History | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)

Earlier this year the UCI finally gave WADA access to their Biopassport testing results. The combined testing will show Armstrong manipulated his blood in 2009 and 2010


----------



## Dwayne Barry

SicBith said:


> Just looked on the USADA site for cycling under Lance Armstrong testing all in 2009 and 2010. Both results were 0 yet the claim THEY tested his blood to be consistent with manipulation. I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying it is not up on the USADA testing site as far I my inquiry is concerned.


I believe the Biopassport is run by the UCI not the national anti-doping organizations.


----------



## slimjw

DIRT BOY said:


> The reason why they are not going in "guns a blazing" is they don't have a string case and evidence. Try need former teamates to say anything to save thier asses for testimony. They might have evidence against the pawn and they are leveraging it, but not the King.
> That's the issue. Guys are selling out and possibly telling everyone what they want to hear to save thier own hydes and face. Sad IMHO.


At this point the strength of the case is anyone's guess as the USADA hasn't disclosed their evidence publicly yet.

And if the former teammates weren't guilty of anything they wouldn't have a thing to fear from the USADA and wouldn't need to testify in the first place, never mind that we don't actually know who actually testified or if any of them were offered reduced bans in exchange for their cooperation. At this point it is all just hearsay. 

None of the riders who have agreed to give testimony are going to have much face left to save when all this comes out so I wouldn't worry about that...


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not sure what site you are looking at but if I go to the USADA website I find 6 in 2009 and 9 in 2010.
> 
> Athlete Test History | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)
> 
> Earlier this year the UCI finally gave WADA access to their Biopassport testing results. The combined testing will show Armstrong manipulated his blood in 2009 and 2010


That is the site, but i just check again and I must have been doing something wrong as i got the same results as you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

slimjw said:


> At this point the strength of the case is anyone's guess as the USADA hasn't disclosed their evidence publicly yet.
> 
> And if the former teammates weren't guilty of anything they wouldn't have a thing to fear from the USADA and wouldn't need to testify in the first place, never mind that we don't actually know who actually testified or if any of them were offered reduced bans in exchange for their cooperation. At this point it is all just hearsay.
> 
> None of the riders who have agreed to give testimony are going to have much face left to save when all this comes out so I wouldn't worry about that...


Some wanted to testify, some doped outside the SOL but still wanted to give their testimony, others are not even riders. 

Lots of witnesses


----------



## Tschai

CHL said:


> No, what I'm saying is that they all benefited from their association with LA. They all willfully cheated alongside LA. They shouldn't be treated differently and should receive the maximum penalties under the regulations. USADA is not going hard enough on these witnesses."
> 
> 
> These guys have no higher moral or ethical ground on which to stand. They willingly participated in an enterprise which went against the regulations of their sport and against the laws of certain countries. To see them off for six months is disgraceful.


This is not how things work and it certainly is not how things should work. You can't get the big fish without the little fish. In many, many criminal cases, and especially RICO cases, you need the testimony of the other criminals to get the kingpin. Generally speaking, the system goes after the biggest criminal in the network they can get. Lance is that person here. USADA would not be doing its job if it treated everyone the same.


----------



## trailrunner68

Tschai said:


> This is not how things work and it certainly is not how things should work. You can't get the big fish without the little fish. In many, many criminal cases, and especially RICO cases, you need the testimony of the other criminals to get the kingpin. Generally speaking, the system goes after the biggest criminal in the network they can get. Lance is that person here. USADA would not be doing its job if it treated everyone the same.


Actually, Armstrong was offered the chance to cooperate. This could have been a USADA case against Bruyneel, Ferrari, Celaya, Marti, and Del Moral. Armstrong decided to stick with the conspirators, so he was charged as well. Now he and his lemmings are complaining about being singled out.

It is, as you say, like a RICO case. When the deals are being handed out, anyone not smart enough or too stubborn to take one ends up taking the fall.


----------



## Kliemann53

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Some wanted to testify, some doped outside the SOL but still wanted to give their testimony, others are not even riders.
> 
> Lots of witnesses


How do you know this?


----------



## David Loving

I'm interested in how USADA gets around the standard "Junk Science" objections.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> I'm interested in how USADA gets around the standard "Junk Science" objections.


Over a dozen witnesses are "Junk Science"?


----------



## trailrunner68

David Loving said:


> I'm interested in how USADA gets around the standard "Junk Science" objections.


I can just see Armstrong with his GED challenging people with doctorates like Michael Ashenden about junk science. That would be a riot.


----------



## curtw

Chris-X said:


> <snip>LA was flying private jets and was blowing through customs with bags of drugs. Other riders are able to do this?
> ...
> It would take me too long to address each of your hyperbolic and unfounded statements so I won't.


I typically visit this thread with a sense of bemused detachment. As a cancer survivor, my sense of betrayal has a somewhat different slant than that of most people here and represents an extreme minority opinion, so I mostly remain quiet.

HOWEVER, Chris-X, I would hope that you do realize that if there was one piece of actual evidence of LA "blowing through customs with bags of drugs," these discussions would have concluded years ago?

Accusing others of making "hyperbolic and unfounded statements" while posting one of your own in the same message will not help help convince others of your correctness.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

curtw said:


> I typically visit this thread with a sense of bemused detachment. As a cancer survivor, my sense of betrayal has a somewhat different slant than that of most people here and represents an extreme minority opinion, so I mostly remain quiet.
> 
> HOWEVER, Chris-X, I would hope that you do realize that if there was one piece of actual evidence of LA "blowing through customs with bags of drugs," these discussions would have concluded years ago?
> 
> Accusing others of making "hyperbolic and unfounded statements" while posting one of your own in the same message will not help help convince others of your correctness.


There is evidence of Lance Blowing through customs with drugs. Not just Floyd but team PR rep Jogi Muller confirmed it happened and that Jogi talked their way out of it. He wasn't the only USPS rider who had trouble at customs. George was caught with EPO coming into the US in the late 90's and all they did was seize it. He was more concerned with all the wasted money then anything

In the coming months we will find out a lot about Armstrong's doping. Not just what he did himself but also the people he hired to transport the drugs. It will become obvious why multiple branches of the US Government agreed that he should be criminally prosecuted. 

The big question will be why one guy ignored all the evidence and recommendations and dropped the case. People will also question why he has not shared evidence with USADA, even though he is supposed to.


----------



## curtw

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is evidence of Lance Blowing through customs with drugs. Not just Floyd but team PR rep Jogi Muller confirmed it happened and that Jogi talked their way out of it.


And the transcripts of these depositions are filed... where? Again, Wikipedia mode on, citation needed.


----------



## Chris-X

*You're right!*



curtw said:


> And the transcripts of these depositions are filed... where? Again, Wikipedia mode on, citation needed.


It never happened.

Here's some good reading for you though!

Will Lance Armstrong recycle blacklist, be open to media? - New York Daily News


----------



## David Loving

trailrunner68 said:


> I can just see Armstrong with his GED challenging people with doctorates like Michael Ashenden about junk science. That would be a riot.


Doctorates are a dime a dozen - that's where junk science comes from. Take a gander at Daubert v. Merrill, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and later cases and see if these latter day testing theories hold up. Maybe they do; maybe, not. Lance is smart enough to have excellent representation. That's why he hires the best attorneys, who know the law. Michael Ashenden is OK, but if his opinions aren't admissible, then they are useless to the USADA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Doctorates are a dime a dozen - that's where junk science comes from. Take a gander at Daubert v. Merrill, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and later cases and see if these latter day testing theories hold up. Maybe they do; maybe, not. Lance is smart enough to have excellent representation. That's why he hires the best attorneys, who know the law. Michael Ashenden is OK, but if his opinions aren't admissible, then they are useless to the USADA.


Those great lawyers are making their client look like an idiot. So far the only defense offered is the over a dozen witnesses they have are just bitter haters.


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Those great lawyers are making their client look like an idiot. So far the only defense offered is the over a dozen witnesses they have are just bitter haters.


I think that it is the other way around: the client is making his lawyers look like idiots. Although one cannot really know what is going on between Armstrong and his lawyers, my guess would be that the lawyers are echoing what their client wants them to say and that they may be taking a different appoach if they had a different client. Whenever a lawyer represents a client with a strong personality and strong opinions, there is going to be tension. Although the lawyers have a duty not to violate the rules of professional conduct and any other applicable laws and rules, beyond that, the client ultimately determines the approach his lawyers will take. Now, a lawyer always can withdraw from a representation if he disagrees with his client's approach. But, otherwise the client is the boss. 

The other explanation for the approach the lawyers have taken may be that it is the only defense that they have.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

MarkS said:


> I think that it is the other way around: the client is making his lawyers look like idiots. Although one cannot really know what is going on between Armstrong and his lawyers, my guess would be that the lawyers are echoing what their client wants them to say and that they may be taking a different appoach if they had a different client. Whenever a lawyer represents a client with a strong personality and strong opinions, there is going to be tension. Although the lawyers have a duty not to violate the rules of professional conduct and any other applicable laws and rules, beyond that, the client ultimately determines the approach his lawyers will take. Now, a lawyer always can withdraw from a representation if he disagrees with his client's approach. But, otherwise the client is the boss.
> 
> The other explanation for the approach the lawyers have taken may be that it is the only defense that they have.


Good point. 

There is also the issue that Lance has 2 teams, one lead by Luskin and the smoke machine lead by Fabiani. I doubt it was luskin's idea to try to smear George, Dave, VDV, etc. by leaking their names to the press, but that is exactly what Fabiani would do.

Armstrong has a delicate choice. If USADA sanctions him he has huge financial exposure to various lawsuits. It might be smart for him to try to fight USADA and hope for a miracle then not fight it and spend the next few years fighting various companies looking for their money back


----------



## Chris-X

*The Audience/Public, lawyers are appealing to...*



David Loving said:


> Doctorates are a dime a dozen - that's where junk science comes from. Take a gander at Daubert v. Merrill, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and later cases and see if these latter day testing theories hold up. Maybe they do; maybe, not. Lance is smart enough to have excellent representation. *That's why he hires the best attorneys, who know the law.* Michael Ashenden is OK, but if his opinions aren't admissible, then they are useless to the USADA.


Yes, but you support Armstrong regardless of any critical thinking. So if Armstrong has better arguments, you support him and he wins. If he argues complete nonsense you still support him. I'm hoping you can see how biased you are...



David Loving said:


> I like to think it's clean, but I know better. Maybe doping in cycling is harder to catch than doping in football and baseball in the USA. I have a hard time believing the current myth that the dopers are one step ahead of the testers. If the regulating bodies can't keep up then that's their own fault. I believe that if a rider passes, then he's clean. * I don't really care what LA did or does, but I suspect foul play with the bureaucrats who can't stop trying to catch him. Wouldn't they be better served to live in the present and try to keep sport clean*?


You don't care what LA does, with the mountain of evidence against him that he's a fraud, but you suspect "foul play" by bureaucrats with absolutely no evidence of it? Why in your mind does LA get away with foul play? 

Then you spout a McGwire/Armstrong/Hincapie talking point about the future?

If I were making these arguments how would you characterize them?



Doctor Falsetti said:


> *Those great lawyers are making their client look like an idiot. *So far the only defense offered is the over a dozen witnesses they have are just bitter haters.


To who? You? Me? I've seen you present the facts on here for a long time. The facts aren't standing up too well to the Walter Mitty fantasies of the fanboys who will forgive LA anything so their illusions aren't shattered.

I'm not being critical of pushing on, what else can you do? I just continue to be dumbfounded by the willful blindness and active disregard of any kind of sense from those who have such an apparently gigantic emotional attachment to this absurdity.



MarkS said:


> I think that it is the other way around: the client is making his lawyers look like idiots. Although one cannot really know what is going on between Armstrong and his lawyers, my guess would be that the lawyers are echoing what their client wants them to say and that they may be taking a different appoach if they had a different client. Whenever a lawyer represents a client with a strong personality and strong opinions, there is going to be tension. Although the lawyers have a duty not to violate the rules of professional conduct and any other applicable laws and rules, beyond that, the client ultimately determines the approach his lawyers will take. Now, a lawyer always can withdraw from a representation if he disagrees with his client's approach. But, otherwise the client is the boss.
> 
> The other explanation for the approach the lawyers have taken may be that it is the only defense that they have.


How much mental gymnastics does it take for very smart lawyers to dumb down their arguments to appeal to ordinary working people? For Luskin, who went to Harvard and Oxford? This is crazy... Would Luskin take any grief from a case like this from his peers?



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Good point.
> 
> There is also the issue that Lance has 2 teams, one lead by Luskin and the smoke machine lead by Fabiani. I doubt it was luskin's idea to try to smear George, Dave, VDV, etc. by leaking their names to the press, but that is exactly what Fabiani would do.
> 
> Armstrong has a delicate choice. If USADA sanctions him he has huge financial exposure to various lawsuits. It might be smart for him to try to fight USADA and hope for a miracle then not fight it and spend the next few years fighting various companies looking for their money back


IMHO, USADA will just sanction him. Fortunately the arbitrators are educated people, although I suppose anything can happen. All the lawyers know he's guilty, the media all know he's guilty, even people like Rick Reilly, Jenkins and others who have been leeched onto LA for so long;they know he's guilty but they realize idiots buy stuff too.

The general public OTOH, are complete morons who think on such a simple level it's breathtaking. They either have no morals whatsoever or they are dumb as rocks who 'don't believe what they see in the media' ie, it's all a conspiracy....


----------



## David Loving

Where's Nancy Grace? A little ad hom here, but you guys are all drama-philes. You can have 20 witnesses and lose. Did the government have 10 witnesses in the Clemens case? ya think? did Andy Petit help them. My money says USADA has 10 Andy Petits. My prior post was about the Daubert case not pro cycling gossip. FWIW Lance is a dream client. He's a hero and he can afford it and he likes a good fight.


----------



## MarkS

David Loving said:


> FWIW Lance is a dream client. He's a hero and he can afford it and he likes a good fight.


My guess is that Lance is both a dream client and the client from hell. Those two things are not inconsistent.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Where's Nancy Grace? A little ad hom here, but you guys are all drama-philes. You can have 20 witnesses and lose. Did the government have 10 witnesses in the Clemens case? ya think? did Andy Petit help them. My money says USADA has 10 Andy Petits. My prior post was about the Daubert case not pro cycling gossip. FWIW Lance is a dream client. He's a hero and he can afford it and he likes a good fight.


the Government had 1 witness in the Clemens case. A drug dealer


----------



## David Loving

Nope. see No Roger Clemens testimony as defense rests case - ESPN

According to a quick google search turning up the ESPN article, the government put on 23 witnesses and the defense put on 23.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Nope. see No Roger Clemens testimony as defense rests case - ESPN
> 
> According to a quick google search turning up the ESPN article, the government put on 23 witnesses and the defense put on 23.


wrong again. 

USADA has over a dozen direct witnesses of Lance's doping. How many said they watched Clemens dope? 

There is no comparison. If all of his Yankee teammates had said they not only watched lance dope but also shared dope then it might be comparable, but it isn't. This is also an AAA case, not a criminal one. 

If you want to continue to discuss Clemens I suggest opening a thread as he has nothing to do with Armstrong


----------



## juno

MarkS said:


> My guess is that Lance is both a dream client and the client from hell. Those two things are not inconsistent.


That is probably the truest statement in this thread.  
He is a hard man.
I do not think this is the average case where a well-heeled client pays big dollars and let's the lawyers come up with the defense.
LA will probably try to manage every aspect of his defense.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Axe said:


> No, they do not. Your fantasies are not reality. You have NO idea whatsoever who will testify what. None.
> 
> 
> 
> They had physical evidence.
> 
> This thread is a circle jerk of a handful of clueless haters.


USADA also has physical evidence. You didn't read the USADA letter did you? They also talk about the number of witnesses in there. 

Don't let the facts get in the way. 

Instead of insults for posters you do not agree with please tell us why Lance is innocent and George, Levi, VDV and Dave Z are bitter liars?


----------



## David Loving

I agree with Axe - shame Nancy Grace is not a cyclist -


----------



## heathb

If I had to take a guess at what will happen in this case I'd say Lance will never crack under the pressure. I think he'll get off with a slap on the wrist and he'll get to keep his 7 TDF wins. Unless someones got some photos of a unit of blood hanging above Lances arm while he's wearing a yellow jersey then Lance can just keep denying everything even if his best buds spill the beans. One thing is for certain Lance would rather die then sit on television having to confess that he's a fraud.


----------



## Handbrake2

Chris-X said:


> Yes, but you support Armstrong regardless of any critical thinking. So if Armstrong has better arguments, you support him and he wins. If he argues complete nonsense you still support him. I'm hoping you can see how biased you are


How is that any different from you and your camp? Anything printed in the media that suggests Armstong doped you accept as fact. Anything that doesn't you claim is part of The Conspiracy. Even people who aren't even asked about it, if they don't go out of their way to bring it up, you claim are part of The Conspiracy.

If the USADA wins you'll claim you were right all along. As if you had based your decision on evidence. If Armstrong wins you'll say he paid off someone or had one of his powerful friends get him off the hook.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Handbrake2 said:


> How is that any different from you and your camp? Anything printed in the media that suggests Armstong doped you accept as fact. Anything that doesn't you claim is part of The Conspiracy. Even people who aren't even asked about it, if they don't go out of their way to bring it up, you claim are part of The Conspiracy.
> 
> If the USADA wins you'll claim you were right all along. As if you had based your decision on evidence. If Armstrong wins you'll say he paid off someone or had one of his powerful friends get him off the hook.


This conspiracy you refer to, is it the one were the French spiked his 99 samples or the one were USADA conspired with Hincapie and Levi to bring Lance down? 

Lance's lawyers filed a 111 page complaint today filled with absurd conspiracy theories. They should be embarrassed but at $1,000 per hour they are laughing as they write every word


----------



## Samadhi

Handbrake2 said:


> How is that any different from you and your camp? Anything printed in the media that suggests Armstong doped you accept as fact. Anything that doesn't you claim is part of The Conspiracy. Even people who aren't even asked about it, if they don't go out of their way to bring it up, you claim are part of The Conspiracy.
> 
> If the USADA wins you'll claim you were right all along. As if you had based your decision on evidence. If Armstrong wins you'll say he paid off someone or had one of his powerful friends get him off the hook.


must + rep ....


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> must + rep ....


Does that mean anything at all from a person who doesn't care what the facts are shown to be?



Samadhi said:


> I should condemn a man because I happen to _think_ he's perpetrated a fraud?
> 
> This is a great country we live in, ain't it, Chris?.
> 
> That's what LA did, and quite frankly a lot of cancer survivors don't gove a damn about where the money came from.
> 
> *People don't care about cheating*. People *don't care about fraud*. All people care about is *who wins*. The* end justifies the means*. *It isn't how you play the game.* *Look around you Chris, it's a world where rules are for the loosers.*
> 
> 
> I know someone whose fight with cancer is way harder than mine and she survives because of what *she read by LA, because she saw that the fight for survival is actually worth it*. Now, in my friends case, the cervical cancer will take her soon enough and that will be a sad day for those of us who know her, but she'll go out kicking and screaming. *The cancer will kill her, but it will not defeat her and we can thank Lance Armstrong for that.*
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not an apologist at all. I simply don't care about what he's done.


----------



## 95zpro

I think the USADA is praying that LA doesn't crack, because with all of the evidence they have at this point they don't need him. The betting odds now are how many TDF titles he will lose; 7, 3 etc. Unlike a true courtroom, during the arbitration process the USADA can use circumstantial evidence including testimony if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, his legal team knows the odds of trying to refute all of the witness testimony. Plus by keeping the evidence close to the vest it will be real interesting to see what the USADA has up their sleeve, Isuspect that they probably have some damning evidence from the CONI investigation etcl. Anyway to me it will be interesting to hear how doping occured and how they got away with it "allegedly". The unknown is why we are seeing LA's defense team make the surprising amateur moves that they are making right now. Anyway I think it is very interesting; can't wait till November!


----------



## heathb

95zpro said:


> I think the USADA is praying that LA doesn't crack, because with all of the evidence they have at this point they don't need him. The betting odds now are how many TDF titles he will lose; 7, 3 etc. Unlike a true courtroom, during the arbitration process the USADA can use circumstantial evidence including testimony if I'm not mistaken. Regardless, his legal team knows the odds of trying to refute all of the witness testimony. Plus by keeping the evidence close to the vest it will be real interesting to see what the USADA has up their sleeve, Isuspect that they probably have some damning evidence from the CONI investigation etcl. Anyway to me it will be interesting to hear how doping occured and how they got away with it "allegedly". The unknown is why we are seeing LA's defense team make the surprising amateur moves that they are making right now. Anyway I think it is very interesting; can't wait till November!


The problem with taking his 7 titles will be who's going to get them. 90% of the TDF field was doping back then, in an endless sea of doping you might as well declare those years null and void.


----------



## den bakker

heathb said:


> The problem with taking his 7 titles will be who's going to get them. 90% of the TDF field was doping back then, in an endless sea of doping you might as well declare those years null and void.


10 years after the race the results stands, per uci rulings in the past, e.g. Riis.


----------



## roddjbrown

heathb said:


> ...you might as well declare those years null and void.


I think ultimately that's what should be done. Not going to happen without a big UCI clearout though, can't imagine they're prepared to admit the whole thing was a farce


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> Does that mean anything at all from a person who doesn't care what the facts are shown to be?


Yes I think that is what he was getting at. But it is not that the facts don't matter (which by the way only the USADA, LA, and lawyers associated with each know what the facts of the case are) it's the timing that rules this case irrelevant for a number of fans the % of which I believe is larger than some would like to think. Now the charges from 2009 and 2010 to me are somewhat relevant though they should have come to light in 2009 and 2010. What is also important is what the UCI is doing to police itself if indeed there was a cover up involved in the biopassport program concerning those years. 

What really sucks about this whole f'n thing is that now doping is the first thing on people's minds when guys like Wiggins and Froome have the TT of their life. My in-laws are not cyclist, but I made them sit down and watch the TT. They were blown away by the bikes, crowds, energy of the whole thing, and at dinner the LA was brought up, not be me, and I had to give a brief layout of the land in pro cycling concerning drugs. I'm quite sure they will not watch another stage with the same infectious excitement as I was able to witness. 

The riders know about the drugs, who in the peloton uses, in some cases even the doctors who train them (according to those who post on this forum) the choice to use or not is up to them. If the powers that be go after and nab those who are currently in the peloton it has a much bigger influence on the twenty something riders then knowing that if you are caught 10yrs after the fact they can take away your TOF title, but the money you earned during those 10 yrs is yours to keep if you're smart and fess up when you're caught. It's much worse to get kicked out when you're 25 (look at Ricco) than to get kicked out when you're 40.


----------



## den bakker

SicBith said:


> Yes I think that is what he was getting at. But it is not that the facts don't matter (which by the way only the USADA, LA, and lawyers associated with each know what the facts of the case are) it's the timing that rules this case irrelevant for a number of fans the % of which I believe is larger than some would like to think. Now the charges from 2009 and 2010 to me are somewhat relevant though they should have come to light in 2009 and 2010. What is also important is what the UCI is doing to police itself if indeed there was a cover up involved in the biopassport program concerning those years.
> 
> What really sucks about this whole f'n thing is that now doping is the first thing on people's minds when guys like Wiggins and Froome have the TT of their life. My in-laws are not cyclist, but I made them sit down and watch the TT. They were blown away by the bikes, crowds, energy of the whole thing, and at dinner the LA was brought up, not be me, and I had to give a brief layout of the land in pro cycling concerning drugs. I'm quite sure they will not watch another stage with the same infectious excitement as I was able to witness.
> 
> The riders know about the drugs, who in the peloton uses, in some cases even the doctors who train them (according to those who post on this forum) the choice to use or not is up to them. If the powers that be go after and nab those who are currently in the peloton it has a much bigger influence on the twenty something riders then knowing that if you are caught 10yrs after the fact they can take away your TOF title, but the money you earned during those 10 yrs is yours to keep if you're smart and fess up when you're caught. It's much worse to get kicked out when you're 25 (look at Ricco) than to get kicked out when you're 40.


good thing the case is also about looking forward and getting rid of some of the prominent players that keep on surfacing. 
Ferrari, Del Moral And Marti Banned For Life In US Postal Case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Axe

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA also has physical evidence. You didn't read the USADA letter did you? They also talk about the number of witnesses in there.
> 
> Don't let the facts get in the way.
> 
> Instead of insults for posters you do not agree with please tell us why Lance is innocent and George, Levi, VDV and Dave Z are bitter liars?


Did you bother to read what you quoted?

The point is that you have NO idea what they will testify. None. It has nothing to do with who is guilty of what. It has to do with the fact that you are blowing hot air.

It is not an insult when it is true.


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> Does that mean anything at all from a person who doesn't care what the facts are shown to be?


As far as the actual case is concerned, I haven't seen any "facts" yet.

I've read a lot of the drivel that you, Falsetti and others are spouting, but none of what I've read can be considered fact, because nothing has been proven.

I'm waiting till the hearings are made public.

You may think you have facts at you're disposal and if you want to live in that kind of world, I'm okay with that, but just because you believe something is so, doesn't mean I have to accept it as fact on that basis.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Axe said:


> Did you bother to read what you quoted?
> 
> The point is that you have NO idea what they will testify. None. It has nothing to do with who is guilty of what. It has to do with the fact that you are blowing hot air.
> 
> It is not an insult when it is true.


I know many of the witnesses and have talked about this with them for years. You hero is screwed. Best to start coming to grips with this fact


----------



## The Tedinator

Food for thought:

Lance Armstrong: Victim? - Page 1 | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## superjesus

The Tedinator said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> Lance Armstrong: Victim? - Page 1 | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com


Good article. :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

superjesus said:


> Good article. :thumbsup:


What part was good? 

I have yet to see a valid strategy, just talking points. When the article starts with claiming that WADA has a "cluster of murkily defined powers" you have to laugh. WADA rules and scope are clearly defined. You can read them all here if you like

The Code - World Anti-Doping Agency

Babbling that "WADA is answerable to nobody" is just stupid. WADA cases are brought in front of the same AAA systems used by thousands of business to solve disputes. Dopers can also appeal to CAS and even the Swiss courts. 

Lance's agent wrote much of the code he is currently complaining about. If he thought it was so bad why has he repeatedly praised WADA over the years?

When reporters parrott Armstrong talking points they end up looking silly


----------



## The Tedinator

We can all agree that Ferrari got what was coming to him. But I for one am a little squeamish about an Italian being nailed to the wall by an organization that isn't part of the US judicial system; and now has no recourse in the US legal system, or, I assume, the Italian legal system. 

I would hate to have my livelihood, property, and money taken from me by a European organization, and have no legal recourse in that European country, or courts here in the US. And trust me, Joe Sixpack here in the US isn't going to be to enamored of that concept either.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Tedinator said:


> We can all agree that Ferrari got what was coming to him. But I for one am a little squeamish about an Italian being nailed to the wall by an organization that isn't part of the US judicial system; and now has no recourse in the US legal system, or, I assume, the Italian legal system.
> 
> I would hate to have my livelihood, property, and money taken from me by a European organization, and have no legal recourse in that European country, or courts here in the US. And trust me, Joe Sixpack here in the US isn't going to be to enamored of that concept either.


He was not nailed to the wall. He is not going to prison. The governing body who governs his sport has said he is no longer welcome. Just like CONI (Italy) did to Valverde (Spain)


----------



## The Tedinator

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He was not nailed to the wall. He is not going to prison. The governing body who governs his sport has said he is no longer welcome. Just like CONI (Italy) did to Valverde (Spain)


In my book, banned for life is pretty much nailed to the wall. Don't get me wrong, I'm crying crocodile tears out of my glass eye for him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Tedinator said:


> In my book, banned for life is pretty much nailed to the wall. Don't get me wrong, I'm crying crocodile tears out of my glass eye for him.


Ferrari made over $30 million selling his "Services" 

He broke very rule the sport has. It is perfectly rational that he should be banned by the body who regulates it.


----------



## tricycletalent

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ferrari made over $30 million selling his "Services"
> 
> He broke very rule the sport has. It is perfectly rational that he should be banned by the body who regulates it.


Did he have a licence or any official affiliation when handing out drugs? No? Then how can they punish him, and claim being anything but a mob organization?


----------



## David Loving

Jurisdiction does not mean much these days


----------



## OldChipper

I gotta say, though like the author of the Outside article, I believe Lance doped, I agree with the points and concerns that he raises. One of the founding principles of the nation and Constitution is that an individual can not be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process, and the USADA can certainly deprive one of livelihood and reputation and does not currently appear to be subject to the normal controls of due process. I'd say there's a pretty decent case that it's a state actor based on the information presented in the article. Our zeal against drugs and doping in this country has certainly more than whittled away at some very fundamental rights, and this isn't the only example. In addition, I remain very uncomfortable with the concept of a "non-analytical positive" ESPECIALLY without the protections of due process (discovery, etc.) and given that USADA can, in effect, exercise government power to "prove" these cases without the controls of government - which, let's face it, have not even been very effective when law enforcement "just knows" that someone is guilty (ref: The Innocence Project). Just because "we all know he's guilty" is no excuse. Note that it cuts both ways too. If this becomes a government issue, Lance also faces SUBSTANTIAL penalties if he is found guilty of witness tampering/intimidation - more so than if it's undertaken as an arbitration process.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> I gotta say, though like the author of the Outside article, I believe Lance doped, I agree with the points and concerns that he raises. One of the founding principles of the nation and Constitution is that an individual can not be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process, and the USADA can certainly deprive one of livelihood and reputation and does not currently appear to be subject to the normal controls of due process. I'd say there's a pretty decent case that it's a state actor based on the information presented in the article. Our zeal against drugs and doping in this country has certainly more than whittled away at some very fundamental rights, and this isn't the only example. In addition, I remain very uncomfortable with the concept of a "non-analytical positive" ESPECIALLY without the protections of due process (discovery, etc.) and given that USADA can, in effect, exercise government power to "prove" these cases without the controls of government - which, let's face it, have not even been very effective when law enforcement "just knows" that someone is guilty (ref: The Innocence Project). Just because "we all know he's guilty" is no excuse. Note that it cuts both ways too. If this becomes a government issue, Lance also faces SUBSTANTIAL penalties if he is found guilty of witness tampering/intimidation - more so than if it's undertaken as an arbitration process.


Can people be fired or sanctioned by corporations working in conjunction with professional organizations?

Can people be fired for no reason at all?

Do employees or independent contractors have due process protections from being fired or santioned?

Can companies under the auspices of the SEC, Finra, AICPA, DOT, FAA, or any other Gov't agency, or organization which has powers delegated to it by gov't., sanction or fire people?


----------



## OldChipper

Chris-X, yep, but your analogy fails on two counts. One, those employees have full access to due process through the Federal court system and/or the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board AND those agencies/entities and their powers were created with a great deal more deliberation, legislation and/or rule-making than was the USADA.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> Chris-X, yep, but your analogy fails on two counts. One, those employees have full access to due process through the Federal court system and/or the Federal Merit Systems Protection Board AND those agencies/entities and their powers were created with a great deal more deliberation, legislation and/or rule-making than was the USADA.


People who are fired without cause have access to due process?

When do others who are fired have a claim? After they are fired?

Federal Merit Systems Protections Board protects employees of private companies? 

SEC has delegated authority to AICPA. When an accountant gets called on the carpet at his private company because he has violated his Professional Ethical responsibilities under the AICPA, he can invoke his constitutional rights to remain silent and confront his accusers to prevent from being fired?

United States Anti-Doping Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sounds like a decent amount of deliberation to me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

tricycletalent said:


> Did he have a licence or any official affiliation when handing out drugs? No? Then how can they punish him, and claim being anything but a mob organization?


Start here

http://inrng.com/2012/07/uci-president-wrong/

All employees of ProTour teams have to have a UCI license, even the guy who drives the bus. 

Mob? That is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with the sport saying that toxic elements like Ferrari are not allowed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> I gotta say, though like the author of the Outside article, I believe Lance doped, I agree with the points and concerns that he raises. One of the founding principles of the nation and Constitution is that an individual can not be deprived of life, liberty of property without due process, and the USADA can certainly deprive one of livelihood and reputation and does not currently appear to be subject to the normal controls of due process. I'd say there's a pretty decent case that it's a state actor based on the information presented in the article. Our zeal against drugs and doping in this country has certainly more than whittled away at some very fundamental rights, and this isn't the only example. In addition, I remain very uncomfortable with the concept of a "non-analytical positive" ESPECIALLY without the protections of due process (discovery, etc.) and given that USADA can, in effect, exercise government power to "prove" these cases without the controls of government - which, let's face it, have not even been very effective when law enforcement "just knows" that someone is guilty (ref: The Innocence Project). Just because "we all know he's guilty" is no excuse. Note that it cuts both ways too. If this becomes a government issue, Lance also faces SUBSTANTIAL penalties if he is found guilty of witness tampering/intimidation - more so than if it's undertaken as an arbitration process.


Absurd. USADA is not putting Lance in jail. There is zero case that USADA is a state actor, this have been tested in court multiple times. 

You are basically saying that Armstrong is a fool because for years agreed to this arbitration process that was written by his business partner Bill Stapleton.


----------



## OldChipper

Chris-X said:


> People who are fired without cause have access to due process?
> 
> When do others who are fired have a claim? After they are fired?
> 
> Federal Merit Systems Protections Board protects employees of private companies?
> 
> SEC has delegated authority to AICPA. When an accountant gets called on the carpet at his private company because he has violated his Professional Ethical responsibilities under the AICPA, he can invoke his constitutional rights to remain silent and confront his accusers to prevent from being fired?
> 
> United States Anti-Doping Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sounds like a decent amount of deliberation to me.


Several of the agencies you cite are Federal Agencies (e.g. DOT, FAA) and MSPB does cover them because they're Federal employees. 

Does someone fired without cause potentially have access to due process? Yes (confused about why you think they don't). E.g. wrongful termination. They may not succeed in their pleading (especially if for "simple" economic reasons), but they do have recourse. 

Plus let's be clear, they're proposing to do a heck of a lot more than fire him. A simple firing, he could find another job, they're banning him from his (and several related) profession(s). 

I suspect that someone sanctioned by AICPA (or AMA or the state bar associations etc.) has access to the Federal courts if they believe the sanction was capricious or not based on provable fact. So your point is that anyone should be able to be stripped of their livelihood for any reason including "everyone thinks they did it" and shouldn't have access to due process: be presented with the evidence against them, the ability to confront witnesses, jury of their peers, etc.? 

Actually, there's pretty much nothing on your Wikipedia link regarding the deliberative process. Interestingly though, I followed the link to the USADA's list of sanctioned athletes and noted the conspicuous absence of Michael Phelps. Seems like having one's picture with a bong should be as much of a "non-analytical" positive as some people saying they saw you with a needle in your arm. I'm also really struck by the number of 1 year suspensions for whereabouts failures and the suspensions for marijuana which doesn't really strike me as a performance *enhancing* substance (unless we're talking competitive eating).


----------



## OldChipper

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Absurd. USADA is not putting Lance in jail. There is zero case that USADA is a state actor, this have been tested in court multiple times.
> 
> You are basically saying that Armstrong is a fool because for years agreed to this arbitration process that was written by his business partner Bill Stapleton.


And I said they were putting him in jail where? If you'd open your eyes/ears, I think you'd agree there's a pretty decent case that they are in practice if not in fact. Subpoena powers (in effect if not in fact), perjury penalties, cutting deals to obtain testimony, etc. what state powers do they not have other than actual incarceration? 

OK, stipulated; he's a fool. So? 

Seriously, you guys are after LA like he's the cause of all doping in sport and nailing him will put an end to it forever. He's a symptom, not the cause. Whether or not Lance doped, no one should be deprived of their livelihood without due process. This is 'mericuh.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> Several of the agencies you cite are Federal Agencies (e.g. DOT, FAA) and MSPB does cover them because they're Federal employees.


Truck drivers who work for UPS and airline pilots who work for Delta are Federal Employees?



OldChipper said:


> Does someone fired without cause potentially have access to due process? Yes (confused about why you think they don't). E.g. wrongful termination. They may not succeed in their pleading (especially if for "simple" economic reasons), but they do have recourse.


Armstrong is not "fired." He's "suspended without pay." Armstrong hasn't been "wrongfully terminated" yet. Most employees/independent contractors don't have the ability to have public forums to demonstrate that they are being wronged as a condition of their employment. Armstrong does and we all look forward to USADA's public hearing where he can demonstrate his innocence and how the bad people are screwing him..:lol:




OldChipper said:


> Plus let's be clear, they're proposing to do a heck of a lot more than fire him. A simple firing, he could find another job, they're banning him from his (and several related) profession(s).


So doctors, lawyers, accountants, pilots, truck drivers, paramedics or anyone else who is sanctioned and loses their livelihood is different?

I thought he was retired from professional athletics anyway? Oh, that's right, he's wearing a Speedo now. No one is stopping him from selling FRS.:lol:

Evidently USADA believes Armstrong's level of fraudulent activity warrants the sanctions they're trying to impose.



OldChipper said:


> I suspect that someone sanctioned by AICPA (or AMA or the state bar associations etc.) has access to the Federal courts if they believe the sanction was capricious or not based on provable fact.


If/when Armstrong is sanctioned by USADA he can go through the courts for his remedy. How is that different than anyone else? He hasn't been sanctioned yet, has he?



OldChipper said:


> *So* *your point is that anyone should be able to be stripped of their livelihood for any reason including* *"everyone thinks they did it" and shouldn't have access to due process: be presented with the evidence against them, the ability to confront witnesses, jury of their peers, etc.?*


Where do you come up with these conclusions? Who said Armstrong shouldn't have access to due process or that he should lose his profession for capricious reasons?

People are stripped of their livelihoods every day by corporations and private companies who in conjunction with both Federal agencies and quasi governmental agencies, have determined that those people are guilty of some kind of misconduct. They don't have any due process protections before they're terminated. They are just escorted off the premises. USADA provides more protections than most. He'll be able to confront his accusers with his attorneys in an open public hearing where he can convince all of us of his innocence.

I can't wait for that!:lol::lol:

If that doesn't turn out in his favor he can go to the courts.

Way to completely mischaracterize my point also.



OldChipper said:


> Actually, there's pretty much nothing on your Wikipedia link regarding the deliberative process. Interestingly though, I followed the link to the USADA's list of sanctioned athletes and noted the conspicuous absence of Michael Phelps. Seems like having one's picture with a bong should be as much of a "non-analytical" positive as some people saying they saw you with a needle in your arm. I'm also really struck by the number of 1 year suspensions for whereabouts failures and the suspensions for marijuana which doesn't really strike me as a performance *enhancing* substance (unless we're talking competitive eating).


That wasn't what you were asking. This was:




> agencies/entities and their powers were created with a great deal more deliberation, legislation and/or rule-making than was the USADA.


You weren't asking about USADA's "deliberative process." You were asking about the rationale behind the creation of USADA which is included in the wiki link.


----------



## Mulowe

*Gut check time*

Im so tired of every possible avenue being debated as to how or why Lance is somehow being slighted in this process.
Its his process that he agreed to. 
He has due process to defend himself.
Im also exhausted by the Lack of outrage at his conduct if these accusations are true.
im sorry but many of the Loyalists are not being realists.
GUT CHECK TIME
If this was any other Professional Cyclist you all would be singing a different tune.
At worst you would say lets see how they answer the charges but you would absolutely Demand that they have an opportunity and must answer the charges.You would not spend countless hours on legal wiggle theory's about the correctness of the process.

Am I right?
Sorry Folks but hes most likely a key architect and participant of one of the biggest sporting frauds in history.
Yes , History.
But I can only be 100% certain of that once he answers the charges.
Until then there can and should be room for doubt.
Each of us have our opinions about what % of doubt should be appropriate and that's fine.
We can argue about that degree of certainty but we all should demand the hearings take place.

If any of you Really love the sport you should demand the charges be answered and then decide.
But this DONT BLAME THE PLAYER BLAME THE GAME strategy is simply BS.

Ive said it before this is a discussion about Integrity.
Not just his, Ours as well.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> And I said they were putting him in jail where? If you'd open your eyes/ears, I think you'd agree there's a pretty decent case that they are in practice if not in fact. Subpoena powers (in effect if not in fact), perjury penalties, cutting deals to obtain testimony, etc. what state powers do they not have other than actual incarceration?
> 
> OK, stipulated; he's a fool. So?
> 
> Seriously, you guys are after LA like he's the cause of all doping in sport and nailing him will put an end to it forever. He's a symptom, not the cause. Whether or not Lance doped, no one should be deprived of their livelihood without due process. This is 'mericuh.


You introduced the "deprived of his liberty" idea not I. 

It is not the doping that irritates me as much as the intentional misrepresentation of the facts by Lance, his lawyers, and his loyal followers. He will get due process, he will know what all the evidence is and be able to cross examine his accusers. 

There is an aggressive effort to distort the reality of the process. Most rational people find that disturbing.


----------



## David Loving

Oh he probably knows what the evidence is. LA has been dealing with this for years. What bothers me about this is the "positive result - no test" business where the accused is hung just on the basis of conversation. Unless the charging body can prove whatever substances LA used, if he did, I don't care if 20 witnesses testify. I don't see how USADA can get anywhere without a failed test. If they have new science that can analyse a sample more closely, then OK, if the science passes the Daubert test. But if this is a bunch of "I know he did so and so but I can't prove it." It's just similar to proving a tax case because the accused lived well on small reported income (Al Capone) - and even an 'above one's means' tax case has solid numbers. Here so far I fail to see how they prove it. I'm interested in how this plays out and what the Treaty angle means.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Oh he probably knows what the evidence is. LA has been dealing with this for years. What bothers me about this is the "positive result - no test" business where the accused is hung just on the basis of conversation. Unless the charging body can prove whatever substances LA used, if he did, I don't care if 20 witnesses testify. I don't see how USADA can get anywhere without a failed test. If they have new science that can analyse a sample more closely, then OK, if the science passes the Daubert test. But if this is a bunch of "I know he did so and so but I can't prove it." It's just similar to proving a tax case because the accused lived well on small reported income (Al Capone) - and even an 'above one's means' tax case has solid numbers. Here so far I fail to see how they prove it. I'm interested in how this plays out and what the Treaty angle means.


WADA has been very successful with Non-Analytical positives lately. Valverde, Jones, Scarponi, Basso, Ullrich, LeoGrande. UCI has also done a few on their own, Igor Astarloa 
Pietro Caucchioli, Francesco De Bonis, Franco Pellizotti, Ricardo Serrano, Tadej Valjavec


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency studies Lance Armstrong's 2009 blood in attempt to convict him as cheater - NY Daily News

Armstrong 2009 blood values continue to be questioned 



> "That would ring bells," said Wadler. "That would certainly require some explanation as to why there was such an aberration


Wait till he sees the results from 2010:thumbsup: UCI would not share the 2010 results with WADA for 2 years. They even destroyed the samples. Wonder what they were hiding? 

Remember when Lance's paid liars said they had not seen any evidence? Yeah, that was a lie


> Court papers reveal that Luskin acknowledged USADA’s blood testing information in a letter dated June 16, a day after USADA shared the spreadsheets with Armstrong's legal team.


----------



## OldChipper

David Loving said:


> What bothers me about this is the "positive result - no test" business where the accused is hung just on the basis of conversation. Unless the charging body can prove whatever substances LA used, if he did, I don't care if 20 witnesses testify. I don't see how USADA can get anywhere without a failed test. If they have new science that can analyse a sample more closely, then OK, if the science passes the Daubert test. But if this is a bunch of "I know he did so and so but I can't prove it." It's just similar to proving a tax case because the accused lived well on small reported income (Al Capone) - and even an 'above one's means' tax case has solid numbers. Here so far I fail to see how they prove it. I'm interested in how this plays out and what the Treaty angle means.


^This. Still seems like *some* physical evidence should be required given the consequences. If they can produce it, then fine.


----------



## Samadhi

OldChipper said:


> ^This. Still seems like *some* physical evidence should be required given the consequences. If they can produce it, then fine.


But applying "new" science to "old" samples should be out.

If the testing methods back in the day couldn't detect doping accurately then that's the USADA's problem. If you passed the test, you passed the test. Going back and applying more spohiticated methods is patently and egregiously unfair. The relevant techniques and results are those that were taken/used at the time.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> But applying "new" science to "old" samples should be out.
> 
> If the testing methods back in the day couldn't detect doping accurately then that's the USADA's problem. If you passed the test, you passed the test. *Going back and applying more spohiticated methods is patently and egregiously unfair.* The relevant techniques and results are those that were taken/used at the time.


Doping and cheating is unfair. Using advanced testing to catch dopers and cheaters is not unfair. 

Where were you when Davide Rebellin tested positive for CERA? Or does this "No Retro testing" thing only apply to Lance


----------



## adimiro

Samhadi, maybe you should apply the same conditions to those that have been exonerated by new DNA testing retroactively applied to 'old' crimes or perhaps the conviction of cold criminal cases that have been solved by applying new technology.

Amazing how logic and conclusions are biased by preconceptions.


----------



## Fireform

I don't believe a shred of physical evidence was required to send Jerry Sandusky to prison for life.


----------



## Samadhi

adimiro said:


> Samhadi, maybe you should apply the same conditions to those that have been exonerated by new DNA testing retroactively applied to 'old' crimes or perhaps the conviction of cold criminal cases that have been solved by applying new technology.


You equate cheating in a bike race with rape and murder.

Really not the same sort of thing. 

If you wanna go down that road, you'll need to recheck everyone in every pro bike race going back how far? That means you'll have to reorder finishing orders for every bike race going back how far? You'll have to rewrite the history of the sport. Maybe get Belgium to take Eddie's title away.

It would be cheaper and just as effective to simply vacate every single pro bike race for the last 50 years. In fact, lets just bag pro cycle racing altogether. You can't cheat if there's no game to play and that's all this is - a game. It's really not that important.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> ^This. *Still seems like *some* physical evidence* should be required given the consequences. If they can produce it, then fine.


When you're trying to preserve an idol.



adimiro said:


> Samhadi, maybe you should apply the same conditions to *those that have been exonerated *by new DNA testing retroactively applied to 'old' crimes or perhaps the conviction of cold criminal cases that have been solved by applying new technology.
> 
> *Amazing how logic and conclusions are biased by preconceptions*.


Who cares about them? They're not photographed exercising with their shirts off, living large, and banging skeezers.

I'm continually amazed also. Please let me keep worshipping Lance!



Fireform said:


> I don't believe a shred of physical evidence was required to send Jerry Sandusky to prison for life.


You'd think this simple sentence would slam the lid on the idea but we're dealing with emotional attachment issues here.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Doping and cheating is unfair. Using advanced testing to catch dopers and cheaters is not unfair.
> 
> Where were you when Davide Rebellin tested positive for CERA? Or does this "No Retro testing" thing only apply to Lance


No, and I think we should give you an award for being The King of Non-Sequitur.

If you have rules, then there must be a means for testing for rules violations (ie cheating). You have to do this in any form of racing because ther will ALWAYs be racers or teams who will stretch those rules to the point of breaking them. They'll go as far with this as they can get away with.

If your policies and procedures at any given time can't of don't catch rules violations, then technically there is no cheating. If you can't prove it, it didn't happen. Others racer's say-so is insufficient, because their motivation for protesting may be motivated by a desire to advance their own position and not to enforce fairness. In other forms of racing, if a protest is lodged, theen an inspection is made. Also, podium finishers are always inspected regardless of protest. In some forms of motorsports all qualifying teams are inspected before the race - they even impound cars between qualifying and the race (it's called parc ferme') to ensure illegal modification of the car. All these methods are used to ensure rules compliance and fairnesss. It applies to everyone.

If a team did get away with cheating in that scenario - it happens - it's the fault of the sanctioning body and not the team. There's no official body that sanctions racing that goes back and tries to establish cheating years after the fact. They may tighten up rules, policies and procedures to prevent cheating in the future, but to go back and apply past results to modern scrutiny is never done. It would compromise the authority of the sanctioning body as well as diminish confidence in the rules and procedures.

Except here.

Joe McCarthy wasn't THIS bad.


----------



## adimiro

Samadhi said:


> *You equate cheating in a bike race with rape and murder.*
> 
> Really not the same sort of thing.
> 
> If you wanna go down that road, you'll need to recheck everyone in every pro bike race going back how far? That means you'll have to reorder finishing orders for every bike race going back how far? You'll have to rewrite the history of the sport. Maybe get Belgium to take Eddie's title away.
> 
> It would be cheaper and just as effective to simply vacate every single pro bike race for the last 50 years. In fact, lets just bag pro cycle racing altogether. You can't cheat if there's no game to play and that's all this is - a game. It's really not that important.



The concept of applying 'new' technology to 'old' evidence holds true regardless of the crime. 

Please do not attempt to confuse, muddle or distract from it's application to Armstrong or any other accused PED-abusing professional athlete.


----------



## OldChipper

OK, for the nuance-challenged among our ranks, here's the distinction...

Murder and child sexual abuse are *crimes* against the law, and their wrong-ness doesn't change no matter what and should be pursued and prosecuted no matter what valid test or technique can be used to apprehend the perpetrator. 

Doping is against the *rules* and the rules are a) basically arbitrary (why is training at altitude OK but slamming a unit of blood not?) b) change over time (bike configuration, bike weight, saline drips, etc.) and c) must have specific measurements/tests established that define what is and is not against them. 

See the difference? Against the law - murder....... Against the rules - bike too light

That's why DNA convictions and exonerations are fundamentally different from applying new tests (nevermind the chain of custody issues) to rider samples. 

Samadhi has it right. In all endeavors, aggressive competitors will always push the boundaries of the rules and we, as a society, often laud their creativity in gaining a competitive advantage. 

As I'm getting tired of saying, I'm pretty sure Lance doped and from what I hear, he sounds like a real jerk. I just enjoy pursuing a good argument and, to this point, the fan-bois have some valid points/objections (that frankly should have applied to others before Lance) that the cancer-lovers can't see their way around, blinded by their Lance-must-be-gotten-at-any-cost worldview.


----------



## King Arthur

il sogno said:


> What is your reasoning with this? Why would leniency make their testimony somewhat suspect?


I beleive my spouse would call it "buying testimony in lieu of less serious consequences".
She mentions that can certainly lend some doubt as to the motivation of the witness, as well as why after all these years now come forward.


----------



## adimiro

OldChipper said:


> *OK, for the nuance-challenged among our ranks, here's the distinction...
> *
> Murder and child sexual abuse are *crimes* against the law, and their wrong-ness doesn't change no matter what and should be pursued and prosecuted no matter what valid test or technique can be used to apprehend the perpetrator.
> 
> Doping is against the *rules* and the rules are a) basically arbitrary (why is training at altitude OK but slamming a unit of blood not?) b) change over time (bike configuration, bike weight, saline drips, etc.) and c) must have specific measurements/tests established that define what is and is not against them.
> 
> See the difference? Against the law - murder....... Against the rules - bike too light
> 
> That's why DNA convictions and exonerations are fundamentally different from applying new tests (nevermind the chain of custody issues) to rider samples.
> 
> Samadhi has it right. In all endeavors, aggressive competitors will always push the boundaries of the rules and we, as a society, often laud their creativity in gaining a competitive advantage.
> 
> *As I'm getting tired of saying*, I'm pretty sure Lance doped and from what I hear, he sounds like a real jerk. I just enjoy pursuing a good argument and, to this point, the fan-bois have some valid points/objections (that frankly should have applied to others before Lance) that the cancer-lovers can't see their way around, blinded by their Lance-must-be-gotten-at-any-cost worldview.




Seems to me that it is you missing subtle nuance between the factual correctness and application. There is nothing fundementally flawed with applying new technology to evidence and this is independent on the nature or seriousness of the offense. Whether to use it to a murder case versus high school locker theft versus cheating from PED abuse is at the discretion of the appropriate enforcement agencies.

Everyone makes choices, but few are willing to accept the consequences.

Please do yourself a favor and stop saying what you are tired of saying.


----------



## Chris-X

*In an alternative universe*

without logic, and where words have no meanings, your contentions could possibly mean something, although I doubt it?

Any clue what nuance means?

nu·ance
   
1. 
a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc. 

2. 
a very slight difference or variation in color or tone. 


You're getting very tired? Imagine you had to continually address relentless absurd arguments? 

One of the "nuances" you illustrate for us is training at altitude vs. reinjecting previously extracted blood? Really? There's a subtle, slight, difference there? So blood doping which is against the rules is in the same category as riding around on a bike that may be too light and all of Armstrong's willful fraud, deception, and evasion, is in this category; *aggressive competitors will always push the boundaries of the rules and we, as a society, often laud their creativity in gaining a competitive advantage.* ut::skep::yikes:

I think you and obviously Samadhi are in the part of society that lauds or in your case apologizes for his "creativity."




OldChipper said:


> OK, for the nuance-challenged among our ranks, here's the distinction...
> 
> Murder and child sexual abuse are *crimes* against the law, and their wrong-ness doesn't change no matter what and should be pursued and prosecuted no matter what valid test or technique can be used to apprehend the perpetrator.
> 
> Doping is against the *rules* and the rules are a) basically arbitrary* (why is training at altitude OK but slamming a unit of blood not?) * b) change over time (bike configuration, bike weight, saline drips, etc.) and c) must have specific measurements/tests established that define what is and is not against them.
> 
> See the difference? Against the law - murder....... Against the rules - bike too light
> 
> That's why DNA convictions and exonerations are fundamentally different from applying new tests (nevermind the chain of custody issues) to rider samples.
> 
> Samadhi has it right. In all endeavors, aggressive competitors will always push the boundaries of the rules and we, as a society, often laud their creativity in gaining a competitive advantage.
> 
> *As I'm getting tired of saying*, I'm pretty sure Lance doped and from what I hear, he sounds like a real jerk. I just enjoy pursuing a good argument and, to this point, the fan-bois have some valid points/objections (that frankly should have applied to others before Lance) that the *cancer-lovers can't see their way around, blinded by their Lance-must-be-gotten-at-any-cost worldview*.


Nice strawman! McCain is now a cancer lover too!


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> without logic, and where words have no meanings, your contentions could possibly mean something, although I doubt it?
> 
> Any clue what nuance means?
> 
> nu·ance
> 
> 1.
> a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.
> 
> 2.
> a very slight difference or variation in color or tone.
> 
> 
> You're getting very tired? Imagine you had to continually address relentless absurd arguments?
> 
> One of the "nuances" you illustrate for us is training at altitude vs. reinjecting previously extracted blood? Really? There's a subtle, slight, difference there? So blood doping which is against the rules is in the same category as riding around on a bike that may be too light and all of Armstrong's willful fraud, deception, and evasion, is in this category; *aggressive competitors will always push the boundaries of the rules and we, as a society, often laud their creativity in gaining a competitive advantage.* ut::skep::yikes:
> 
> I think you and obvious Samadhi are in the part of society that lauds or in your case apologizes for his "creativity."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman! McCain is now a cancer lover too!


I don't think that's a strawman argument.

I believe this, however, is ...



> I think you and obvious Samadhi are in the part of society that lauds or in your case apologizes for his "creativity."


I don't think OC is "apologizing for Lance's doping. He's pointing out the the ubiquitous nature of his approach to competition, and the pointless futility in pursuing it.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> I don't think that's a strawman argument.
> 
> I believe this, however, is ...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think OC is "apologizing for Lance's doping. He's pointing out the the ubiquitous nature of his approach to competition, and the pointless futility in pursuing it.


It's clear you don't think that but the apologists arguments rely on hyperbole and strawmen all built on the foundation of idolatry.

Ubiquitous nature of his approach to competition? That's because of your extremely cynical outlook on life. You justify cheating because you think either a) everybody is cheating or b) doing the right thing gets you screwed.



Samadhi said:


> There's nothing to be gained in that. If you do the right thing is this country, here's what happens:
> 
> Lifeguard Tomas Lopez Fired After Helping Rescue Swimmer Outside Beach Zone (VIDEO)


I thought you were ignoring me anyway??



Samadhi said:


> It gets really personal - I put him on ignore cos it was just too much.
> 
> And who can actually argue facts on this board? The subject matter is so shot-through, with hyperbole, obfuscation, personal opinion and ad hominems as to make the discerning of facts in the matter virtually impossible.


You're right about being personal though. Your opinion is based on your personal beliefs that the ends justify the means and that everybody is cheating so why not, if you can't beat them, join them.




Samadhi said:


> I should condemn a man because* I happen to think he's perpetrated a fraud?
> *
> This is a great country we live in, ain't it, Chris?
> 
> 
> That's what LA did, and quite frankly a lot of cancer survivors don't gove a damn about where the money came from. .................... *People don't care about cheating*. *People don't care about fraud. All people care about is who wins. The end justifies the means. It isn't how you play the game. Look around you Chris, it's a world where rules are for the loosers...................*
> 
> 
> *No, I'm not an apologist at all. I simply don't care about what he's done, if he's done it at all.* On top of that, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is not based on what a bunch of armchair jurists think will happen when he has his hearing. Guilt is established after that and not before..


See, there's very little point in disputing your assertions. 

You think Armstrong is guilty. but even if he is, it doesn't matter because you don't care and besides that, everybody cheats. 

If people don't adopt your apathy about cheating and your understanding that it's ubiquitous you'll endlessly argue with them that they are wrong for conducting a "witch hunt" and they (Tygart)should be in prison, fearing rape!



Samadhi said:


> Simple. *None of that matters*. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. *LA is vindicated and Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower*. Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, *anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility *and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


Where is your credibility?


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> Ubiquitous nature of his approach to competition? That's because of your extremely cynical outlook on life. You justify cheating because you think either a) everybody is cheating


Everybody seems to be and it's been this way longer than I've been alive. In pro cycling all the greats have doped or used PEDs. It may be cynical but also illustrateds the futility of what's currently being done. It seeks to punish _wrongdoers_, rather than stop _wrongdoing_. In case you haven't noticed doing the former has yet to eliminate the latter. There is something fundamentally flawed in the system.

This board, regardless of it's topic, is about _dopers_ and not _doping_.



> or b) doing the right thing gets you screwed.


Generally speaking, that is the truth.





> I thought you were ignoring me anyway??


I was, and I do ...... most of the time. Sometimes I can't help myself. My evil twin Boscoe takes over and makes me **** with you :devil:





> You're right about being personal though. Your opinion is based on your personal beliefs that the ends justify the means


THAT, my friend is a strawman of biblical proportion. Actually I've never posted anything that supports that notion. I don't agree with that approach, but is a de facto modus operandi in sports




> and that everybody is cheating so why not, if you can't beat them, join them.



I don't accept that as the right thing to do, but under the current system, if you want sponsors to lay out big bucks and Super Six Evos you have to win stages and events. The sponsors demand that and to be able to provide that it in pro cycling doping is a common tactic to get an edge.

There's no real enforcement and even if your rider gets caught, the end (wins) justifies the means. The teams seldom seem to get penalized and the sponsors sure don't.



> See, there's very little point in disputing your assertions.


Tre, so why do you continue?



> You think Armstrong is guilty. but even if he is, it doesn't matter because you don't care and besides that, everybody cheats.


I don't care, because it's ancient history now. He cheated. He got away with it. Better to focus on the here & now and use yesterday's mistakes to improve on today.



> If people don't adopt your apathy about cheating and your understanding that it's ubiquitous you'll endlessly argue with them that they are wrong for conducting a "witch hunt" and they (Tygart)should be in prison, fearing rape!


Well they are conducting a witch hunt and it's a waste of time and taxpayer dollars regardless of the outcome so in that regard its "wrong".

I didn't say Tygart (he) should be in prison, but it's quite possible he could end up there is a congressional investigation of misuse of funds goes against him. At the very least he could end up out of a job along with his staff because the government could pull the plug on their funding.



> Where is your credibility?


I dunno. I didn't know I'd lost it


----------



## Fireform

See, there's the thing. If he's stripped of some or all of his titles he hasn't gotten away with it


----------



## Samadhi

Fireform said:


> See, there's the thing. If he's stripped of some or all of his titles he hasn't gotten away with it


The effort is still pointless. He got away with it.

I skipped classes in High School. Should that school come after me now and take my diploma away if they have proof (they can contact the people I skipped classes with and use that testimony as evidence). 

It make about the same amount of sense.

What we're seeing is a witch hunt that will benefit nothing. Busting Lance will have exactly zero effect on future doping. That's really bad, unless future doping is ok with you. To truly stop it, which is what the USADA is tasked with doing, punishing dopers while ignoring the underlying causes of doping will accomplish exactly nothing.


----------



## Fireform

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think those yellow jerseys might be just a little bit more significant than your high school diploma.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> The effort is still pointless. He got away with it.
> 
> I skipped classes in High School. Should that school come after me now and take my diploma away if they have proof (they can contact the people I skipped classes with and use that testimony as evidence).
> 
> It make about the same amount of sense.
> 
> What we're seeing is a witch hunt that will benefit nothing. *Busting Lance will have exactly zero effect on future doping*. That's really bad, unless future doping is ok with you. To truly stop it, which is what the USADA is tasked with doing, punishing dopers while* ignoring the underlying causes of doping* will accomplish exactly nothing.


Aren't the pursuit of fame and fortune some of the underlying causes?:idea:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...-but-reliable-witness.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share

Going to be hard to smear Geroge


----------



## Local Hero

The article is full of speculation. 

Regardless, it's not about smearing. Armstrong already said that witnesses are victims of USADA's abusive process.

The article describes arm twisting: 

_At first, Hincapie did not come forward voluntarily to provide information about the doping on Armstrong’s teams, said two people involved in the investigation. He was given a subpoena to testify to the grand jury in the federal investigation of Armstrong for doping-related crimes, an inquiry that lasted two years before closing last February. Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated with the inquiry and gave sworn statements.

He then provided evidence about the systematic doping on Armstrong’s teams to the antidoping agency, which last month charged Armstrong with doping and playing a key role in the doping scheme.

If Hincapie admitted his own doping while helping uncover the principals in a larger doping plot, he could receive a reduced ban from cycling — perhaps six months, or even no ban at all, rather than the usual two-year ban for first-time offenders. If he is asked to testify before an arbitration panel and declines, however, he could face a stiffer punishment._


----------



## jjmstang

And not too mention the $7.5 million the insurance company paid out too Pharmstrong


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The article is full of speculation.


There certainly is some speculation in there. Like the idea that George is loyal. Before he came clean George had no problem harassing former close friends who told the truth


----------



## Chris-X

*Doping apologist?????*



Local Hero said:


> *The article is full of speculation*.
> 
> *Regardless, it's not about smearing. Armstrong already said that witnesses are victims of USADA's abusive process.*
> 
> The article describes arm twisting:
> 
> _At first, Hincapie did not come forward voluntarily to provide information about the doping on Armstrong’s teams, said two people involved in the investigation. He was given a subpoena to testify to the grand jury in the federal investigation of Armstrong for doping-related crimes, an inquiry that lasted two years before closing last February. Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated with the inquiry and gave sworn statements.
> 
> He then provided evidence about the systematic doping on Armstrong’s teams to the antidoping agency, which last month charged Armstrong with doping and playing a key role in the doping scheme.
> 
> If Hincapie admitted his own doping while helping uncover the principals in a larger doping plot, he could receive a reduced ban from cycling — perhaps six months, or even no ban at all, rather than the usual two-year ban for first-time offenders. If he is asked to testify before an arbitration panel and declines, however, he could face a stiffer punishment._


It's an abusive process because all of the others besides Armstrong will be sanctioned and won't be able to fight USADA if they don't tell the truth?

Maybe USADA extended the response time 30 more days so Armstrong will blow through even more money for attorney's fees? 

Anyway, keep hope alive bro!



Doctor Falsetti said:


> There certainly is some speculation in there. Like the idea that George is loyal. *Before he came clean George had no problem harassing former close friends who told the truth*


But I heard he's such a nice guy!


----------



## The Tedinator

_Maybe USADA extended the response time 30 more days so Armstrong will blow through even more money for attorney's fees? _

Actually, that might not be a bad idea. 30 days, 90 days, two years....the result is still going to be the same.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Tedinator said:


> _Maybe USADA extended the response time 30 more days so Armstrong will blow through even more money for attorney's fees? _
> 
> Actually, that might not be a bad idea. 30 days, 90 days, two years....the result is still going to be the same.


and lobbying fees.....oh, no. Those are charged to Livestrong


----------



## Kliemann53

Fireform said:


> Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think those yellow jerseys might be just a little bit more significant than your high school diploma.


I think I just herd my old teacher roll over in her grave.


----------



## OldChipper

Apparently the same folks here are irony challenged as well. My point was EXACTLY that there's a HUGE difference (not a nuance) between murder and doping, and that tactics to pursue perpetrators of the former aren't necessarily appropriate for the latter. One is a crime, the other is a rule in a game. You guys want it both ways. You want tactics and penalties (stripping someone of their livelihood) as serious as those for some crimes but a lower standard of proof because you "just know" he's guilty. Hey, someone on the internet said so!

Since some appear to also be reading impaired, I did NOT refer to the difference between altitude training and IV transfusion as a nuance (speaking of a strawman). I said it was *arbitrary* and it is. They have the same effect, so why is one OK and the other against the rules? Arbitrary (you can look that up in your little dictionary too)

Until you can react to legitimate challenges to your world view and arguments in a calm and mature manner, and respond directly to the point made rather than trying to change it or the subject, I'm done here. This isn't an argument, it's simple contradiction. No it isn't. Yes it IS! No it isn't. Ah shoot, probably Python impaired too.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> ^This.* Still seems like *some* physical evidence should be required given the consequences. * If they can produce it, then fine.





adimiro said:


> *The concept of applying 'new' technology to 'old' evidence holds true regardless of the crime*.
> 
> *Please do not attempt to confuse, muddle or distract from it's application* to Armstrong or any other accused PED-abusing professional athlete.





Fireform said:


> I* don't believe a shred of physical evidence was required to send Jerry Sandusky to prison for life*.





adimiro said:


> Seems to me that it is you *missing subtle nuance between the factual correctness and application. * There is nothing fundementally flawed with applying new technology to evidence and* this is independent on the nature or seriousness of the offense.* Whether to *use it to a murder case versus high school locker theft versus cheating from PED abuse is at the discretion of the appropriate enforcement agencies.
> *
> Everyone makes choices, but few are willing to accept the consequences.
> 
> *Please do yourself a favor and stop saying what you are tired of saying*.





OldChipper said:


> Apparently the same folks here are irony challenged as well. My point was EXACTLY that there's a HUGE difference (not a nuance) between murder and doping, and that tactics to pursue perpetrators of the former aren't necessarily appropriate for the latter. One is a crime, the other is a rule in a game. You guys want it both ways. You want tactics and penalties (stripping someone of their livelihood) as serious as those for some crimes but a lower standard of proof because you "just know" he's guilty. Hey, someone on the internet said so!
> 
> Since some appear to also be reading impaired, I did NOT refer to the difference between altitude training and IV transfusion as a nuance (speaking of a strawman). I said it was *arbitrary* and it is. They have the same effect, so why is one OK and the other against the rules? Arbitrary (you can look that up in your little dictionary too)
> 
> Until you can react to legitimate challenges to your world view and arguments in a calm and mature manner, and respond directly to the point made rather than trying to change it or the subject, I'm done here. This isn't an argument, it's simple contradiction. No it isn't. Yes it IS! No it isn't. Ah shoot, probably Python impaired too.


The problem is what you consider to be legitimate challenges relating to Armstrong's case and USADA have been shown to be illegitimate.

You really think that the difference between riding your bike around lake tahoe and transfusing a blood bag is arbitrary?

Are you tired though?


----------



## The Tedinator

I agree that in the grand scheme of things, skinny little dudes in lycra pounding blood and drugs is no biggie, but hell, this is a doping forum on a cycling site. It is what it is for.


----------



## David Loving

The Tedinator said:


> I agree that in the grand scheme of things, skinny little dudes in lycra pounding blood and drugs is no biggie, but hell, this is a doping forum on a cycling site. It is what it is for.


I agree - let her rip! Stand the guy you hate up against a wall and offer him one last cigarette. Heck, I am generally impaired - and I AM a straw man just hankering to argue about anything


----------



## davidka

OldChipper said:


> Since some appear to also be reading impaired, I did NOT refer to the difference between altitude training and IV transfusion as a nuance (speaking of a strawman). I said it was *arbitrary* and it is. They have the same effect, so why is one OK and the other against the rules? Arbitrary (you can look that up in your little dictionary too)


FWIW, the two methods you mention above are completely different. Altitude tents are not very effective and their effect is not remotely immediate. IV infusions can replenish blood concentrations to above natural levels immediately and at times when the body is weak from say, 2 weeks of stage racing (blood concentrations fall faster than the body can naturally replenish under this kind of stress). It is also dangerous, which is the primary reason for anti-doping rules in the first place. They have very different effects and very different risks.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> Since some appear to also be reading impaired, I did NOT refer to the difference between altitude training and IV transfusion as a nuance (speaking of a strawman). I said it was *arbitrary* and it is. They have the same effect, so why is one OK and the other against the rules? Arbitrary (you can look that up in your little dictionary too)


Really? The same effect? 

Not even close.


----------



## Local Hero

trailrunner68 said:


> I can just see Armstrong with his GED challenging people with doctorates like Michael Ashenden about junk science. That would be a riot.


Do you think Armstrong's attorneys will call Armstrong to testify as an expert witness? 

Do you know who Daubert is?

EDIT: David Loving is all over this. 


EDIT to add something else that has already been mentioned:


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? The same effect?
> 
> Not even close.


Stop with the empty posts and dismissive hand waving. 

Explain the differences. 

What physiologically different effects do we see between blood doping and altitude training? How can we tell the difference between blood doping and altitude training? 

I would like for you to explain why the effects are "not even close." Define close: Is it 1%? 5%? 


And please, nothing dismissive. If you think the effects are "not even close" because of the efficacy, please explain what efficacy you would expect with one and not the other. In other words, if altitude training can create X% change and not Y%, source it. Source what you say with a study, article, or other evidence. It doesn't have to be a pubmed study, just a good source, and not some random blog. 

BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Explain the differences.
> 
> What physiologically different effects do we see between blood doping and altitude training? How can we tell the difference between blood doping and altitude training?
> 
> I would like for you to explain why the effects are "not even close." Define close: Is it 1%? 5%?
> 
> 
> And please, nothing dismissive. If you think the effects are "not even close" because of the efficacy, please explain what efficacy you would expect with one and not the other. In other words, if altitude training can create X% change and not Y%, source it. Source what you say with a study, article, or other evidence. It doesn't have to be a pubmed study, just a good source, and not some random blog.
> 
> BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY.


Your false outrage is entertaining 
:thumbsup:
There have been many studies on Altitude training. The avearge increase in Hct is not large. For example this study Altitude Camp Results had the average moving form 41 to 42.7. You can do a far greater change. Each unit of blood is @3% increase (can be more for smaller people)

In a Grand Tour the average Hct decrease by the 3rd week is 13%. Instead of a decrease a rider can have a very steady HCT or even an increase with Blood doping. Please tell us how this would be done with a tent? Slamming a bag of blood, and keeping your values right with saline, is far easier and gives a greater return, then a tent.....but of course you knew that.


----------



## OldChipper

Dr. you must have misplaced your calculator. 42.7/41=1.04 or a 4% increase from altitude or slightly more than the 3% you say slamming a unit of blood does. Thanks for proving my point! 

Also in the study you cite, the athletes were living at relatively modest altitude of 8000 ft. In Colorado, one can easily live at 11,000 ft. and be within slightly over an hour's drive of 5000 ft. elevation to do intervals etc. or a couple of hours to get even lower. Starting at a higher Hct will leave one better off even after a 13% decrease. 

In theory, team leaders could be whisked off to high altitude towns after each stage thus achieving the live high, train low effect and would be perfectly legal (as far as I know). 

Who brought up hypoxic tents anyway? Wasn't me. I know a lot of mountaineers have had success with them, but I've always been skeptical since the method of creating a hypoxic environment is different from actually being at altitude (they increase the partial pressure of CO2 rather than reducing total pressure). 

As you know, and the article states, the increase is due to increased production of endogenous EPO. So, OK let's stipulate that transfusions are different. Now tell us why EPO is illegal. 

Point is that all of the above increases Hct so why is one legal and the others not? Arbitrary.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> Dr. you must have misplaced your calculator. 42.7/41=1.04 or a 4% increase from altitude or slightly more than the 3% you say slamming a unit of blood does. Thanks for proving my point!
> 
> Also in the study you cite, the athletes were living at relatively modest altitude of 8000 ft. In Colorado, one can easily live at 11,000 ft. and be within slightly over an hour's drive of 5000 ft. elevation to do intervals etc. or a couple of hours to get even lower. Starting at a higher Hct will leave one better off even after a 13% decrease.
> 
> In theory, team leaders could be whisked off to high altitude towns after each stage thus achieving the live high, train low effect and would be perfectly legal (as far as I know).
> 
> Who brought up hypoxic tents anyway? Wasn't me. I know a lot of mountaineers have had success with them, but I've always been skeptical since the method of creating a hypoxic environment is different from actually being at altitude (they increase the partial pressure of CO2 rather than reducing total pressure).
> 
> As you know, and the article states, the increase is due to increased production of endogenous EPO. So, OK let's stipulate that transfusions are different. Now tell us why EPO is illegal.
> 
> Point is that all of the above increases Hct so why is one legal and the others not? Arbitrary.


“No Needles Ban” to Prevent Steroid Use at 2012 London Olympics

Why? Because! Arbitrary? Negative!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> Dr. you must have misplaced your calculator. 42.7/41=1.04 or a 4% increase from altitude or slightly more than the 3% you say slamming a unit of blood does. Thanks for proving my point!
> 
> Also in the study you cite, the athletes were living at relatively modest altitude of 8000 ft. In Colorado, one can easily live at 11,000 ft. and be within slightly over an hour's drive of 5000 ft. elevation to do intervals etc. or a couple of hours to get even lower. Starting at a higher Hct will leave one better off even after a 13% decrease.
> 
> In theory, team leaders could be whisked off to high altitude towns after each stage thus achieving the live high, train low effect and would be perfectly legal (as far as I know).
> 
> Who brought up hypoxic tents anyway? Wasn't me. I know a lot of mountaineers have had success with them, but I've always been skeptical since the method of creating a hypoxic environment is different from actually being at altitude (they increase the partial pressure of CO2 rather than reducing total pressure).
> 
> As you know, and the article states, the increase is due to increased production of endogenous EPO. So, OK let's stipulate that transfusions are different. Now tell us why EPO is illegal.
> 
> Point is that all of the above increases Hct so why is one legal and the others not? Arbitrary.


You are confused. 

Riders do not use just one united of blood. 
Although it is harder now with the biopassport riders used to go from 40 to 49.5. How do you do that with a tent? How do you do it without a tent? 
Sleeping in a tent, or at altitude, puts great strain on your body as it struggles to adapt. A transfusion takes a few minute

You still haven'e explained how you use a tent to increase Hct in the 3rd week of a GT on the rest day:thumbsup:


----------



## juno

No smoking gun. USADA is hoping at best for a "plea bargain" as whatever outcome they achieve in thier biassed panel will be shredded in a civil court.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

juno said:


> No smoking gun. USADA is hoping at best for a "plea bargain" as whatever outcome they achieve in thier biassed panel will be shredded in a civil court.


over a dozen direct witnesses. More then enough to win in any court, especially a civil arbitration.

Which is why Lance is working so hard (and failing) to kill it before it starts.


----------



## juno

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Which is why Lance is working so hard (and failing) to kill it before it starts.


Because he is Lance. That is what he does and why he is such a polarizing personality.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are confused.
> 
> Riders do not use just one united of blood.
> Although it is harder now with the biopassport riders used to go from 40 to 49.5. How do you do that with a tent? How do you do it without a tent?



Where's your proof and links? Are you sayig riders are using more than one unit of blood, or partial units of blood? In the past you said they used partial units. It would take approximately 2-3 units to theoretically bump your HCT from 40-49.5 using the same analyzer in a controlled clinical setting. If they are using partial units it becomes extremely difficult to pinpoint that on random testing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Where's your proof and links? Are you sayig riders are using more than one unit of blood, or partial units of blood? In the past you said they used partial units. It would take approximately 2-3 units to theoretically bump your HCT from 40-49.5 using the same analyzer in a controlled clinical setting. If they are using partial units it becomes extremely difficult to pinpoint that on random testing.


The Biopassport has made it more difficult. Maintaining a stable Hct, instead of a 10-15% decrease, can make a huge difference for a rider in the 3rd week of a GT

A good review of modern doping practices was published in the magazine Humo. 

Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France

The full article is more detailed but is only in Flemish behind a paywall. Contador was using multiple small transfusions spaced throughout the Tour



> riders only transfuse 150 cc doses, approximately a third of what was thought to have been used in the past. This is done to prevent problems with the biological passport.


How does "Altitude training" increase hct in the 3rd week of a GT?

Funny how you demand links but have still not given any links that explain why WADA's blood testing process is flawed.


----------



## blackhat

juno said:


> No smoking gun. USADA is hoping at best for a "plea bargain" as whatever outcome they achieve in thier biassed panel will be shredded in a civil court.


Were you around for the Landis positives? Have a look back for a primer in how the process works and see if your statement still makes sense.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Funny how you demand links but have still not given any links that explain why WADA's blood testing process is flawed.


I can lead a horse to water......


Re-read the other thread. You are being intentionally disingenous and I will absolutely always demand links from you since your ability to interpret or recollect data is not up to par. You can NOT have a discussion about data without links or proof. 

Tell me again how many labs WADA runs?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> I can lead a horse to water......
> 
> 
> Re-read the other thread. You are being intentionally disingenous and I will absolutely always demand links from you since your ability to interpret or recollect data is not up to par. You can NOT have a discussion about data without links or proof.
> 
> Tell me again how many labs WADA runs?


Re-read the other thread. Let me know when you have links to support your claims about WADA. :thumbsup:


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Re-read the other thread. Let me know when you have links to support your claims about WADA. :thumbsup:


Answer the question. How many?


----------



## Mulowe

88 Rex. Are you discussing or arguing or simply trying to pick a fight ?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Mulowe said:


> 88 Rex. Are you discussing or arguing or simply trying to pick a fight ?


Trying to pick a fight.....and stalking


----------



## Local Hero

Falsetti, whatever you think 88 Rex is doing wrong has nothing to do with me. I'm not stalking or trying to pick a fight (I don't think he is either, but that's neither here nor there). I would like it if you supported your claims and answered reasonable questions. 

Also, I do not see how saying that someone else is trying to pick a fight or stalking you is an excuse from supporting your claims or a valid reason to avoid answering reasonable questions. 

So far you have made several empty comments and dismissed things with a wave of the hand. Can you please back up what you say?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Falsetti, whatever you think 88 Rex is doing wrong has nothing to do with me. I'm not stalking or trying to pick a fight (I don't think he is either, but that's neither here nor there). I would like it if you supported your claims and answered reasonable questions.
> 
> Also, I do not see how saying that someone else is trying to pick a fight or stalking you is an excuse from supporting your claims or a valid reason to avoid answering reasonable questions.
> 
> So far you have made several empty comments and dismissed things with a wave of the hand. Can you please back up what you say?


 Instead of pretending this is not the case, stalking me from thread to thread, and needlessly baiting and high jacking every thread you can find perhaps you can try to response to actual posts? 

it is clear by your silly stalking and baiting that your goal is disruption. Instead of trying to disrupt every thread here perhaps you could attempt to stay on topic?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Biopassport has made it more difficult. Maintaining a stable Hct, instead of a 10-15% decrease, can make a huge difference for a rider in the 3rd week of a GT
> 
> A good review of modern doping practices was published in the magazine Humo.
> 
> Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France
> 
> The full article is more detailed but is only in Flemish behind a paywall. Contador was using multiple small transfusions spaced throughout the Tour
> 
> 
> 
> How does "Altitude training" increase hct in the 3rd week of a GT?
> 
> Funny how you demand links but have still not given any links that explain why WADA's blood testing process is flawed.


So what they are doing now is aimed at not increasing the HCT but instead to limit the natural reduction found in the 2ed and more so 3rd weeks of a grand tour? Wouldn't this still be visible in a biopass test as the natural reduction expected and seen in a majority of riders samples, but not in Conti's (in this case)? Sounds like their micro dosing transfusions instead of EPO.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of pretending this is not the case, stalking me from thread to thread, and needlessly baiting and high jacking every thread you can find perhaps you can try to response to actual posts?
> 
> it is clear by your silly stalking and baiting that your goal is disruption. Instead of trying to disrupt every thread here perhaps you could attempt to stay on topic?


This goes for Chris X as well. Thanks for keeping things on topic DF.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of pretending this is not the case, stalking me from thread to thread, and needlessly baiting and high jacking every thread you can find perhaps you can try to response to actual posts?
> 
> it is clear by your silly stalking and baiting that your goal is disruption. Instead of trying to disrupt every thread here perhaps you could attempt to stay on topic?


I've never seen such blatant ad hominem attack on this board, even from you, Doc.

You've made it a habit of resorting to adhominem attack any time someone challenges your opinion or offers one that differs in some degree. This, however, is sinking to new lows.

You've asked to offer some citation. Why don't you just give it? In any logical discourse it's the responsibility of the party making an assertion to offer proof of such assertions. You make a lot of assertions, Doc, but never back them up it seems.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> I've never seen such blatant ad hominem attack on this board, even from you, Doc.
> 
> You've made it a habit of resorting to adhominem attack any time someone challenges your opinion or offers one that differs in some degree. This, however, is sinking to new lows.
> 
> You've asked to offer some citation. Why don't you just give it? In any logical discourse it's the responsibility of the party making an assertion to offer proof of such assertions. You make a lot of assertions, Doc, but never back them up it seems.


You fake outrage is comical. 

I have given links and research, you have given emotion and hand ringing. 

Instead of trying to hijacking every thread perhaps you and your buddies can respond to an actual post of mine that you find disagreeable?

So far it just seems that the fact that I question the myth is upsetting you


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> So what they are doing now is aimed at not increasing the HCT but instead to limit the natural reduction found in the 2ed and more so 3rd weeks of a grand tour? Wouldn't this still be visible in a biopass test as the natural reduction expected and seen in a majority of riders samples, but not in Conti's (in this case)? Sounds like their micro dosing transfusions instead of EPO.


This is exactly what they are looking to do. 

Mørkeberg, Belhage and Damsgaard wrote this study
[Changes in blood profiles during Tour de Fran... [Ugeskr Laeger. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

On day 19, when compared to their pre-Tour reading, On average hemoglobin dropped 11.5% and hematocrit fell by 12.1%. This is a lot. 

By comparison in the 2009 Tour Armstrong's values increased (40.7, increasing to 43.1) during the Tour. He did this while his Rect remained low (0.5 to 0.7, consistently lower than his average value seen earlier in the season)

This is especially questionable when you look at how the Giro effected him (43.5 versus 38.2 percent, a drop of over five point)


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You fake outrage is comical.


And do you make **** up as you go along, Doc?

I'm not outraged. Frustrated, perhaps. Not outraged.

You offer what would be viewed as a strawman at best. You accuse me of outrage so you can attack said outrage. Whether or not I'm outraged is immaterial to you, or so it would seem.



> I have given links and research, you have given emotion and hand ringing.


Ok, I get emotional, so what? It's an emotional issue and your case its a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black. You're no better than anyone else in that regard.



> Instead of trying to hijacking every thread perhaps you and your buddies can respond to an actual post of mine that you find disagreeable?


I think that's what people are doing.

They're certainly not stalking you or hijacking threads. That's just paranoia.



> So far it just seems that the fact that I question the myth is upsetting you


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> And do you make **** up as you go along, Doc?
> 
> I'm not outraged. Frustrated, perhaps. Not outraged.
> 
> You offer what would be viewed as a strawman at best. You accuse me of outraage so you can attacke said outrage. Whether I'm outraged or not is immaterial to you it would seem.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I get emotional, so what? It's an emotional issue and your case its a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black. You're no better than anyone else in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's what people are doing.
> 
> They're certainly not stalking you or hijacking threads. That's just paranoia.
> 
> So far it just seems that the fact that I question the myth is upsetting you


Thank you for the insults. 

Perhaps you could reply to an actual post that I have written? Maybe even try to question the content? Provide alternative info? 

So far all I have seen is rambling insults


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thank you for the insults.


\Actually there's only one insult at best and even that would be a stretch.



> Perhaps you could reply to an actual post that I have written? Maybe even try to question the content? Provide alternative info?


I do respond to your posts. I may not always have a lot of facts at my disposal, but that's ok because I generally only try to point out how poorly presented your arguments are. You don't cite well enough for your assertions to be deemed factual so I don't feel too compelled to respond to you and more factually.



> So far all I have seen is rambling insults


You're welcome!


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sleeping in a tent, or at altitude, puts great strain on your body as it struggles to adapt.


I'm pretty sure there was a review article in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, one of the leading ex. phys. journals, a few years back that concluded altitude tents were largely ineffective anyway. They don't simulate high enough altitudes and/or the athlete would have to spend an inordinate amount of time in one to get a response.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> \Actually there's only one insult at best and even that would be a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> I do respond to your posts. I may not always have a lot of facts at my disposal, but that's ok because I generally only try to point out how poorly presented your arguments are. You don't cite well enough for your assertions to be deemed factual so I don't feel too compelled to respond to you and more factually.
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome!


Instead of hijacking this thread perhaps you can reply to the actual posts? It is a simple concept. 

Thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm pretty sure there was a review article in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, one of the leading ex. phys. journals, a few years back that concluded altitude tents were largely ineffective anyway. They don't simulate high enough altitudes and/or the athlete would have to spend an inordinate amount of time in one to get a response.


yes, it is still a bit vague

Altitude Training

It also effects everyone differently. Some never adapt some adapt well.


----------



## Chris-X

*Reminder*



SicBith said:


> This goes for Chris X as well. Thanks for keeping things on topic DF.


This is the .....

"Witnesses named and give evidence against Armstrong" thread and you've wandered O/T. Not that I could care one way or the other.

Remember this?



SicBith said:


> Your style of making an argument is so similar to the good Doc's. Let's see if you'll submit a sworn statement that you are not one and the same person.


Pretty funny!

The deal with 88rex is this. He's challenging Doctor Falsetti, but Doctor's arguments are aligned with USADA's arguments.

If one wants to understand those arguments it's clear what USADA is arguing. The burden on 88 rex is to clearly state what is wrong with those arguments and show what supports his position. He's not doing this even though this may be his area of expertise.

If it were a criminal proceeding that type of argument might work because the burden would be on the prosecution to make the blood arguments less equivocal.

That leads us back on topic, the dozen?? witnesses PLUS the blood...Doesn't look good for LA.


----------



## 88 rex

Mulowe said:


> 88 Rex. Are you discussing or arguing or simply trying to pick a fight ?


I genuinely want to discuss the facts. As you will note in this thread I responded on topic to a post in this thread. 

The "Doc" brought up another thread. I have no idea why. In that thread the Doc dodged every request to post a link or just about anything to verify his statements. He didn't and stil hasn't, and still continues to post things as "fact" without links. Numerous times in that thread he was verifiably proven false when his claims or assumptions were actually researched. So, I do not trust anything the Doc says without links. It's really simple. 

This is the thread the Doc is referring too: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html


----------



## 88 rex

Dwayne Barry said:


> I'm pretty sure there was a review article in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, one of the leading ex. phys. journals, a few years back that concluded altitude tents were largely ineffective anyway. They don't simulate high enough altitudes and/or the athlete would have to spend an inordinate amount of time in one to get a response.


I'm only assuming here, BUT, I don't see how you can effectively replicate living in altitude by staying in a hypoxic tent for a few short hours. Being at altitude is a constant. Altitude tent is not. I don't think the body would be so quick to change, or would at least "turn off" epo production when it exits the tent back into a normal atmosphere. Just seems any change would be minimal.


----------



## davidka

OldChipper said:


> As you know, and the article states, the increase is due to increased production of endogenous EPO. So, OK let's stipulate that transfusions are different. Now tell us why EPO is illegal.
> 
> Point is that all of the above increases Hct so why is one legal and the others not? Arbitrary.


It's not arbitrary. EPO and blood transfusions allow athletes to boost their blood far past their natural levels leading to problems like clotting and heart attacks in perfectly healthy young men (and women). No amount of altitude exposure can do this and no amount can produce increases near the levels that the illegal methods can. It's an undeniable advantage and it's very dangerous, especially when cyclists with highschool educations perform these methods on themselves.



88 rex said:


> I'm only assuming here, BUT, I don't see how you can effectively replicate living in altitude by staying in a hypoxic tent for a few short hours. Being at altitude is a constant. Altitude tent is not. I don't think the body would be so quick to change, or would at least "turn off" epo production when it exits the tent back into a normal atmosphere. Just seems any change would be minimal.


This is another reason EPO and blood doping are so different. Even if an athlete enjoyed benefit from altitude stimulation, it's effects are too slow to counter the blood degradation that occurs in long stage races and as Dr. F points out, it can help to increase blood concentrations slightly but at a significant cost to recovery of the athlete. An athlete can transfuse some stored blood and pick up several points in a day which will benefit both immediate performance and recovery.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of pretending this is not the case, stalking me from thread to thread, and needlessly baiting and high jacking every thread you can find perhaps you can try to response to actual posts?
> 
> it is clear by your silly stalking and baiting that your goal is disruption. Instead of trying to disrupt every thread here perhaps you could attempt to stay on topic?


You claim that the effects of altitude training and blood doping are "not even close" -- can you support this claim? 

If you made a baseless, empty claim just admit it and we'll move on. If you can support your claim, please do so.


----------



## adimiro

Local Hero said:


> You claim that the effects of altitude training and blood doping are "not even close" -- can you support this claim?
> 
> If you made a basely, empty claim just admit it and we'll move on. If you can support your claim, please do so.




Increasing your blood count is only one isolated physiologic response to altitude. At low oxygen tension (altitude) , most bodily functions from brain activity, cardiac performance, skeletal muscle, digestive system, etc suffer negative effects. At the elevations needed to produce hematocrit levels to significantly rise athletic perfomance also suffers. This is why altitude training athletes return to lower elevations for recovery "train high, sleep low" or 'train low and sleep high" (both techniques have their proponents). Finally, think of the high altitude mountaineers. Their hematocrit levels may be high, but the rest of their bodies are disintegrating.

Bag of blood >>>> rapid increase hematocrit, oxygen carrying capacity without deleterious effects on other organ systems

High Altitude training >>>>increase hematocrit over months, other organs may suffer hypoxic (low-oxygen) induced dysfunction.


Conclusion==Not even close.

Hope this simplified psysiology explanation will suffice to confirm that the comparison of altitude training vs auto-transfusion vs EPO are not equivalent.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> You claim that the effects of altitude training and blood doping are "not even close" -- can you support this claim?
> 
> If you made a baseless, empty claim just admit it and we'll move on. If you can support your claim, please do so.


You are trolling, just admit it and well move on


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> I genuinely want to discuss the facts. As you will note in this thread I responded on topic to a post in this thread.
> 
> The "Doc" brought up another thread. I have no idea why. In that thread the Doc dodged every request to post a link or just about anything to verify his statements. He didn't and stil hasn't, and still continues to post things as "fact" without links. Numerous times in that thread he was verifiably proven false when his claims or assumptions were actually researched. So, I do not trust anything the Doc says without links. It's really simple.
> 
> This is the thread the Doc is referring too: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html


The thread where you claim that Armstrong legal team will tear apart WADA's blood testing, but cannot give any links to support your claim? Where you pretend that the process at your local hospital is the same as WADA's, when it isn't. 

it is really simple. If you think that Armstrong is going to be successful where hundreds have failed you should provide something......but you can't. Instead you and your buddies bait, troll, and disrupt 

If you have something about the witnesess against Armstrong perhaps you can post it here. If you have finally come up with something to support your claim that Armstrong is going to tear apart WADA's blood testing share it with us in this thread http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html

It's really simple.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The thread where you claim that Armstrong legal team will tear apart WADA's blood testing, but cannot give any links to support your claim? Where you pretend that the process at your local hospital is the same as WADA's, when it isn't.
> 
> it is really simple. If you think that Armstrong is going to be successful where hundreds have failed you should provide something......but you can't. Instead you and your buddies bait, troll, and disrupt



Here we go again......if you want to discuss his numbers then take it back to the other thread. I'm not trolling. We can discuss lab procedures all day long. Read the other thread again. The problem with your argument is that you don't know what a "local" lab is or even how define it. You are hung up on this "local" lab thing because I work in a lab and do this stuff all day long. Somehow it validates to you that you can repeatedly say "you don't know what you're talking about" and hope that it's true. It's not.

What hundreds have failed? What were their numbers? 

Tell me how many labs WADA runs.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Here we go again......if you want to discuss his numbers then take it back to the other thread. I'm not trolling. We can discuss lab procedures all day long. Read the other thread again. The problem with your argument is that you don't know what a "local" lab is or even how define it. You are hung up on this "local" lab thing because I work in a lab and do this stuff all day long. Somehow it validates to you that you can repeatedly say "you don't know what you're talking about" and hope that it's true. It's not.
> 
> What hundreds have failed? What were their numbers?
> 
> Tell me how many labs WADA runs.


When you come up with the flaws in WADA/UCI testing process please post it here http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html

All those riders who were sanctioned due to the BioPassport are eager to hear your findings and get their bans overturned. I am sure the guys who tested over 50% and had to sit for 2 weeks could have used your expert guidance. Too bad Tyler did not have you on his legal team, he would have got off no problem. 

It is really simple. You are claiming the testing is flawed. That Armstrong will tear it apart in court. Please share with us your findings in the appropriate thread

You keep asking about WADA labs. It is easy to find their approved labs here.

Laboratory Locations - World Anti-Doping Agency

I know you are caught up in the transport thing but note that many of the measurements are done on calibrated machines at the location, in fact blood tests are seldom used for anything but values

Do you have anything new about the riders who witnessed Armstrong's doping?


----------



## 88 rex

adimiro said:


> High Altitude training >>>>increase hematocrit over months, other organs may suffer hypoxic (low-oxygen) induced dysfunction.


The studies I've read show that EPO can spike in a couple days (peak at day 4) and you can have hgb/hct increases in a week to 3 weeks. Not instantaneous like adding a unit or partial unit, but not months. I don't see why you would have hypoxic dysfunction at all, especially once the body catches up to the oxygen demands by boosting rbc production.

Hgb/EPO increases
Time course of the hemoglobin mass re... [Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI

Here's one that shows EPO production increasing.
Comparative response of EPO and soluble... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI

Neat study on acute and chronic altitude change and EPO response.
Long-term exposure to intermittent hypoxi... [Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI

Living High and training low.
Live high-train low for 24 days increases hem... [J Appl Physiol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Chris-X

88 rex said:


> Here we go again......if you want to discuss his numbers then take it back to the other thread. I'm not trolling. We can discuss lab procedures all day long. Read the other thread again. The problem with your argument is that you don't know what a "local" lab is or even how define it. You are hung up on this "local" lab thing because I work in a lab and do this stuff all day long. Somehow it validates to you that you can repeatedly say "you don't know what you're talking about" and hope that it's true. It's not.
> 
> What hundreds have failed? What were their numbers?
> 
> *Tell me how many labs WADA runs*.


Laboratory Locations - World Anti-Doping Agency

All kinds of links on WADA website.

There are currently 34 WADA-accredited laboratories around the world:

http://209.20.80.25/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,,5187-1-1-145264-0-file,00.pdf

Are you just busting chops or are you making a point and what is your point?


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> When you come up with the flaws in WADA/UCI testing process please post it here http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html
> 
> All those riders who were sanctioned due to the BioPassport are eager to hear your findings and get their bans overturned. I am sure the guys who tested over 50% and had to sit for 2 weeks could have used your expert guidance. Too bad Tyler did not have you on his legal team, he would have got off no problem.
> 
> It is really simple. You are claiming the testing is flawed. That Armstrong will tear it apart in court. Please share with us your findings in the appropriate thread
> 
> Do you have anything new about the riders who witnessed Armstrong's doping?


I have repeatedly said that I did not say the system is flawed. Stop lying. I have clearlly stated the difference betweens flaws and analytical variability. I refuse to teach you laboratory statistics beyond basic numbers. 

Post their numbers. All the hundreds of them that failed due to the biopassport. Over 50% hct is a cause for inquiry especially when there is no history of it ever being that high. You need exemption to pass over 50% which I believe Contador acquired BTW due to his testing in 2006(?). So, who had numbers like Armstrongs that were banned on those numbers alone? Please post the hundreds. 

I have nothing new about the witnesses. Do we even know who they are?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> The studies I've read show that EPO can spike in a couple days (peak at day 4) and you can have hgb/hct increases in a week to 3 weeks. Not instantaneous like adding a unit or partial unit, but not months. I don't see why you would have hypoxic dysfunction at all, especially once the body catches up to the oxygen demands by boosting rbc production.
> 
> Hgb/EPO increases
> Time course of the hemoglobin mass re... [Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Here's one that shows EPO production increasing.
> Comparative response of EPO and soluble... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Neat study on acute and chronic altitude change and EPO response.
> Long-term exposure to intermittent hypoxi... [Eur J Appl Physiol. 2003] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Living High and training low.
> Live high-train low for 24 days increases hem... [J Appl Physiol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI


I have done a lot of altitude training. Just came back from 2 weeks at 6-10,000. the first day is not bad but days 2-4 are brutal. I always find it hard to train for power (-5 minutes intervals) and HR was still depressed after 2 weeks. 

The key is everyone is effected differently. Vaughters wrote a good article in Cyclesport about it and said that @10% see no benefit while a small amount see significant increase in Hct. 

The increase in Hct is relatively smaller, especially when compared to what can be achieved with EPO or a transfusion,


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You keep asking about WADA labs. It is easy to find their approved labs here.
> 
> Laboratory Locations - World Anti-Doping Agency
> 
> I know you are caught up in the transport thing but note that many of the measurements are done on calibrated machines at the location, in fact blood tests are seldom used for anything but values


Wrong answer. 

The answer is zero. WADA runs zero labs. They are an accrediting agency. Each lab is independently run, funded, and operated. That is a list of labs that are accredited by WADA. 

I'm aware of the anayzers. I think I made it apparently clear that I run one just about every day. All this is in relation to Armstrong's numbers and his values from your link.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> I have repeatedly said that I did not say the system is flawed. Stop lying. I have clearlly stated the difference betweens flaws and analytical variability. I refuse to teach you laboratory statistics beyond basic numbers.
> 
> Post their numbers. All the hundreds of them that failed due to the biopassport. Over 50% hct is a cause for inquiry especially when there is no history of it ever being that high. You need exemption to pass over 50% which I believe Contador acquired BTW due to his testing in 2006(?). So, who had numbers like Armstrongs that were banned on those numbers alone? Please post the hundreds.
> 
> I have nothing new about the witnesses. Do we even know who they are?


If the process is not flawed then how why do you think that it will be so easy to for Armstrong take apart USADA claim of blood manipulation? 

You claimed



88 rex said:


> I'd say it would be pretty easy to present reasonable scenarios to counter any claim against Armstrong based on those numbers.


Great. Please share the reasonable scenarios of why USADA and their testing (Not your local hospitals) is wrong. 

There is even a nice thread about it you can write it in
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Wrong answer.
> 
> The answer is zero. WADA runs zero labs. They are an accrediting agency. Each lab is independently run, funded, and operated. That is a list of labs that are accredited by WADA.
> 
> I'm aware of the anayzers. I think I made it apparently clear that I run one just about every day. All this is in relation to Armstrong's numbers and his values from your link.


You did not read what I wrote did you?

What part of "Approved" do you not understand? 

If you wish to continue the discussion of your expertise in WADA/UCI field testing of blood samples I suggest you share it here
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/armstrongs-questionable-blood-values-285093.html

Not so insterested in what happens at the local "Doc in a Box"


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are trolling, just admit it and well move on


Please stop the personal attacks. 

It was a simple question. Since you were unable to answer it, someone else stepped up for you: 


adimiro said:


> Increasing your blood count is only one isolated physiologic response to altitude. At low oxygen tension (altitude) , most bodily functions from brain activity, cardiac performance, skeletal muscle, digestive system, etc suffer negative effects. At the elevations needed to produce hematocrit levels to significantly rise athletic perfomance also suffers. This is why altitude training athletes return to lower elevations for recovery "train high, sleep low" or 'train low and sleep high" (both techniques have their proponents). Finally, think of the high altitude mountaineers. Their hematocrit levels may be high, but the rest of their bodies are disintegrating.
> 
> Bag of blood >>>> rapid increase hematocrit, oxygen carrying capacity without deleterious effects on other organ systems
> 
> High Altitude training >>>>increase hematocrit over months, other organs may suffer hypoxic (low-oxygen) induced dysfunction.
> 
> 
> Conclusion==Not even close.
> 
> Hope this simplified psysiology explanation will suffice to confirm that the comparison of altitude training vs auto-transfusion vs EPO are not equivalent.


Thanks for your answer. It is, of course, as I suspected. While the results on the body system can vary, the results on the blood are very similar. 

I have one more question: Can the differences be detected with a blood test? 

In other words, how is the spike in crit after altitude training different from the spike in crit after a blood transfusion? 

Thank you.


----------



## OldChipper

Admiro takes the extreme of both the time required for the body to make significant adjustments to hematocrit and the negative effects on other body systems. I have friends that live 24/7/365 at 11,000 ft. and are just fine. Take it from a real-by-god high altitude mountaineer, it doesn't take "months" for meaningful adjustment to take place (although each individual adjusts at different rates). In my case, it took less than 3 weeks for my body to adjust sufficiently to climb to 20,000' with no ill effects on organ systems or significant decrease in performance. Of course, this is way below the "death zone" but you don't have to get anywhere near the death zone to get significant change in hematocrit.


----------



## Chris-X

88 rex said:


> Wrong answer.
> 
> The answer is zero. WADA runs zero labs. They are an accrediting agency. Each lab is independently run, funded, and operated. That is a list of labs that are accredited by WADA.
> 
> I'm aware of the anayzers. I think I made it ]apparently clear that I run one just about every day. All this is in relation to Armstrong's numbers and his values from your link.


............deleted......


----------



## Local Hero

Here is what I have taken from the exchange: WADA doesn't actually run labs. They contract with labs. They have an approved list, but their approved labs are not likely to be significantly different than the labs used by everyday hospitals to save peoples' lives. 

It's misleading for falsetti to repeatedly assert that "WADA labs" are superior to other labs. The handling protocol may be different but the machines used to test the blood may be the same.


----------



## adimiro

OldChipper said:


> Admiro takes the extreme of both the time required for the body to make significant adjustments to hematocrit and the negative effects on other body systems. I have friends that live 24/7/365 at 11,000 ft. and are just fine. Take it from a real-by-god high altitude mountaineer, it doesn't take "months" for meaningful adjustment to take place (although each individual adjusts at different rates). * In my case, it took less than 3 weeks for my body *to adjust sufficiently to climb to 20,000' with *no ill effects on organ systems or significant decrease in performance*. Of course, this is way below the "death zone" but you don't have to get anywhere near the death zone to get significant change in hematocrit.


There is both a more rapid (acute) and slower (chronic, weeks to months) adaptation to altitude...and yes, everyone is slightly different in their response. However, while you (or anyone else) may feel "fine", there is an absolute decline in cognitive and cerebellar (balance/coordination mostly) function above 10,000 feet..

Glad you've had good fortune at high elevations, but high-altitude physiology is complex and not very predictable/reproducible (even in the same person). My intention was simply to point out that altitude training vs blood doping are not interchangeable on their effect on athletic performance.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Here is what I have taken from the exchange..


Your opinion. Who are you? And how does your opinion on this matter at all?




Local Hero said:


> WADA doesn't actually run labs. They contract with labs. They have an approved list, but their approved labs are not *likely* to be *significantly* different than the labs used by everyday hospitals to save peoples' lives.


How likely are the labs the same? 90%? 70? 40? 20%? What do you mean by significant? What factors are significant? The person you're getting this info from, do they work for WADA? Why are you the arbiter of this?



Local Hero said:


> It's misleading for falsetti to repeatedly assert that "WADA labs" are superior to other labs.


Thanks for your conclusions! You believe you're qualified to come to those conclusions? 

You really don't believe that WADA labs are more qualified than your local hospital labs to make expert judgements about the analysis of blood samples with regard to drug controls and manipulation of blood?

.


Local Hero said:


> The handling protocol may be different but the machines used to test the blood may be the same.


A lot of "may" s in there.

Operating room equipment "may" be the same. The next time you need surgery I'll do it! Don't worry, the scalpels are the same!

BTW, what does any of this have to do with witnesses named and give evidence against Armstrong?


----------



## David Loving

Murphy's Other Law #15 : "Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about."


----------



## atpjunkie

*hyperbaric chambers*



Local Hero said:


> You claim that the effects of altitude training and blood doping are "not even close" -- can you support this claim?
> 
> If you made a baseless, empty claim just admit it and we'll move on. If you can support your claim, please do so.


altitude training, EPO, autologous blood transfusions all give you higher RBCs to transport oxygen to the muscles and waste away from the muscles. altitude training does have some side effects on other systems but in elite level athletes it is pretty marginal. Best thing to do is train at sea level and sleep at around 9000 feet

the UCI has H-Crit levels, so regardless of how you got there (legal or illegal) 90% of the peloton is racing with an H Crit of around 50


----------



## trailrunner68

atpjunkie said:


> altitude training, EPO, autologous blood transfusions all give you higher RBCs to transport oxygen to the muscles and waste away from the muscles. altitude training does have some side effects on other systems but in elite level athletes it is pretty marginal. Best thing to do is train at sea level and sleep at around 9000 feet
> 
> the UCI has H-Crit levels, so regardless of how you got there (legal or illegal) 90% of the peloton is racing with an H Crit of around 50


Welcome to ten years ago. It is a lot different today. There is no 50% limit now. It is all based on manipulating the passport. There is an interview with Michael Ashenden that details how some of the manipulation is done. It is no longer easy.


----------



## 88 rex

atpjunkie said:


> the UCI has H-Crit levels, so regardless of how you got there (legal or illegal) 90% of the peloton is racing with an H Crit of around 50


The irony here is that Lance isn't one of them. His highest was 45.7 and lowest 38.x in 2009 and 2010.


----------



## davidka

adimiro said:


> There is both a more rapid (acute) and slower (chronic, weeks to months) adaptation to altitude...and yes, everyone is slightly different in their response. However, while you (or anyone else) may feel "fine", there is an absolute decline in cognitive and cerebellar (balance/coordination mostly) function above 10,000 feet..
> .


Do you mean that there is a temporary decline in cognitive/cerebellar function? There are cities above 10,000ft. If this were true then these cities would be populated by people who were measurable "dumber" but I find that unlikely.




Local Hero said:


> Please stop the personal attacks.
> 
> It was a simple question. Since you were unable to answer it, someone else stepped up for you:
> Thanks for your answer. It is, of course, as I suspected. While the results on the body system can vary, the results on the blood are very similar.
> 
> I have one more question: Can the differences be detected with a blood test?
> 
> In other words, how is the spike in crit after altitude training different from the spike in crit after a blood transfusion?
> 
> Thank you.


I think you may be misinterpreting the answer. The effect on the blood (and the rest of the body) is not the same. Altitude adaptation is governed by your body's natural limits. EPO use and transfusions aren't. Unless the athlete is extremely responsive to altitude stimulation it is unlikely that they will achieve the same gains as someone who's cheating. Regardless of that, altitude adaptation does not address HCT decline that athletes experience over multi day races the way EPO and transfusions can.

The difference can be detected. If the athlete uses transfusions they will have a suspiciously high HcT against low reticulocyte (new blood cells), ie. good blood concentration without evidence that the body is producing new blood to account for it. EPO helps with this because it stimulates new blood production at the risk of detection of the EPO itself.


----------



## trailrunner68

There is new research questioning whether altitude training works at all to increase performance. It may be a placebo.

I question whether someone training in Tenerife will gain anything. The highest road elevation is less than 7600 feet.


----------



## adimiro

davidka said:


> Do you mean that there is a temporary decline in cognitive/cerebellar function? There are cities above 10,000ft. If this were true then these cities would be populated by people who were measurable "dumber" but I find that unlikely.



Please do not distort or misconstrue my comment. Nobody said anything about dumber. First. this observations relate mostly to those that ascend in elevation, even slowly, and the data is mostly from mountaineering climbing athletes who depend on high altitude adaptation for their sport. Second, since this is not a medical physiology journal or trained scientists as readers, it is a rather simplified explantion of the major concepts without getting into thesis details.

During a recent visit to a friend in Blue River, CO (10, 000 ft), I took my portable pulse oximeter (measures oxygen saturation levels in the blood) and found that even among locals, their oxygen measurements were quite low (approx 85-90%, normal sea level=98-100%). So yeah,high elevation absolutely cause low oxygen levels throughout the whole body...it is afterall, why altitude increases our Hemacrit in attempt to carry more oxygen molecules to all the cells in our bodies. Compared to blood doping or exogenous EPO which lead to increase hematocrit faster and without any of the low oxygen side effects to the rest of our body organs.


----------



## Local Hero

To those who hold fast to dr falsetti's "not even close" claim, when can we say that X change is due to blood doping and not altitude training?


----------



## davidka

adimiro said:


> During a recent visit to a friend in Blue River, CO (10, 000 ft), I took my portable pulse oximeter (measures oxygen saturation levels in the blood) and found that even among locals, their oxygen measurements were quite low (approx 85-90%, normal sea level=98-100%). So yeah,high elevation absolutely cause low oxygen levels throughout the whole body...it is afterall, why altitude increases our Hemacrit in attempt to carry more oxygen molecules to all the cells in our bodies. Compared to blood doping or exogenous EPO which lead to increase hematocrit faster and without any of the low oxygen side effects to the rest of our body organs.


Wasn't poking, just inquiring as to whether or not people who live above 10k experience continuous degradation of cognitive function. As far as know they do not. I should have used language a little softer than "dumber". Sorry for that.

It would be interesting to understand the adaptations that people up high make to deal with the decreased oxygen levels they live with. Another conversation for another time.


----------



## SwiftSolo

gizzard said:


> According to De Telegraf , Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie and Vaughters have given evidence against Armstrong and have all received six-month bans, due to come into force at the end of this season. Vaughters' 'censure' is less clear, however.
> 
> Report: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters Give Evidence Against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com


According to wiki: This national newspaper contains many "sensational" and sports-related articles, and one or more pages the content of which is supplied by the gossip-magazine Privé ("Private"). The financial news coverage (De Financiële Telegraaf | Financieel nieuws leest u op DFT.nl van De Telegraaf), however, is more serious in tone. The paper targets a broad audience, mostly in a populist style,[1] attracting specific target groups for the paper's advertisers.

I wouldn't necessarily believe what these folks say until it is substantiated by a more credible source.


----------



## SwiftSolo

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thank you for the insults.
> 
> Perhaps you could reply to an actual post that I have written? Maybe even try to question the content? Provide alternative info?
> 
> So far all I have seen is rambling insults


Actually, you claimed in your post that you were being stalked (not sure how that relates to the OP) and he answered by saying you are paranoid. 

I have no opinion whether his analysis is correct because it could be that you simply have an inflated notion of your importance to other people. Oh wait.........


----------



## adimiro

Local Hero said:


> To those who hold fast to dr falsetti's "not even close" claim, when can we say that X change is due to blood doping and not altitude training?


When you have:
(1) increased reticulocyte percentage (young red cells) (high altitude or EPO) 
(2) increased _natural _endogenous epogen levels (high altitude) 
(3) No _synthetic_ epogen detected (this one is pretty obvious) 
(4) Logitudinal Hct data Ex: if your Hct=38 today and 46 tomorrow, (blood doping) 


I'm sure there is more, but this would be pretty good for starters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> To those who hold fast to dr falsetti's "not even close" claim, when can we say that X change is due to blood doping and not altitude training?


Already gave you plenty of links and info to support what I wrote, why are you still playing these silly games?


----------



## samh

This shows that EPO detection can be hard even though they are guilty.

UKAD Finally Catches Boxer Using EPO After He Used Steroids and hGH for Six Years


----------



## OldChipper

Haven't we gone rather far afield from my original point i.e. both altitude training and EPO can increase hematocrit and into whether you can detect one from the other and how fast each is? The point is, both have the same effect (admittedly to different degrees and with different time constants); one is legal, one isn't. Why?


----------



## Chris-X

SwiftSolo said:


> Actually, you claimed in your post that you were being stalked (not sure how that relates to the OP) and he answered by saying you are paranoid.
> 
> I have no opinion whether his analysis is correct because it could be that you simply have an inflated notion of your importance to other people. Oh wait.........


Dude,

You still a deadender on the Armstrong is clean front? The last I recall you were labelling armstrong's accusers haters.:lol:ut:


----------



## 88 rex

trailrunner68 said:


> There is new research questioning whether altitude training works at all to increase performance. It may be a placebo.
> 
> I question whether someone training in Tenerife will gain anything. The highest road elevation is less than 7600 feet.


What research? Just about all research shows a physiological change when entering a hypoxic environment. 



adimiro said:


> When you have:
> (1) increased reticulocyte percentage (young red cells) (high altitude or EPO)
> (2) increased _natural _endogenous epogen levels (high altitude)
> (3) No _synthetic_ epogen detected (this one is pretty obvious)
> (4) Logitudinal Hct data Ex: if your Hct=38 today and 46 tomorrow, (blood doping)
> 
> 
> I'm sure there is more, but this would be pretty good for starters.


A) Retic percentage would initially increase while the RBC's are catching up to oxygen demand. Then they will return to baseline when the RBC are "up to snuff." So, just because you are altitude does not mean your retic is ALWAYS elevated.

2) EPO is the same way. It increase for demand and then returns to normal, even at altitude. 

4) The passport has eliminated this and I don't believe anyone is actually going to this extreme anymore. That would definitely be a red flag though with those numbers in that timeframe.



OldChipper said:


> Haven't we gone rather far afield from my original point i.e. both altitude training and EPO can increase hematocrit and into whether you can detect one from the other and how fast each is? The point is, both have the same effect (admittedly to different degrees and with different time constants); one is legal, one isn't. Why?



Yep, both with somewhat similar effects, although there is still research to be done. I think there are still some unknowns about EPO usage. 

One is legal because it is natural. Exogenous EPO is a drug. What's scary is what drugs we don't know about it, or what processes we don't know about. Genetic manipulation? Are we there yet?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

OldChipper said:


> Haven't we gone rather far afield from my original point i.e. both altitude training and EPO can increase hematocrit and into whether you can detect one from the other and how fast each is? The point is, both have the same effect (admittedly to different degrees and with different time constants); one is legal, one isn't. Why?


I think the answer to this is that one is a physiological response to a natural stimuli, really no different than training, the other isn't.


----------



## davidka

OldChipper said:


> The point is, both have the same effect (admittedly to different degrees and with different time constants); one is legal, one isn't. Why?


It is the different degrees and time constraints, as well as natural limitations of a given athlete that make them NOT the same. One is completely safe and natural (altitude), the other is dangerous and allows athletes to go well beyond their natural limitations (EPO/Transfusions). Their end effects are as different as cycling and shuffleboard.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> It is the different degrees and time constraints, as well as natural limitations of a given athlete that make them NOT the same. One is completely safe and natural (altitude), the other is dangerous and allows athletes to go well beyond their natural limitations (EPO/Transfusions). Their end effects are as different as cycling and shuffleboard.


Agreed. 

One can be done in a few minutes, when needed, and result in a significant boost in Hct while the other requires extend stay in a remote location for minimal gains that disappear quickly during a GT


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> To those who hold fast to dr falsetti's "not even close" claim, when can we say that X change is due to *blood doping and not altitude training*?


I was really tired this morning. Couldn't decide between a cup of coffee or a few lines of blow.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Already gave you plenty of links and info to support what I wrote, *why are you still playing these silly games*?


$64,000 question, that's what I want to know.



OldChipper said:


> Haven't we gone rather far afield from my original point i.e. both altitude training and EPO can increase hematocrit and into whether you can detect one from the other and how fast each is? The point is, both have the same effect (admittedly to different degrees and with different time constants); one is legal, one isn't. *Why*?


You're kidding, right?



88 rex said:


> *One is legal because it is natural. Exogenous EPO is a drug*. *What's scary* is what drugs we don't know about it, or what processes we don't know about. Genetic manipulation? Are we there yet?


What's scary is that people have completely lost perspective and are seriously asking these questions when the answers are obvious.


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> What's scary is that people have completely lost perspective and are seriously asking these questions when the answers are obvious.


It's a legit question. EPO isn't the big bad boogeyman that some make it out to be. It is a natural process and you are stimulating a natural process with a "clone" of the hormone. It is only different due to a protein structure, but functions the same. Yes, there is potential to force the body to do something it naturally can't, but we aren't talking about EPO at those levels. That is long gone. Microdosing is at far lower concentrations that the body would normally do itself, so the levels are completely safe. 

In a controlled environment under the care of proper physicians, there really isn't anything known to be unsafe with that practice IMO. It's just a matter of "cheating" that is the issue since you are administering the drug that was not created in a natural process. One could potentially argue that the atheletes are healthier using this process.


----------



## goloso

88 rex said:


> It's a legit question. EPO isn't the big bad boogeyman that some make it out to be. It is a natural process and you are stimulating a natural process with a "clone" of the hormone. It is only different due to a protein structure, but functions the same. Yes, there is potential to force the body to do something it naturally can't, but we aren't talking about EPO at those levels. That is long gone. Microdosing is at far lower concentrations that the body would normally do itself, so the levels are completely safe.
> 
> In a controlled environment under the care of proper physicians, there really isn't anything known to be unsafe with that practice IMO. It's just a matter of "cheating" that is the issue since you are administering the drug that was not created in a natural process. One could potentially argue that the atheletes are healthier using this process.


No worse than orange juice right?

Wow, you have a very generous definition of "natural." What in nature causes your body boost red blood cell production beyond your circulatory system's ability to pump it? 

I think you could make a better argument that testosterone might improve the health of cyclists during tours. T levels plummet over the course of a three week tour. I dont recall anyone ever dropping out for anemia.


----------



## Chris-X

*No!*



88 rex said:


> It's a legit question. EPO isn't the big bad boogeyman that some make it out to be. It is a natural process and you are stimulating a natural process with a "clone" of the hormone. It is only different due to a protein structure, but functions the same. Yes, there is potential to force the body to do something it naturally can't, but we aren't talking about EPO at those levels. That is long gone. Microdosing is at far lower concentrations that the body would normally do itself, so the levels are completely safe.
> 
> In a controlled environment under the care of proper physicians, there really isn't anything known to be unsafe with that practice IMO. It's just a matter of *"cheating"* that is the issue since you are administering the drug that was not created in a natural process. *One could potentially argue that the atheletes are healthier using this process*.


I'm disputing it's legitimacy. No one is forcing riders into this contest. A major component of the contest which is a GT, _is_ recovery.

Anemia _is_ an issue and the riders who are are administered EPO would most likely be healthier if they do this under a doctors supervision.

Riding 2,000 miles for 3 weeks at these speeds is an inherently unhealty activity, but physical endurance is it's basis.

I agree with what you say except for the weight you lend to each aspect of the competition. If one believes cheating is ok, questions about medical preparation are legitimate.


----------



## SicBith

adimiro said:


> Please do not distort or misconstrue my comment. Nobody said anything about dumber. First. this observations relate mostly to those that ascend in elevation, even slowly, and the data is mostly from mountaineering climbing athletes who depend on high altitude adaptation for their sport. Second, since this is not a medical physiology journal or trained scientists as readers, it is a rather simplified explantion of the major concepts without getting into thesis details.
> 
> During a recent visit to a friend in Blue River, CO (10, 000 ft), I took my portable pulse oximeter (measures oxygen saturation levels in the blood) and found that even among locals, their oxygen measurements were quite low (approx 85-90%, normal sea level=98-100%). So yeah,high elevation absolutely cause low oxygen levels throughout the whole body...it is afterall, why altitude increases our Hemacrit in attempt to carry more oxygen molecules to all the cells in our bodies. Compared to blood doping or exogenous EPO which lead to increase hematocrit faster and without any of the low oxygen side effects to the rest of our body organs.


This is pretty interesting and has a few lines of interpretation. I grew up at maybe 400' but have spent the last 18yrs living above 9000'. I had a few more complete med tests done recently and my resting O2 level is 98%, my stressed O2 level is 91% after 30min of moderate spinning. I'm stronger than my friends in their back yard (5000') even though they log more miles than I do, and when they ride at 9000' it is even more evident I live 4000' about them. 
Though, in your research you found a lower O2 rate with people at 10000' which leads me to believe there could be a activity level difference in your testing pool. It might also speak to the bodies ability to deal with physical stress on a entire system level rather than just the numbers in blood. Maybe on a cellular level the body finds higher performance at 85%-90% O2 level than those who live at sea level and have higher O2 levels in their 98%-100% blood? 
I understand these test are is aimed at blood values, but I would like to see what gains can be made in stressed performance after training at say 8000' and performing at 2000' on a cellular level. I would imagine a 4 week test at seal level, a 4 week test at altitude, followed by a 4 week test at sea level would be a start for a pro level rider to understand how their body deals with stressed performance after high altitude training. I wonder if teams do that kind of testing?


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> . If one believes cheating is ok, questions about medical preparation are legitimate.


But cheating is only cheating if it is against the rules. Sometimes it's a murky line, sometimes not. Adding a motor is cheating, unless of course we can all add motors.


----------



## 88 rex

goloso said:


> No worse than orange juice right?
> 
> Wow, you have a very generous definition of "natural." What in nature causes your body boost red blood cell production beyond your circulatory system's ability to pump it?
> 
> I think you could make a better argument that testosterone might improve the health of cyclists during tours. T levels plummet over the course of a three week tour. I dont recall anyone ever dropping out for anemia.


Your circulatory system can pump a lot, but I don't think that's what you are inferring. It's your bone marrow that pumps out the RBC's. I think you are trying to say "What in nature can cause unnaturally high and prolonged RBC production?" Answer....I don't know. Probably nothing. But that isn't what's happening. Dr's/Riders aren't administering unnatural levels. They are administering very low levels of EPO which are hard to test for on a drug testing level, and the result is a slight bump in hgb/hct. 

I would be intersted in the testosterone levels of the Schlecks. I think they could use a boost.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is exactly what they are looking to do.
> 
> Mørkeberg, Belhage and Damsgaard wrote this study
> [Changes in blood profiles during Tour de Fran... [Ugeskr Laeger. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> On day 19, when compared to their pre-Tour reading, On average hemoglobin dropped 11.5% and hematocrit fell by 12.1%. This is a lot.
> 
> By comparison in the 2009 Tour Armstrong's values increased (40.7, increasing to 43.1) during the Tour. He did this while his Rect remained low (0.5 to 0.7, consistently lower than his average value seen earlier in the season)
> 
> This is especially questionable when you look at how the Giro effected him (43.5 versus 38.2 percent, a drop of over five point)


If this is the case, how are guys doping now? It seems the you and many of us believe it is still happening, but with the passport how are guys getting away with it. 
Maybe the passport system is flawed in someway that makes it harder to prove without a doubt they are doping and this would lead a testing agency to tougher internal standards before an athlete is accused or sanctioned using bio passport evidence.

Don't get me wrong I think the bio passport is the best tool available to testers right now to interpret transfusions, but without an actual positive for a illegal substance in their blood it comes down to who can buy the most respected doctors for their defense. It also might lead to a legal suit based on the outcome as there was no positive and some of the agencies like USADA seem to consider an athlete guilty until they can prove their innocence.


----------



## 88 rex

SicBith said:


> If this is the case, how are guys doping now? It seems the you and many of us believe it is still happening, but with the passport how are guys getting away with it.
> Maybe the passport system is flawed in someway that makes it harder to prove without a doubt they are doping and this would lead a testing agency to tougher internal standards before an athlete is accused or sanctioned using bio passport evidence.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I think the bio passport is the best tool available to testers right now to interpret transfusions, but without an actual positive for a illegal substance in their blood it comes down to who can buy the most respected doctors for their defense. It also might lead to a legal suit based on the outcome as there was no positive and some of the agencies like USADA seem to consider an athlete guilty until they can prove their innocent.


Just my opinion, but the passport has brought doping somewhat in check from abusrd, to just barely. McQuaid talks about this a little bit here (there is some irony in his statement though. )

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...assport-is-changing-the-sports-culture_222978


----------



## SicBith

den bakker said:


> good thing the case is also about looking forward and getting rid of some of the prominent players that keep on surfacing.
> Ferrari, Del Moral And Marti Banned For Life In US Postal Case | Cyclingnews.com


Now it seems like there is some rumor that Del Moral and Marti forced EPO on young riders, but as far as Ferrari and most likely Del Moral and Marti go, many of their clients came to them for their services.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> This is the .....
> 
> "Witnesses named and give evidence against Armstrong" thread and you've wandered O/T. Not that I could care one way or the other.
> 
> Remember this?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty funny!
> 
> The deal with 88rex is this. He's challenging Doctor Falsetti, but Doctor's arguments are aligned with USADA's arguments.
> 
> If one wants to understand those arguments it's clear what USADA is arguing. The burden on 88 rex is to clearly state what is wrong with those arguments and show what supports his position. He's not doing this even though this may be his area of expertise.
> 
> If it were a criminal proceeding that type of argument might work because the burden would be on the prosecution to make the blood arguments less equivocal.
> 
> That leads us back on topic, the dozen?? witnesses PLUS the blood...Doesn't look good for LA.


Not really I just backed up DF on his request to stay on topic and that he could say the same about some of your posts. Unless he uses your username to post off topic comments and statements based on rumor. Hmm...


----------



## SicBith

88 rex said:


> Just my opinion, but the passport has brought doping somewhat in check from abusrd, to just barely. McQuaid talks about this a little bit here (there is some irony in his statement though. )
> 
> McQuaid: The bio passport is changing the sport’s culture


agreed, but when you don't have postive/negative test for transfusion other than being caught with the needle in your arm it's all they have to go on. In my opinion it is one well funded and supported group lawsuit away from being thrown out as a being able to use as evidence to convict a rider of doping.


----------



## atpjunkie

*Boonen was/is*



88 rex said:


> The irony here is that Lance isn't one of them. His highest was 45.7 and lowest 38.x in 2009 and 2010.


typically low as well

Biological passports still keep H Crit levels in most cases below 50. No one is getting base levels of 60


----------



## Chris-X

88 rex said:


> But cheating is only cheating if it is against the rules. *Sometimes it's a murky line*, sometimes not. Adding a motor is cheating, unless of course we can all add motors.


It's not a murky line here. The rules are very clear in this case. We have a few here arguing the rules aren't clear abd you're not one of them, are you?


You don't really think we have to get to the issue of motors in order to cite a clear rules violation, do you?

Rules about caffeine may enter the murky area.

Every single professional cyclist understands the rules although I'm sure there are a few who use justifications to break them. That's a different issue.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> It's not a murky line here. The rules are very clear in this case. We have a few here arguing the rules aren't clear abd you're not one of them, are you?
> 
> 
> You don't really think we have to get to the issue of motors in order to cite a clear rules violation, do you?
> 
> Rules about caffeine may enter the murky area.
> 
> Every single professional cyclist understands the rules although I'm sure there are a few who use justifications to break them. That's a different issue.


Is there a legal base line for blood levels? Above is illegal below is fine?


----------



## Chris-X

SicBith said:


> Is there a legal base line for blood levels? Above is illegal below is fine?


Blood levels of caffeine? I think there was a legal limit at one time...


----------



## SicBith

Not caffeine...... H Crit and other blood component levels. funny guy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> If this is the case, how are guys doping now? It seems the you and many of us believe it is still happening, but with the passport how are guys getting away with it.
> .


Note that many of my posts here say that the sport has cleaned up dramatically, especially at the ProTour. Increased testing, fewer Team programs because of the risks, Doctors and riders scared of the legal costs, riders seeing big names fall and scared having the same happen to them. This has materialized into the slower climbing times and the sudden poor performance of former dopers. 

Some common tactic are transfusing stored plasma to make a high Hct appear low. I think this is how Contador, and maybe Schleck, accidently introduced drugs from their training period into their system. 

This process is aided by delaying the testers, something Armstrong did 3 times in 2009 alone

Unfortunately there are some challanges with this. The UCI took some of the money the Teams gave to fund the Biopassport and used the money to fund races Verburggen was putting . The result was a 30% decrease in testing last year......Progress?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Is there a legal base line for blood levels? Above is illegal below is fine?


Not anymore. The passport focuses on changes of multiple elements


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> agreed, but when you don't have postive/negative test for transfusion other than being caught with the needle in your arm it's all they have to go on. In my opinion it is one well funded and supported group lawsuit away from being thrown out as a being able to use as evidence to convict a rider of doping.


A member of the Biopassport panel was told that some riders were untouchable because their legal resources were too much to overcome. 

The transfusion test is coming, Also the test for an enzyme that tricks the EPO test


----------



## Chris-X

SicBith said:


> Not caffeine...... H Crit and other blood component levels. funny guy.


Not intentionally funny. We were talking about a murky line??? 

If you're racing on spaghetti and water there is no issue anyway with the blood.

The reason I said caffeine may be murky is that I believe for a while there was a legal limit. I think it's been recognized anyway that too high a level has deleterious effects on performance.


----------



## David Loving

Is it OK to take drugs if your performance deteriorates? You might not win, but you'd enjoy the Tour more. That's real 1980's though.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This process is aided by delaying the testers, something Armstrong did 3 times in 2009 alone


Site your source.


----------



## Chris-X

88 rex said:


> Site your source.


If you're going to bust balls, it's "cite."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Site your source.


Says the guy who can't support his claims 

Most know about Showergate

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrong-could-face-ban-in-france-21182/



> "Mr Armstrong, despite being repeatedly warned by the examiner, did not meet the obligation to remain under direct and permanent observation."


During the Tour Astana avoided the testers multiple times

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/o...s-Astana-warned-over-dope-test-avoidance.html



> "There was a little bit of avoiding going on," Bachelot said on French TV after Thursday's 12th stage. "I hope it won't happen again."


The AFLD had independent observers at the Tour. They found that Astana consistently received special treatment. They wrote a 10 page report exposing the special treatment Astana received, including at least 3 times during the Tour where testers were delayed or even stopped all together because they could not locate the riders



> The AFLD maintained its claims that the Astana team of Lance Armstrong and eventual winner Alberto Contador were among the most "blatant" when it came to delays during doping controls.


https://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/french-anti-doping-chief-slams-uci-and-astana-23516/

They also kept the testing chaperon waiting outside the bus for 30 minutes after the TTT









It was not only during the Tour they received special treatment. Part of their deal with the UCI the AFLD was supposed to be provided target testing information for each team. they received this for all teams.....but Astana.


----------



## 88 rex

88 rex said:


> Site your source.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Says the guy who can't support his claims
> 
> Most know about Showergate
> 
> Lance Armstrong Could Face Ban In France - BikeRadar
> 
> 
> 
> During the Tour Astana avoided the testers multiple times
> 
> Tour de France 2009: Lance Armstrong's Astana warned over 'dope test avoidance' - Telegraph
> 
> 
> 
> The AFLD had independent observers at the Tour. They found that Astana consistently received special treatment. They wrote a 10 page report exposing the special treatment Astana received, including at least 3 times during the Tour where testers were delayed or even stopped all together because they could not locate the riders
> 
> 
> 
> French Anti-doping Chief Slams UCI And Astana - BikeRadar
> 
> They also kept the testing chaperon waiting outside the bus for 30 minutes after the TTT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not only during the Tour they received special treatment. Part of their deal with the UCI the AFLD was supposed to be provided target testing information for each team. they received this for all teams.....but Astana.


My apologies. I interpreted your post incorrectly. You are correct on the delays. I initially thought you were declaring something else about the plasma infusions.



atpjunkie said:


> typically low as well
> 
> Biological passports still keep H Crit levels in most cases below 50. No one is getting base levels of 60


Agreed.


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> It's not a murky line here. The rules are very clear in this case. We have a few here arguing the rules aren't clear abd you're not one of them, are you?
> 
> 
> You don't really think we have to get to the issue of motors in order to cite a clear rules violation, do you?
> 
> Rules about caffeine may enter the murky area.
> 
> Every single professional cyclist understands the rules although I'm sure there are a few who use justifications to break them. That's a different issue.




I did say "sometimes it is and sometimes it is not." Regarding EPO, it is very clear, illegal. Regarding the biopassport, it is somewhat murky. Clenbuterol.....somewhat murky, even though it is completely illegal. Aren't there talks of replacing the zero tolerance with a threshold for clenbuterol?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> I did say "sometimes it is and sometimes it is not." Regarding EPO, it is very clear, illegal. Regarding the biopassport, it is somewhat murky. Clenbuterol.....somewhat murky, even though it is completely illegal. *Aren't there talks of replacing the zero tolerance with a threshold for clenbuterol?[*/QUOTE]
> 
> No
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-says-no-plan-to-introduce-clenbuterol-threshold


----------



## trailrunner68

88 rex said:


> Site your source.


It has been well reported.

Google is your friend. Do your own research then you can "site" your own sources.


----------



## 88 rex

trailrunner68 said:


> It has been well reported.
> 
> Google is your friend. Do your own research then you can "site" your own sources.


It has been addressed. Your odd conern is noted.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-says-no-plan-to-introduce-clenbuterol-threshold


Well, the full answer, at least according to your link (link within your link) would be Yes, however, it didn't, or has yet too, gain any traction. Especially given the pending trial at the time it was written.


----------



## thechriswebb

People can be so mean on this webcite.


----------



## Chris-X

*Just to bring it back*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One can be done in a few minutes, when needed, and result in a significant boost in Hct while the other requires extend stay in a remote location for minimal gains that disappear quickly during a GT


on topic...I'm still wondering why LA is not countering the named witnesses with a sworn statement that he's never doped. You'd think he'd want to maybe counteract the weight of that testimonial evidence. 

Please help me here.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Says the guy who can't support his claims
> 
> Most know about Showergate
> 
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/lance-armstrong-could-face-ban-in-france-21182/
> 
> 
> 
> During the Tour Astana avoided the testers multiple times
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/o...s-Astana-warned-over-dope-test-avoidance.html
> 
> 
> 
> The AFLD had independent observers at the Tour. They found that Astana consistently received special treatment. They wrote a 10 page report exposing the special treatment Astana received, including at least 3 times during the Tour where testers were delayed or even stopped all together because they could not locate the riders
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/french-anti-doping-chief-slams-uci-and-astana-23516/
> 
> They also kept the testing chaperon waiting outside the bus for 30 minutes after the TTT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not only during the Tour they received special treatment. Part of their deal with the UCI the AFLD was supposed to be provided target testing information for each team. they received this for all teams.....but Astana.


Good article. I remember this being talked about when it went down. Sounds like there needed to be an investigation into UCI testing procedures not really with Astana athletes. Unless the UCI investigation leads to Astana as the only team given a more lax interpretation of the procedure.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> A member of the Biopassport panel was told that some riders were untouchable because their legal resources were too much to overcome.
> 
> The transfusion test is coming, Also the test for an enzyme that tricks the EPO test


That would make a lot of sense if the UCI is worried about the validity of the passport to stand up in court.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Good article. I remember this being talked about when it went down. Sounds like there needed to be an investigation into UCI testing procedures not really with Astana athletes. Unless the UCI investigation leads to Astana as the only team given a more lax interpretation of the procedure.





> Jean-Pierre Verdy, who is chief of the team which carries out the controls, said: "It was mostly Astana. For the other teams it wasn't quite as blatant. Where is the 'random' factor in all of that?"


Add to this that the UCI shared information on every team for Pre-Tour testing......except for Astana


----------



## SicBith

Yep. There should have been an investigation into the UCI team. If the pre-testing info is true than it certainly shows the UCI has problems in its doping dept. Astana is just the benefactor in their shotty program. If the UCI investigation shows pref treatment to Astana over other teams than Bryuneel might be brought in. Without the UCI investigation this is really just speculation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Yep. There should have been an investigation into the UCI team. If the pre-testing info is true than it certainly shows the UCI has problems in its doping dept. Astana is just the benefactor in their shotty program. If the UCI investigation shows pref treatment to Astana over other teams than Bryuneel might be brought in. Without the UCI investigation this is really just speculation.


There was an investigation. The AFLD wrote a 10 pasge report on it. 

The problem is the IOC has to do something about the UCI and their decades long preferential treatment of Armstrong/Bruyneel......with Verbruggen as a IOC board member I do not see that happening anytime soon


----------



## David Loving

thechriswebb said:


> People can be so mean on this webcite.


Here's meanness for ya -- "website"


----------



## Chris-X

*More meannesss..*



David Loving said:


> Here's meanness for ya -- "website"





SicBith said:


> Yep. There should have been an investigation into the UCI team. If the pre-testing info is true than it certainly shows the UCI has problems in its doping dept. Astana is just the benefactor in their *shotty* program. If the UCI investigation shows pref treatment to Astana over other teams *than* Bryuneel might be brought in. Without the UCI investigation this is really just speculation.



"shoddy"....

"then" Bruyneel might be brought in....


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There was an investigation. The AFLD wrote a 10 pasge report on it.
> 
> The problem is the IOC has to do something about the UCI and their decades long preferential treatment of Armstrong/Bruyneel......with Verbruggen as a IOC board member I do not see that happening anytime soon


So what were the findings from the AFLD? If they were not acted on at that time than in my opinion they were considered speculative.

Is seems like the UCI should do something about preferential treatment of any athlete not just LA and JB. If they were protected, I would believe athletes competing today would be given the same treatment in order to keep grand tours interesting and attractive to sponsors. The TOF has the least to worry about, but the Giro and Vuelta (notorious for being lax on doping IMO) would see more sponsorship pressure. 
That is the key element, the cornerstone in doping. The guys putting on the race with the most to gain by the performance of the athletes should not be charged with policing those events. It's a enormous conflict of interest that is not going to change anytime soon IMO.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> "shoddy"....
> 
> "then" Bruyneel might be brought in....


What are you talking about..... (notice I said the same thing to DF)


----------



## thechriswebb

David Loving said:


> Here's meanness for ya -- "website"


Just making sure you know that was intentional.


----------



## 88 rex

thechriswebb said:


> Just making sure you know that was intentional.


This has been a very inciteful thread.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

There has been a lot of babble about not having a positive test. John Fahey, speaking today at the Olympics, says that over the past year 40% of positive results are non-analytical, meaning athlete didn't fail a test.


----------



## Local Hero

LOL

I just saw that Doctor Falsetti called me a "troll" and gave me negative rep.


----------



## SicBith

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> I just saw that Doctor Falsetti called me a "troll" and gave me negative rep.


you were busted for a difference of opinion? No way.


----------



## Local Hero

Worse. I wouldn't let him get away with dismissive hand waving; I demanded that he support his argument. 

The topic was--of course--one of the primary issues in the Armstrong case. How can we differentiate changes in blood values caused by doping from changes in blood values caused by natural means/training?

The sad fact for the USADA is that their science is unestablished. Their methods will not meet the Daubert standard; the USADA evaluation is not using methods which are freely accessible to the scientific community. 

Is the biological passport a valid way to detect doping? According to many: *No*, the biological passport is insufficient.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21619475

*Limits and pitfalls of Athlete's Biological Passport.*
Banfi G.

*Abstract*
The Athlete's Biological Passport (ABP) is an evaluation of hematological parameters, hemoglobin (Hb), reticulocytes (Ret), and their combination in the OFF-score. Recently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport accepted it as a suitable indirect method for detecting blood doping. There are various topics which are not defined and scientifically completely explained in ABP, limiting its effectiveness as evidence and as suspect of blood manipulation. The data source the ABP used for designing a profile is unclear. The variance used for cyclists is not correct. The covariables which should be calculated together with the measures of Hb and Ret are not always considered in the statistical program. The pre-analytical warnings for correct and valid collection, transport, and storage of the specimens are not assured. Quality control of the instruments is not completely assured. Analytical variability is not appropriately considered in the program. The seasonal changes of the hematological parameters, due to training and competitions, are not calculated. Statistical analysis, based on a Bayesian-like program, not available to the scientific community, does not follow the classical decision-making approach of medicine and science. The ABP needs of additional evidences and of scientific debate.


----------



## Local Hero

^if you read this and appreciate that I support my arguments without getting too worked up; if you want to make up for the negative rep given to my by Falsetti, you can give me positive rep now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> you were busted for a difference of opinion? No way.


Not a difference of opinion. 

Despite my multiple posts filled with links and background info he repeatedly pretended I had not answered his question about the differences between altitude training and EPO. It was a childish attempt to hijack the thread and bait others into a confrontation........which he continues with this silliness


----------



## Local Hero

Falsetti: Calling me childish and silly doesn't help you here. 

Either you were incapable or unwilling to explain the differences. Your answer that they are "not even close" was--in fact--a non answer. It was merely dismissive hand waving. When pressed for details, you repeatedly ignored me. 

Falsetti, now you claim that you answered my challenge? Where is your answer? 

The evidence thus far suggests that you were incapable of answering me, as I have shown with the pubmed article posted above: The science has not been established. It follows that you could not explain your "not even close" fabrication, as nobody can explain it. 

This is the truth: It is exceedingly DIFFICULT to test for blood manipulation. It is DIFFICULT to determine the differences between the effects of blood doping and natural changes in blood values. The science of this has not yet been established. 

(There is a high likelihood that the methods used by the USADA will not meet the Daubert standard; they will not make it into court.)


If anyone disagrees with my account of this situation--if anyone thinks that Falsetti answered my challenges with hard facts or scientific literature--please provide a link to the post. It's possible that I missed it. But I do not think that Falsetti answered me. Rather, he has insisted on personal attacks similar to what we see above. 

Make no mistake. This will be a major issue in the Armstrong case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Is the biological passport a valid way to detect doping? According to many: *No*, the biological passport is insufficient.
> .


According to many or according to a few? So far the UCI, FIS, and the IAAF have won their Biopassport cases. FINA starts the program thisyear

The opinion you link makes a key incorrect assumption



> The seasonal changes of the hematological parameters, due to training and competitions, are not calculated.


This is not the case.The author knows this but still wrote it/ It does not surprise me as the author, Giuseppe Banfi, has been active in protecting dopers for years. He was a consultant to Contador in his CAS case and wrote much of the smoke and mirrors that constituted his defense. Banfi also worked for Pellizotti in his Biopassport case. He failed there as well

Regardless Armstrong is not being sanctioned by the Biopassport, which is a UCI program. He is being sanctioned by USADA. His testing results will be coupled with direct witness testimony of doping. You do realize that Armstrong and Levi were teammate in 2009-2010 don't you?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> FYour answer that they are "not even close" was--in fact--a non answer. It was merely dismissive hand waving. When pressed for details, you repeatedly ignored me.
> 
> Falsetti, now you claim that you answered my challenge? Where is your answer?


Thanks for proving my point, you are trolling in an attempt to disrupt.I have given plenty of information on how altitude and blood doping differ. You chose to pretend otherwise




Doctor Falsetti said:


> There have been many studies on Altitude training. The avearge increase in Hct is not large. For example this study Altitude Camp Results had the average moving form 41 to 42.7. You can do a far greater change. Each unit of blood is @3% increase (can be more for smaller people)
> 
> In a Grand Tour the average Hct decrease by the 3rd week is 12%. Instead of a decrease a rider can have a very steady HCT or even an increase with Blood doping. Please tell us how this would be done with a tent? Slamming a bag of blood, and keeping your values right with saline, is far easier and gives a greater return, then a tent..





Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is exactly what they are looking to do.
> 
> Mørkeberg, Belhage and Damsgaard wrote this study
> [Changes in blood profiles during Tour de Fran... [Ugeskr Laeger. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> On day 19, when compared to their pre-Tour reading, On average hemoglobin dropped 11.5% and hematocrit fell by 12.1%. This is a lot.
> 
> By comparison in the 2009 Tour Armstrong's values increased (40.7, increasing to 43.1) during the Tour. He did this while his Rect remained low (0.5 to 0.7, consistently lower than his average value seen earlier in the season)
> 
> This is especially questionable when you look at how the Giro effected him (43.5 versus 38.2 percent, a drop of over five point)





Doctor Falsetti said:


> The Biopassport has made it more difficult. Maintaining a stable Hct, instead of a 10-15% decrease, can make a huge difference for a rider in the 3rd week of a GT
> 
> A good review of modern doping practices was published in the magazine Humo.
> 
> Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France
> 
> The full article is more detailed but is only in Flemish behind a paywall. Contador was using multiple small transfusions spaced throughout the Tour





Doctor Falsetti said:


> yes, it is still a bit vague
> 
> Altitude Training
> 
> It also effects everyone differently. Some never adapt some adapt well.


----------



## 88 rex

Local Hero said:


> LOL
> 
> I just saw that Doctor Falsetti called me a "troll" and gave me negative rep.


:lol:


----------



## Chris-X

*Court?*



Local Hero said:


> Falsetti: Calling me childish and silly doesn't help you here.
> 
> Either you were incapable or unwilling to explain the differences. Your answer that they are "not even close" was--in fact--a non answer. It was merely dismissive hand waving. *When pressed for details, you repeatedly ignored me.*
> 
> Falsetti, now you claim that you answered my challenge? Where is your answer?
> 
> The evidence thus far suggests that you were incapable of answering me, as I have shown with the pubmed article posted above: The science has not been established. It follows that you could not explain your "not even close" fabrication, as nobody can explain it.
> 
> This is the truth: It is exceedingly DIFFICULT to test for blood manipulation. It is DIFFICULT to determine the differences between the effects of blood doping and natural changes in blood values. The science of this has not yet been established.
> 
> (There is a high likelihood that the methods used by the USADA will not meet the Daubert standard; they will not make it into court.)
> 
> 
> If anyone disagrees with my account of this situation--if anyone thinks that Falsetti answered my challenges with hard facts or scientific literature--please provide a link to the post. It's possible that I missed it. But I do not think that Falsetti answered me. Rather, he has insisted on personal attacks similar to what we see above.
> 
> Make no mistake. This will be a major issue in the Armstrong case.


The case won't make it into court because it's going to be dismissed as easily as your silliness is.

The Armstrong issue will be ruled on by arbitrators.

Are you going to slam your fist on the table if the Doctor doesn't give you an answer that will save your hero?

Know in your heart that you've done all that you can here. I'm sure Lance will appreciate it.:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Worse. I wouldn't let him get away with dismissive hand waving; I demanded that he support his argument.
> 
> The topic was--of course--one of the primary issues in the Armstrong case. How can we differentiate changes in blood values caused by doping from changes in blood values caused by natural means/training?
> 
> The sad fact for the USADA is that their science is unestablished. Their methods will not meet the Daubert standard; the USADA evaluation is not using methods which are freely accessible to the scientific community.
> 
> Is the biological passport a valid way to detect doping? According to many: *No*, the biological passport is insufficient.
> 
> Limits and pitfalls of Athlete's Biologica... [Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> *Limits and pitfalls of Athlete's Biological Passport.*
> Banfi G.
> 
> *Abstract*
> The Athlete's Biological Passport (ABP) is an evaluation of hematological parameters, hemoglobin (Hb), reticulocytes (Ret), and their combination in the OFF-score. Recently, the Court of Arbitration for Sport accepted it as a suitable indirect method for detecting blood doping. There are various topics which are not defined and scientifically completely explained in ABP, limiting its effectiveness as evidence and as suspect of blood manipulation. The data source the ABP used for designing a profile is unclear. The variance used for cyclists is not correct. The covariables which should be calculated together with the measures of Hb and Ret are not always considered in the statistical program. The pre-analytical warnings for correct and valid collection, transport, and storage of the specimens are not assured. Quality control of the instruments is not completely assured. Analytical variability is not appropriately considered in the program. The seasonal changes of the hematological parameters, due to training and competitions, are not calculated. Statistical analysis, based on a Bayesian-like program, not available to the scientific community, does not follow the classical decision-making approach of medicine and science. The ABP needs of additional evidences and of scientific debate.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> According to many or according to a few? So far the UCI, FIS, and the IAAF have won their Biopassport cases. FINA starts the program thisyear
> 
> The opinion you link makes a key incorrect assumption
> 
> 
> This is not the case.The author knows this but still wrote it/ It does not surprise me as the author, Giuseppe Banfi, has been active in protecting dopers for years. He was a consultant to Contador in his CAS case and wrote much of the smoke and mirrors that constituted his defense. Banfi also worked for Pellizotti in his Biopassport case. He failed there as well
> 
> Regardless Armstrong is not being sanctioned by the Biopassport, which is a UCI program. He is being sanctioned by USADA. His testing results will be coupled with direct witness testimony of doping. You do realize that Armstrong and Levi were teammate in 2009-2010 don't you?


and also odd that this group effort (notice Banfi) which came out after local hero's citation directly contradicts the first. 

Reticulocyte and haemoglobin profiles in e... [Int J Lab Hematol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

Int J Lab Hematol.* 2011 Dec;33(6):638-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-553X.2011.01348.x. Epub 2011 Jun 27.*

Reticulocyte and haemoglobin profiles in elite triathletes over four consecutive seasons.

Díaz V, Lombardi G, Ricci C, Jacobs RA, Montalvo Z, Lundby C, *Banfi G.*


Abstract

INTRODUCTION: 

The World Anti-Doping Agency has implemented the *Blood Passport* in attempt to detect blood doping in athletes. The Blood Passport looks for uncommon changes overtime in reticulocytes percentage (Ret %), as a variable of the OFF-hr score, and haemoglobin concentration ([Hb]) reflecting potential doping violations. Few studies, however, have actually investigated the concurrent stability of Ret % and [Hb] in athletes over extended periods of time, none of which were measured in athletes who undergo strenuous and prolonged physical exercise.

METHODS: 

Measurements of Ret % and [Hb] were assessed over the course of four competitive seasons in elite triathletes (10 males and seven female). Blood was obtained at the start of the season, precompetitive period, competitive period and at the end of the competitive period.

RESULTS: 

Differences (P<0.001) were observed in both [Hb] and Ret % between genders and there was a high variability between subjects. Neither males nor females exhibited differences in [Hb] across all periods within one season. Within gender, analysis revealed that Ret % varied significantly (P=0.0018) between periods only in female athletes.

CONCLUSION: 

*We conclude that Ret % and [Hb] remain stable over four consecutive seasons in elite triathletes, confirming that both parameters are valid for antidoping purposes based on the Blood Passport.* In addition, Ret % fluctuations within one season require further investigation in females.

Localhero knew this because I already posted it btw. Conclusion...Trolling.


----------



## 88 rex

88 rex said:


> :lol:



I :lol: at Big-Foot for the odd neg rep over my :lol:

It's nice to know who the  are.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Chris-X said:


> and also odd that this group effort (notice Banfi) which came out after local hero's citation directly contradicts the first.
> 
> You knew this because I already posted it btw. Conclusion...Trolling.


The one thing Banfi does help prove is that the theory that the blood values evidence will be easy for Lance's legal to crush in court has little basis in fact. 

Banfi has made many of the unsupported claims that the trolls on this forum have. What is his record? 

He worked on the Contador case......and lost
He worked on the Pellizotti case.......and lost
He worked on the Caucchioli case.....and lost

In each of these cases he tried to push the myth that the testing process was flawed, and failed. The fact is the UCI, IAAF, and FIS have consistently won their Biopassport cases. In most cases the defense has included some version of the "Flawed Testing" myth that fails as it sounds good on an internet forum but is unsupportable in front of a panel of arbitrators


----------



## David Loving

Doc F - As long as the lab's documentation is OK, I agree that is a dead end. Has anyone gotten anywhere with chain of custody of the sample ?


----------



## 88 rex

David Loving said:


> Doc F - As long as the lab's documentation is OK, I agree that is a dead end. Has anyone gotten anywhere with chain of custody of the sample ?


It would be highly unlikely that anyone would screw up the chain of custody. As a lawyer you would have to look, but you probably won't find anything worth noting.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Banfi has made many of the unsupported claims that the trolls on this forum have. What is his record?


Enough of calling other posters trolls. No more warnings- a posting vacation next time it happens.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Doc F - As long as the lab's documentation is OK, I agree that is a dead end. Has anyone gotten anywhere with chain of custody of the sample ?


I doubt it. There have been isolated cases of success using this strategy but some of the samples would have been tested on the spot, others not. We have yet to see the results from the UCI testing which may add more info. 

I expect the blood values to be supporting evidence. For example USADA would have a witness who describes doping on a specific date and time and then would then show a pattern of changes in blood values that support this witness


----------



## 80sroadie

*Why all the emotion*

As someone who has been riding/watching cycling since the early 80s I'm surprised by all the emotion surrounding LA. I think it is probably a reasonable assumption that any/all of the past TDF riders doped. Including Lemond, Hinault, Indurain, and even Merycx. It wasn't "right" and depending on the era probably not within the rules. So why is LA so important that you let five riders who admit to doping ride in the tour to go after a guy that's retired? If you prove he doped are you going to claim the guy in 3rd or 15th place didn't and give it to him? I agree with those who believe that the money and time is better spent focusing on today and the future if you truly want to improve the sport.
Just my opinions but I'm sure some of you will explain how those opinions aren't valid!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

UCI has a lot to lose in this mess. Pat and Hein are the Mafia. Expect them to start putting some heat on the rats to keep them from flipping


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

80sroadie said:


> As someone who has been riding/watching cycling since the early 80s I'm surprised by all the emotion surrounding LA


True, It does appear many have some emotional attachment in their defense of Armstrong. They should just let USADA do their job and set the emotions aside.


----------



## Chris-X

80sroadie said:


> As someone who has been riding/watching cycling since the early 80s I'm surprised by all the emotion surrounding LA.


You don't think marketing is intended to stoke emotions? Do you think the same "branding" was occurring back in the early 80's? What brand of shoes did the riders you cited wear back then? 

Is it your opinion that LA wasn't/ isn't doing all he can to incite strong emotions for his own profit and is/was extraordinarily successful using these strategies to make millions of dollars?




80sroadie said:


> I think it is probably a *reasonable assumption* that any/all of the past TDF riders doped. Including Lemond, Hinault, Indurain, and even Merycx.


"They all do it defense!":idea:

I don't assume anything. We know Hinault doped because of his attitude toward it and didn't he admit it? Indurain has been strongly linked to doping doctors and Merckx tested positive two or three times. 

There is zero evidence LeMond doped.



80sroadie said:


> It wasn't "right" and depending on the era probably not within the rules. So why is LA so important that you let five riders who admit to doping ride in the tour to go after a guy that's retired?


LA wasn't retired from sport under the purview of USADA and WADA. 

LA isn't more important than the 5 guys who 'we' let ride the tour?

LA wasn't the one who sought prominence as a professional cyclist and celebrity?

"Fame" doesn't cut both ways?

LA was excluded from the deal to speak honestly with USADA?



80sroadie said:


> If you prove he doped are you going to claim the guy in 3rd or 15th place didn't and give it to him?



TdF title is vacant and replaced by asterisk. We'll let future generations figure it out. Cheating and fraud and you will be this, ***



80sroadie said:


> I agree with those who believe that the money and time is better spent focusing on today and the future if you truly want to improve the sport.


Of course you do!:cryin:




80sroadie said:


> Just my opinions but *I'm sure* some of you will explain how those opinions aren't valid!


Good prediction!

:frown2::frown2::ciappa::nono:ut::crazy::mad2::nonod::hand::frown2:

It's normal and will be alright!:thumbsup:

Stages

The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:[2]
1.Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage.
2.Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
3.Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..."
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time..." People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?.." when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it's a matter of life or death.
4.Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It's natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation.
5.Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief.


----------



## brentley

Doctor Falsetti said:


> True, It does appear many have some emotional attachment in their defense of Armstrong. They should just let USADA do their job and set the emotions aside.


I am one of those who has suspended disbelief for a very long time. At this point, given all of the admitted dopers behind LA in the results I find it impossible to believe that he was the only one not doping. 

At one point I thought that maybe the program was that Lance was superman and that he only doped his team up and he was clean, but that is a bit far fetched.

Part of that emotional attachment has to do with the winning, part with the carefully cultivated image (although his abandonment of his wife / kids is pretty bad) and part with the fact that I saw him live several times when my company was a sponsor of USPS.

As for new technologies, if samples still exist and can be tested they should be, but given chain of custody it would be wrong to retroactively remove awards for failures.


----------



## goloso

brentley said:


> As for new technologies, if samples still exist and can be tested they should be, but given chain of custody it would be wrong to retroactively remove awards for failures.


What do you mean "given the chain of custody?"

If there is an established chain then why not retroactive testing and punishment?

What if there are a bunch of guys who can say where, when and how he doped because they saw it first hand? No punishment for that either?


----------



## 80sroadie

*Take a Valium*

ChrisX,
I appreciate your feedback. Especially the crying smiley. I'm not sure why you were so fired up by my post since it agrees with your position that LA doped. You don't address the basic question about why it is better that five guys are left to ride in THIS YEARS TDF to go after a guy that didn't?! Don't you want to clean up the peloton? Why do you get so upset when confronted by a different perspective from someone who wants the same end result. I guess anyone who has a different opinion than you is fair game to your attempts at forum bullying. That is actually pretty pathetic. Did LA actually run over your favorite dog? I don't care one way or the other about LA but you obviously can't live with the thought that he gets away with his crimes against humanity.


----------



## Emeri530

*Stage 2*

As someone who could care less about LA and has a degree in Psychology, I feel like I can provide an unbiased opinion. It would be somewhat difficult for 80sRoadie to be in any of the "Five stages of Loss"(Kübler-Ross, E. (1969) On Death and Dying, Routledge) seeing as he hasn't lost anyone. I'm assuming you are using it as the five stages of "Denial" as that is how many people refer to it. The problem you run in to here is that he isn't denying anything either. In fact, he stated that he believes he probably was doping. However, if we choose to use Kubler-Ross' methods to describe 5 stages of "Denial" the only one the fits at a stage in here is you. You are denying that they have, in fact, allowed 5 riders to ride in the current TDF for the sole purpose of going after LA. You explicitly denied it in your post so we have one of two main ingredients. Now all we need is to decide were. Judging from the the over-indulgence in emoticons and the inability to provide a true base for the comments made with exclamation points, which I assume is meant as yelling, Kubler-Ross would place you at Stage 2. 

All this being said, Lance Armstrong made a name for himself and marketed that name in a way that would provide him with an income for the rest of his life, regardless of whether or not he still races. Doesn't mean you have to pay an arm and a leg for one of his shirts at Mellow Johnnies...
Have a nice day.


----------



## OldChipper

Roadie, you are correct. The ones with emotional attachment are Chris and the good Dr. who can't rest until LA is nailed to a giant syringe and hung up in Times Square with INRI (I'm Not Really Invincible) tattooed on his forehead in giant letters and EVERYONE AGREES that it was the best thing that has happened in the history of civilization, because, and I quote: "Lance Armstrong is the biggest cheater in sports history." Can you say "Hallelujah" brother?!

OTOH, better this than them protesting with the Westboro Baptist Church. 

Apologies to any of the Christian or Jewish faith who may be offended. My parody is of Chris and the Doc, not your faith.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

80sroadie said:


> ChrisX,
> I appreciate your feedback. Especially the crying smiley. I'm not sure why you were so fired up by my post since it agrees with your position that LA doped. You don't address the basic question about why it is better that five guys are left to ride in THIS YEARS TDF to go after a guy that didn't?! Don't you want to clean up the peloton? Why do you get so upset when confronted by a different perspective from someone who wants the same end result. I guess anyone who has a different opinion than you is fair game to your attempts at forum bullying. That is actually pretty pathetic. Did LA actually run over your favorite dog? I don't care one way or the other about LA but you obviously can't live with the thought that he gets away with his crimes against humanity.


Statue of limitations is 8 years not 8 weeks. 

As you are concerned about timeliness you must very upset that the UCI would not share any of Armstrong's Biopassport testing results with USADA for 2 years. It must be very concerning that Armstrong's intimidation and harassment insured much of the evidence remained secret for years. 

I think we all wish that Armstrong and his co-conspirators had not worked so hard to cover this up so it could have been addressed a decade ago. Hopefully he will not try to obstruct the process further and waste USADA's budget on silly legal challenges that go nowhere.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



OldChipper said:


> Roadie, you are correct. The ones with emotional attachment are Chris and the good Dr. who can't rest until LA is nailed to a giant syringe and hung up in Times Square with INRI (I'm Not Really Invincible) tattooed on his forehead in giant letters and EVERYONE AGREES that it was the best thing that has happened in the history of civilization, because, and I quote: "Lance Armstrong is the biggest cheater in sports history." Can you say "Hallelujah" brother?!
> 
> OTOH, better this than them protesting with the Westboro Baptist Church.
> 
> Apologies to any of the Christian or Jewish faith who may be offended. My parody is of Chris and the Doc, not your faith.


And that's an infraction- next personal attack is a posting vacation. That goes for everyone.


----------



## 80sroadie

*Apology*

Coolhand, It is not my intent to violate the rules of this forum or cause anyone else to do so. I apologize if that is what I have done. I will try to make sure that I do not offend. I am relatively new to taking part in forums so let me know if I am out of bounds. It is this very emotion throughout the thread that caused me to post my original message.

Please accept my apologies


----------



## 80sroadie

*Uci?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Statue of limitations is 8 years not 8 weeks.
> 
> As you are concerned about timeliness you must very upset that the UCI would not share any of Armstrong's Biopassport testing results with USADA for 2 years. It must be very concerning that Armstrong's intimidation and harassment insured much of the evidence remained secret for years.
> 
> I think we all wish that Armstrong and his co-conspirators had not worked so hard to cover this up so it could have been addressed a decade ago. Hopefully he will not try to obstruct the process further and waste USADA's budget on silly legal challenges that go nowhere.


If your purpose is to expose corruption within the current UCI by exposing/proving a conspiracy to protect certain cyclists (LA included) then I can see how that is a valid reason to pursue the past.
I still get a sense that some of you (both sides) are so emotional over LA the person that you have lost some of your ability to focus on the future and the best thing for the pro peloton and cycling in general. And don't misunderstand me, I understand the concept of offering criminals deals in order to get their testimony against other criminals. However, I don't agree with allowing thieves to continue breaking into houses for an additional six months while you go after their boss. In case you are wondering, George Hincapie is my favorite rider in the peloton but he is still racing and shouldn't be if he has admitted to doping.


----------



## 80sroadie

Chris-X said:


> "They all do it defense!":idea:
> 
> I don't assume anything. We know Hinault doped because of his attitude toward it and didn't he admit it? Indurain has been strongly linked to doping doctors and Merckx tested positive two or three times.
> 
> There is zero evidence LeMond doped.


So you admit that back in the late seventies and eighties the entire peloton (including Hinault) was doping but you would have us believe that only LeMond is innocent(even when he beat Hinault who was doping)!? Now who is being naive?

I go back to my original question. Why is going after one person so important. Lets all just admit that the entire peloton and all of the results prior to last year are suspect (put an asterisk next to all of them) and try to move forward as a sport. It's not a defense of LA, its an admission that he was part of the entire bad system and that the future is more important.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

80sroadie said:


> If your purpose is to expose corruption within the current UCI by exposing/proving a conspiracy to protect certain cyclists (LA included) then I can see how that is a valid reason to pursue the past.
> I still get a sense that some of you (both sides) are so emotional over LA the person that you have lost some of your ability to focus on the future and the best thing for the pro peloton and cycling in general. And don't misunderstand me, I understand the concept of offering criminals deals in order to get their testimony against other criminals. However, I don't agree with allowing thieves to continue breaking into houses for an additional six months while you go after their boss. In case you are wondering, George Hincapie is my favorite rider in the peloton but he is still racing and shouldn't be if he has admitted to doping.


Instead of attempting to insult people you disagree by calling them "emotional" perhaps try to address the topic? 

Armstrong is still actively involved in the sport, both with a Junior team and with RSNT. He is also a Professional athlete in a WADA sport. Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, Celya are all active in the sport today. Ignoring over a dozen witnesses and allowing this toxic element to remain in the sport is not a positive thing. That is not emotional, that is a fact.


----------



## 80sroadie

*Emotional is an insult?*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of attempting to insult people you disagree by calling them "emotional" perhaps try to address the topic?
> 
> Armstrong is still actively involved in the sport, both with a Junior team and with RSNT. He is also a Professional athlete in a WADA sport. Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, Celya are all active in the sport today. Ignoring over a dozen witnesses and allowing this toxic element to remain in the sport is not a positive thing. That is not emotional, that is a fact.


I didn't realize that you would perceive the term "emotional" as an insult. It was not intended as such! If you were offended I apologize but it is an honest observation of your input on these threads. You seem to be all over these threads with a very focused opinion that centers on LA. Is that an incorrect observation?


----------



## 80sroadie

*Continued involvement*

Dr Falsetti,
You make a good point about LAs continued involvement in the sport with junior teams. I admit I hadn't thought about that. Yet again I ask the same question, are you proposing we ban all of the past riders who doped? I see hinault on every TDF podium and LeMond is still involved in the sport as well as Meyrcx.


----------



## DMFT

80sroadie said:


> If your purpose is to expose corruption within the current UCI by exposing/proving a conspiracy to protect certain cyclists (LA included) then I can see how that is a valid reason to pursue the past.
> I still get a sense that some of you (both sides) are so emotional over LA the person that you have lost some of your ability to focus on the future and the best thing for the pro peloton and cycling in general. And don't misunderstand me, I understand the concept of offering criminals deals in order to get their testimony against other criminals. However, I don't agree with allowing thieves to continue breaking into houses for an additional six months while you go after their boss. In case you are wondering, George Hincapie is my favorite rider in the peloton but he is still racing and shouldn't be if he has admitted to doping.


- Here's the deal 80's. NOBODY HERE knows with 100% certainty "what" any of the riders testimony even was. End of story.

Now, in the past the promoter (ASO), not the UCI has asked riders and even teams to bow-out of the event when a cloud of suspicion rises overhead. THAT and that only has me a little baffled, maybe there would only have been 89 participants in this years Tour. . . .


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of attempting to insult people you disagree by calling them "emotional" perhaps try to address the topic?
> 
> Armstrong is still actively involved in the sport, both with a Junior team and with RSNT. He is also a Professional athlete in a WADA sport. Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, Celya are all active in the sport today. Ignoring over a dozen witnesses and allowing this toxic element to remain in the sport is not a positive thing. That is not emotional, that is a fact.


- ROTFLOL. Get over YOURSELF "Dr." You are insulted by the word emotional that YOU often hurtle at people? Wow. 

Hello Pot, meet Kettle.


----------



## 80sroadie

*No crystal ball here either*

I agree, none of us know what is in the testimony or even who the riders are for a certainty. Since the original thread was started based on "witnesses named and give evidence" I was originally just posing a question to the group about how our sport is better served by letting admitted dopers continue to ride in the peloton in the quest to pursue LA. And I was also asking why the group thinks there is so much emotion centered around LA. Is it simply because he is the most recent in a long line of probable dopers? Is that not the purpose of the forum, to discuss different perspectives and opinions that are relavent to our sport?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

I'd say a lot of the emotional attachment derives from Armstrong coming across as an ******* in many ways and not a likeable fellow, coupled with the fact that once the cat was let out of the bag, rather than doing the typical confession without really confessing bit like so many riders from that generation (or even just a frank confession) he went crazy with denials. Now a lot of the latter was simply his position and it was really an evolved thing but at some point it just became insulting to the intelligence of any one who has closely followed the sport of the last couple of decades. Still I think if he would have done a mea culpa without really doing a mea culpa and bowed out gracefully while on top he would have avoided all of this mess.

Then there is the issue of the "heads in the sand" folks who denied for years what was obvious to most informed people.

So now rather than deny the doping, which is really untenable at this point, it's basically an argument about wasted money and going after a retired rider. Kind of frustrating to be proven correct only to have the target moved


----------



## 80sroadie

*Allez Allez*



Dwayne Barry said:


> I'd say a lot of the emotional attachment derives from Armstrong coming across as an ******* in many ways and not a likeable fellow, coupled with the fact that once the cat was let out of the bag, rather than doing the typical confession without really confessing bit like so many riders from that generation (or even just a frank confession) he went crazy with denials. Now a lot of the latter was simply his position and it was really an evolved thing but at some point it just became insulting to the intelligence of any one who has closely followed the sport of the last couple of decades. Still I think if he would have done a mea culpa without really doing a mea culpa and bowed out gracefully while on top he would have avoided all of this mess.
> 
> Then there is the issue of the "heads in the sand" folks who denied for years what was obvious to most informed people.
> 
> So now rather than deny the doping, which is really untenable at this point, it's basically an argument about wasted money and going after a retired rider. Kind of frustrating to be proven correct only to have the target moved


Thanks for your perspective! I agree with you completely. I was a fan of LeMond during my club-racing days in the eighties and loved to watch LA ride. But at some point I had to admit to myself that clean guys don't beat an entire field of dopers! Dr Falsetti made a good point about LAs continued involvement in the Junior Cycling. The thing that worries me is that Its my view that some people think once you bring down LA the sun will shine and flowers will bloom and the sport will be clean. I'm just ready to move on. But it is always fun to debate a subject people care about!!


----------



## Fireform

We know he doped, we have abundant testimony he doped, so we should just drop it...why?

The fact that there are still others riding doped is no rational basis for ignoring the fact that Lance did. This is how the process advances. Objective data suggest that the pro peloton, while not entirely clean, is a lot less juiced than it was ten years ago. That progress has come from testing, reform and penalties, not from shrugging and looking the other way, or from giving known dopers passes while we try to come up with some perfect, flawless, pie in the sky testing method.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

80sroadie said:


> The thing that worries me is that Its my view that some people think once you bring down LA the sun will shine and flowers will bloom and the sport will be clean.


Who is saying this? 

Sanctioning Armstrong, Bruyneel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, will be a positive step in the ongoing work to clean up the sport. Ignoring then would send a very negative message.

Exposing the complacency of the UCI will also be a key ingredient. Verbruggen is concerned and will try to screw with this process as much as he can


----------



## Dwayne Barry

80sroadie said:


> But at some point I had to admit to myself that clean guys don't beat an entire field of dopers!


Well it's so much more than that...

Drugs in his samples, paying a hematologist big bucks for exclusive work, a whole host of "eye witness" accounts (the most damning of which was clearly a private conversation that was never meant to be seen by the public), etc.

Not to mention the "unreal" performances...

If any of the top guys from that era were still competing fully juiced they would be winning Grand Tours by silly margins, like Basso did when he was still blood-doping and the rest of the Giro field took their foot off the pedal.


----------



## orange_julius

Dwayne Barry said:


> Well it's so much more than that...
> 
> Drugs in his samples, paying a hematologist big bucks for exclusive work, a whole host of "eye witness" accounts (the most damning of which was clearly a private conversation that was never meant to be seen by the public), etc.
> 
> Not to mention the "unreal" performances...
> 
> If any of the top guys from that era were still competing fully juiced they would be winning Grand Tours by silly margins, like Basso did when he was still blood-doping and the rest of the Giro field took their foot off the pedal.


Even with his insincere apology (sorry, I don't buy Basso's claim that he hadn't doped in that Giro d'Italia, and that he had only stored blood in anticipation of the Tour de France), Basso is once again darling of many fans. So much so that Liquigas continue to place their faith in him at the cost of rising younger riders (Nibali, Kreuziger, et al.). 

I still remember his then-manager Bjarne Riis having to backpedal from a recent claim that Basso was like a son to him. Given that Rii's biological son is now starting his career as a racer, it brings chills to me.


----------



## Chris-X

OldChipper said:


> Roadie, you are correct. The ones with emotional attachment are Chris and the good Dr. who can't rest until LA is nailed to a giant syringe and hung up in Times Square with INRI (I'm Not Really Invincible) tattooed on his forehead in giant letters and EVERYONE AGREES that it was the best thing that has happened in the history of civilization, because, and I quote:* "Lance Armstrong is the biggest cheater in sports history." *Can you say "Hallelujah" brother?!
> 
> OTOH, better this than them protesting with the Westboro Baptist Church.
> 
> Apologies to any of the Christian or Jewish faith who may be offended. My parody is of Chris and the Doc, not your faith.


My only emotions are laughter and incredulity at the fact that adults can't let the chips fall where they may regarding a guy who everyone here knows is a fraud.

You are correct in the bolded. The rest is hyperbole.

As for my being in denial about GH, DZ, LL, CVV, and JV. Well, they made a deal, the same one which was apparently offered to LA. 

LA could be racing in his speedo right now if he would have just told the truth. We all know why he didn't tell the truth.

As for my assertion about LeMond being clean. I find it amazing and disgusting that LeMond gets no benefit of the certainty there's no evidence against him, but Armstrong gets every benefit of the doubt from doping apologists despite a mountain of evidence against him.


----------



## Chris-X

Emeri530 said:


> As someone who could care less about LA and has a degree in Psychology, I feel like I can provide an unbiased opinion. It would be somewhat difficult for 80sRoadie to be in any of the "Five stages of Loss"(Kübler-Ross, E. (1969) On Death and Dying, Routledge) seeing as he hasn't lost anyone. I'm assuming you are using it as the five stages of "Denial" as that is how many people refer to it. The problem you run in to here is that he isn't denying anything either. In fact, he stated that he believes he probably was doping. *However, if we choose to use Kubler-Ross' methods to describe 5 stages of "Denial" the only one the fits at a stage in here is you. You are denying that they have, in fact, allowed 5 riders to ride in the current TDF for the sole purpose of going after LA. You explicitly denied it in your post so we have one of two main ingredients*. Now all we need is to decide were. Judging from the the over-indulgence in emoticons and the inability to provide a true base for the comments made with exclamation points, which I assume is meant as yelling, Kubler-Ross would place you at Stage 2.
> 
> All this being said, Lance Armstrong made a name for himself and marketed that name in a way that would provide him with an income for the rest of his life, regardless of whether or not he still races. Doesn't mean you have to pay an arm and a leg for one of his shirts at Mellow Johnnies...
> Have a nice day.


You could care less, but you're here posting?:idea:

Dude, you ever hear the song, "Mrs. Robinson?" It's about a loss of innocense. Losing a belief in Santa Claus, or seeing that an idol has clay feet can be very traumatic. I think we're seeing this exhibited here. 

The true believers are now in the "bargaining" phase. 'If you let my hero hang on to his titles.... , 'all of the others were doing it!'....'please let him race in his speedo in kona'

BTW, I'm assuming that the grantor's of degrees in Psychology, believe the recipients of those degrees know what the word, "explicitly" means?

ut::incazzato::ciappa:



80sroadie said:


> I didn't realize that you would perceive the term "emotional" as an insult. It was not intended as such! If you were offended I apologize but it is an honest observation of your input on these threads. You seem to be all over these threads with a very focused opinion that centers on LA. Is that an incorrect observation?


It's intended as a dimunition of the argument, that somehow the apologists are relying on rational argument rather than emotions. Odd that clinging to the mythology is soley based on emotion and not the evidence for all to see.

You're really giving away your prejudices as all of the facts have come down against Armstrong and all of the emotion is that the people delivering the facts have been labeled as "haters."



80sroadie said:


> I agree, none of us know what is in the testimony or even who the riders are for a certainty. Since the original thread was started based on "witnesses named and give evidence" I was originally just posing a question to the group about how our sport is better served by letting admitted dopers continue to ride in the peloton in the quest to pursue LA. *And I was also asking why the group thinks there is so much emotion centered around LA. Is it simply because he is the most recent in a long line of probable dopers? *Is that not the purpose of the forum, to discuss different perspectives and opinions that are relavent to our sport?


Why is there so much "emotion" surrounding LA? Are you joking? Take a look at his facebook page and his supporters. He was the one who created the mythology on many different levels. You don't see that? You don't see that this mythology wasn't based on reality? You don't understand that people don't like to be lied to and some are offended when hucksters take advantage of a vulnerable group of people ie. cancer victims?



80sroadie said:


> So you admit that back in the late seventies and eighties the entire peloton (including Hinault) was doping but you would have us believe that only LeMond is innocent(even when he beat Hinault who was doping)!? Now who is being naive?
> 
> I go back to my original question. Why is going after one person so important. Lets all just admit that the entire peloton and all of the results prior to last year are suspect (put an asterisk next to all of them) and try to move forward as a sport. It's not a defense of LA, its an admission that he was part of the entire bad system and that the future is more important.


I admitted the whole peloton was on PED's, where? 

Why is it so important to you to engage in bargaining with 'everybody does it' arguments to excuse Armstrong? There were no clean riders in the Armstrong era? None?

Armstrong is not only "suspect" he's obviously the most guilty doper and facilitator in pro sports history so he is being pursued by the authorities.

Why do you keep repeating the shameful McGwire script?

You clearly show your allegiances while maintaining you're impartial.. It's absurd.


----------



## Chris-X

80sroadie said:


> Dr Falsetti,
> You make a good point about LAs continued involvement in the sport with junior teams. I admit I hadn't thought about that. Yet again I ask the same question, *are you proposing we ban all of the past riders who doped?* I see hinault on every TDF podium and *LeMond* is still involved in the sport as well as Meyrcx.


LeMond has been largely driven from the sport and in your way of thinking, as a doper, (your unfounded assumption) he should have even less of a role?

Leveling false accusations based on nothing is shameful.

ut:


----------



## Chris-X

80sroadie said:


> ChrisX,
> I appreciate your feedback. Especially the crying smiley. I'm not sure why you were so fired up by my post since it agrees with your position that LA doped.* You don't address the basic question about why it is better that five guys are left to ride in THIS YEARS TDF to go after a guy that didn't?!* Don't you want to clean up the peloton? Why do you get so upset when confronted by a different perspective from someone who wants the same end result. I guess anyone who has a different opinion than you is fair game to your attempts at forum bullying. That is actually pretty pathetic. *Did LA actually run over your favorite dog? I don't care one way or the other about LA but you obviously can't live with the thought that he gets away with his crimes against humanity*.


"Take a valium?"

Apparently the case is relying on a non analytical positive finding. The 5 guys you refer to are cooperating. They get leniency. It happens all the time. But you know all this.

I'm not fired up, just rebutting your false assertions and baseless assumptions and opinions.

Doesn't going after the enforcers of the Omerta and doping doctors clean up peloton more than going after guys who've cleaned up their act and cooperated in doping investigations run by the governing bodies?

Maybe Bruyneel, Ferrari, Del Moral, and Celaya, were the targets of the investigation and USADA offered Armstrong a reduced or no sanction for his cooperation.

They are stil working in the Pro Peloton? No?

Bullying? Undermining arguments which don't have any factual basis is bullying?

Pathetic? Seeing that there are "Witnesses named and give evidence against Armstrong" my discussion of it is viewed as pathetic by you? You're the one invoking the "McGwire/Hincapie" argument about the future you realize? Under that argument, no prior behavior is sanctioned? 

Why do the Armstrong defenders often resort to stuff like. "witch hunts," "lynching," "crucifixion," crime against humanity," and other such over the top statements?

I can't live with Armstrong getting away with it? Really?

All these things aren't ridiculous over exaggerations?

I just want to see the truth come out? You don't? Why?

.


----------



## 80sroadie

*Thanks for the debate*

Like I have stated more than once, I believe that LA doped. I just don't think that is the most important issue as far as doping in today's tour. For some reason you seem to assume that anyone who doesnt see this subject exactly as you do is a LA fan who thinks he shouldn't be punished. I do believe he should just " man up" and admit it and should be punished once he does. That doesn't mean it's worth letting admitted dopers ride this years tour if that was truly the deal that was made( no I don't know for sure and neither does anyone else on this thread unless you work for USADA and haven't told us).
Thanks to all of you for the debate but I'm on the spinner bike clicked in and trying to outrun old age, its 107 degrees here today!


----------



## mariomal99

*Doctor says USADA banned him when he wouldn't talk Armstrong*

Can USADA really get away with doing this if its true????


----------



## Local Hero

mariomal99 said:


> Can USADA really get away with doing this if its true????


Well, if you believe the accusations and rumors, del Moral told some people that if they didn't take x drug they wouldn't race. 

Some here will believe any and all evidence that tends to make Armstrong look guilty. I am a little more discriminating with what I believe. 

That said, if it is true, the guy should be banned from something. What exactly? I don't know.


To the second point, I'm interested in further discussion of USADA's powers. 


Finally, it's sad that USADA is using del Moral's failure to fight the charges as a victory. They have repeatedly attempted to bolsters their case by saying, some have already accepted sanctions in this matter. It's a half truth. It's not as though del Moral walked in there and pleaded no contest. He just refused to deal with the BS. 

If some court in Italy threatened to ban me unless I went there to fight a costly legal battle, I would accept the ban. Similarly, I have never been to North Korea and I have never sold drugs, but if North Korea charged me with drug trafficking, I would not fight it. I would just let them convict me in absentina. I would not truly be guilty of anything, except for picking my battles.


----------



## David Loving

One does not "force" an athlete to dope. :mad2:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> One does not "force" an athlete to dope. :mad2:


Del Moral is a pusher. "Take the short or you do not start tomorrow" was one of his favorite lines. 

He is guilty. The sport is better off without him


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

mariomal99 said:


> Can USADA really get away with doing this if its true????


USADA banned him because he was a key part of an organized doping for over a decade. This was supported by multiple witnesses. Pretending he was banned because he would not rat out Armstrong is just a sound bite from a guilty man


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> If some court in Italy threatened to ban me unless I went there to fight a costly legal battle, I would accept the ban. Similarly, I have never been to North Korea and I have never sold drugs, but if North Korea charged me with drug trafficking, I would not fight it. I would just let them convict me in absentina. I would not truly be guilty of anything, except for picking my battles.


This has nothing to do with you dealing drugs in North Korea

This ban is world wide, not just the United States. Del Moral cannot work on any teams or any athletes in any WADA sports. Del Moral 's legacy is so toxic that Slipstream fired Matt White when he sent a rider to him for a LT test. Manzano said that Kelme also used him.



> "Dr. del Moral is serving a lifetime ban for providing drugs to young cyclists, and nothing he makes up now in an effort to continue the cover-up of the USPS doping conspiracy will deter us from doing our duty to protect the rights of clean athletes and integrity of competition,"


----------



## Chris-X

*ridiculous silliness*



mariomal99 said:


> Can USADA really get away with doing this if its true????


Too bad del Moral was in business with Pablo Escobar, I mean Armstrong.



Local Hero said:


> Well, if you believe the accusations and rumors, del Moral told some people that if they didn't take x drug they wouldn't race.
> 
> Some here will believe any and all evidence that tends to make Armstrong look guilty.* I am a little more discriminating with what I believe.
> *
> That said, if it is true, the guy should be banned from something. What exactly? I don't know.
> 
> 
> To the second point, I'm interested in further discussion of USADA's powers.
> 
> 
> Finally, it's sad that USADA is using del Moral's failure to fight the charges as a victory. They have repeatedly attempted to bolsters their case by saying, some have already accepted sanctions in this matter. It's a half truth. It's not as though del Moral walked in there and pleaded no contest. *He just refused to deal with the BS*. .


Discriminating? :14:

You should read _From Lance to Landis_ for the background you're apparently missing.

Oh, it's bs!ut:




David Loving said:


> One does not "force" an athlete to dope. :mad2:


They just make them an offer they can't refuse!:lol:

Let me explain it to you simply so you can understand. Spoon feed it to you so you don't miss what I'm saying, so there's no misunderstanding, so you can comprehend the pressure one of these young guys might come under. Put you in their shoes. Provide context.

The cyclists who were "forced" to dope were on the most prominent cycling team in the world riding for and with one of the most mythological figures in sports history. 

A legend, the hardest working, most laser focused, toughest, most intimidating, widely recognized, famous, powerful, legendary, did I say that?

WTF were riders on USPS or Discovery going to do? Jeez, LeMond won 3 tours multiple WC's and was a legend himself and Armstrong almost ruined him.

So you're right, they weren't "forced.":mad2:

They just would've, uh, lost their careers???? WTF??:cryin:


----------



## Mulowe

When is the due date for LA to decide now ?


----------



## David Loving

Chris-X said:


> Too bad del Moral was in business with Pablo Escobar, I mean Armstrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Discriminating? :14:
> 
> You should read _From Lance to Landis_ for the background you're apparently missing.
> 
> Oh, it's bs!ut:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They just make them an offer they can't refuse!:lol:
> 
> Let me explain it to you simply so you can understand. Spoon feed it to you so you don't miss what I'm saying, so there's no misunderstanding, so you can comprehend the pressure one of these young guys might come under. Put you in their shoes. Provide context.
> 
> The cyclists who were "forced" to dope were on the most prominent cycling team in the world riding for and with one of the most mythological figures in sports history.
> 
> A legend, the hardest working, most laser focused, toughest, most intimidating, widely recognized, famous, powerful, legendary, did I say that?
> 
> WTF were riders on USPS or Discovery going to do? Jeez, LeMond won 3 tours multiple WC's and was a legend himself and Armstrong almost ruined him.
> 
> So you're right, they weren't "forced.":mad2:
> 
> They just would've, uh, lost their careers???? WTF??:cryin:


They still were not forced. They were shown a line and they chose to step over it. Has anybody ever "forced" you to write a hot check?


----------



## smartyiak

Hmmm. 

UCI tries to block USADA charges against Lance Armstrong - News | FOX Sports on MSN

Circle the wagons!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

smartyiak said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> UCI tries to block USADA charges against Lance Armstrong - News | FOX Sports on MSN
> 
> Circle the wagons!


Sorry....I have to gloat a bit on this. Wrote a few days ago that the UCI was trying to interfere with this but it appears they have stepped up the stupid level a few notches

Verbruggen and McQuaid are running scared. They will be exposed.


----------



## pianopiano

*fox guarding the henhouse*

I LMAO when I read the article. Some of the things that come out of the mouth of Pat McQuaid are so amazingly ridiculous. The UCI gladly accepted hush money, er, I mean a sizeable generous _donation_ from Lance, yet they still have the balls to come out with this priceless gem! :thumbsup:


----------



## trailrunner68

piano said:


> I LMAO when I read the article. Some of the things that come out of the mouth of Pat McQuaid are so amazingly ridiculous. The UCI gladly accepted hush money, er, I mean a sizeable generous _donation_ from Lance, yet they still have the balls to come out with this priceless gem! :thumbsup:


It makes you wonder at what point the McQuaid will decide Armstrong is a lost cause and start pretending it barely knew him. When the associate of a politician gets involved in a scandal, the politican does not tie himself to man. He suddenly becomes a very casual acquintence who the politican barely knew. The pol's staff worries about how many pictures are out there with the pol's arm around the accused. They know those pics might show up during the next election. McQuaid, in comparision, is falling over itself in an attempt to tie itself to Armstrong. He is a moron.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

trailrunner68 said:


> It makes you wonder at what point the McQuaid will decide Armstrong is a lost cause and start pretending it barely knew him. When the associate of a politician gets involved in a scandal, the politican does not tie himself to man. He suddenly becomes a very casual acquintence who the politican barely knew. The pol's staff worries about how many pictures are out there with the pol's arm around the accused. They know those pics might show up during the next election. McQuaid, in comparision, is falling over itself in an attempt to tie itself to Armstrong. He is a moron.


He tried that. 

For a long time he was saying this was USADA's case, that the UCI had nothing to do with it. He said this as recently as last month.....then suddenly everything changes

Verburggen realized how much trouble they are in. This is just going to make it worse


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sorry....I have to gloat a bit on this. Wrote a few days ago that the UCI was trying to interfere with this but it appears they have stepped up the stupid level a few notches
> 
> Verbruggen and McQuaid are running scared. They will be exposed.



I wondered if the LA ship does down, will UCI be caught in the whirl pool and go down with it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> I wondered if the LA ship does down, will UCI be caught in the whirl pool and go down with it?


Not the UCI but Pat and Hein. They are very aware of the risk, hence the hail mary


----------



## Tight Nipples

piano said:


> I LMAO when I read the article. Some of the things that come out of the mouth of Pat McQuaid are so amazingly ridiculous. The UCI gladly accepted hush money, er, I mean a sizeable generous _donation_ from Lance, yet they still have the balls to come out with this priceless gem! :thumbsup:


Mega dittos. :thumbsup:


----------



## badge118

MG537 said:


> Yep! There goes Lance's disgruntled employee theory.
> Unless Hincapie and Leipheimer are also disgruntled?


Hell why do you think those guys bailed on JB? Hincapie saw the writing on the wall a few years ago and after last season so did Levi. I wouldn't call it disgruntled though. More like rats from a sinking ship.


----------



## badge118

This actually illustrates the ONLY real issue I have with the system. "You are banned unless you ask for a hearing." It has nothing to do with the whole "where was the due process?" argument, and everything with the fact it becomes a simple war of words at that point. One person will look at this and say it was a Dr. now playing PR since he would be found guilty at a hearing and he didn't want to waste the money. Another will say he got banned as punishment for not giving potentially false testimony. Since there is no transparency regarding the evidence against the Dr. there is no way for the outside world to actually KNOW who is telling the truth. it comes down to belief and belief is not logical.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> This actually illustrates the ONLY real issue I have with the system. "You are banned unless you ask for a hearing." It has nothing to do with the whole "where was the due process?" argument, and everything with the fact it becomes a simple war of words at that point. One person will look at this and say it was a Dr. now playing PR since he would be found guilty at a hearing and he didn't want to waste the money. Another will say he got banned as punishment for not giving potentially false testimony. Since there is no transparency regarding the evidence against the Dr. there is no way for the outside world to actually KNOW who is telling the truth. it comes down to belief and belief is not logical.


What happens in a criminal trial when then crook pleads guilty or no contest? Is all the evidence made public? 

Don't worry. Tyler is writing a nice book due out shortly. We will have a good idea of what Ferrari was up to. The Italians are still investigating him, in fact one of his athletes was caught recently thanks to some help from Interpol


----------



## Chris-X

*Exceedingly odd*



badge118 said:


> This actually illustrates the ONLY real issue I have with the system. "You are banned unless you ask for a hearing." It has nothing to do with the whole "where was the due process?" argument, and everything with the fact it becomes a simple war of words at that point. One person will look at this and say it was a Dr. now playing PR since he would be found guilty at a hearing and he didn't want to waste the money. Another will say he got banned as punishment for not giving potentially false testimony. Since there is no transparency regarding the evidence against the Dr. there is no way for the outside world to actually KNOW who is telling the truth. it comes down to belief and belief is not logical.


that you've decided to take a stand on this to defend a fabulously wealthy athlete who by most accounts is a lousy person and has a mountain of evidence against him.

People lose their jobs every single day for God knows what reasons but this is all ok? They have no insurance, lose homes, die, and not a peep in their defense.....because most people deserve their station in life and life is somehow fair?

All the people living on the street DESERVE to be there? Do you KNOW why they are there.

People say and do a lot of illogical things. People belief in space aliens, ghosts, believe in all kinds of miracles and on and on.

How do we KNOW the lunar landings weren't staged? How do we really know ANYTHING outside our individual direct experience?

And in the end, this huge effort to defend Armstrong with all kinds of extremely strained and distorted logic which turns the intent of Anti doping regs on their head?

We have a decent segment of the US population that believes American society should let others die if they don't have health insurance, and you're fighting this battle as if it has any kind of major significance?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What happens in a criminal trial when then crook pleads guilty or no contest? Is all the evidence made public?
> 
> Don't worry. Tyler is writing a nice book due out shortly. We will have a good idea of what Ferrari was up to. The Italians are still investigating him, in fact one of his athletes was caught recently thanks to some help from Interpol


The Criminal complaint that contains the summary of evidence is public record. You see if lab reports exists and what the result was (not exact details but positive, negative etc). You see what statements exist and from whom and the most damning statements there ins (not every nitty gritty details) you see the list of evidence collected from a search warrant etc. Also the defense has this stuff pretty much out of the gate. The way the system is now would be akin to not getting discovery until after you decide to go to trial. In the real world you get it so you can decide if you want to go to trial. 

I am not asking for every piece of evidence but if this was a criminal case we would have access to the criminal complaint and full docket, showing every step of the process on line for goodness sakes.

Ex: 

Bob, Sally, Joe and Mike stated that Dr. was the person to whom they were to give all used doping products for disposal (as an example). We may not have access to what specific doping products and every nitty gritty detail but you would be able to access the Summary of the evidence against a defendant. Right now all anyone including the defendant knows is A. You are charged and B. We have evidence against you but no you don't have a right to discovery unless we go to trial.

This just gives an appearance of imbalance. I am tired of such imbalances to let someone like AC to deny even using legal supplements and then when CAS says "he got it from a supplement" to turn around and say "see CAS vindicated me." Even an expert for the USADA in this case is quoted as saying the process is about procedures and evidence squeeks through those procedures, not truth. This bothers me on a basic level


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> The Criminal complaint that contains the summary of evidence is public record. You see if lab reports exists and what the result was (not exact details but positive, negative etc). You see what statements exist and from whom and the most damning statements there ins (not every nitty gritty details) you see the list of evidence collected from a search warrant etc. Also the defense has this stuff pretty much out of the gate. The way the system is now would be akin to not getting discovery until after you decide to go to trial. In the real world you get it so you can decide if you want to go to trial.
> 
> I am not asking for every piece of evidence but if this was a criminal case we would have access to the criminal complaint and full docket, showing every step of the process on line for goodness sakes.
> 
> Ex:
> 
> Bob, Sally, Joe and Mike stated that Dr. was the person to whom they were to give all used doping products for disposal (as an example). We may not have access to what specific doping products and every nitty gritty detail but you would be able to access the Summary of the evidence against a defendant. Right now all anyone including the defendant knows is A. You are charged and B. We have evidence against you but no you don't have a right to discovery unless we go to trial.
> 
> This just gives an appearance of imbalance. I am tired of such imbalances to let someone like AC to deny even using legal supplements and then when CAS says "he got it from a supplement" to turn around and say "see CAS vindicated me." Even an expert for the USADA in this case is quoted as saying the process is about procedures and evidence squeeks through those procedures, not truth. This bothers me on a basic level



I appreciate your comments on the political/legal minutia of the procedural aspects of this case but you keep seem to keep applying civil law to what is essentially a private hearing. Those arbitrators aren't government employees. AAA and CAA are private conflict resolution non profits.

here is a link to their list of USADA cases.

I think of you stick to the relevant issues you wont come off sounding like this guy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> sniped for brevity


USADA already made a summery of evidence public.


It is common in a case where the target has a history of harassment that some witnesses are kept confidential until the discovery phase. 

In the end this means nothing, as the real fun starts soon :thumbsup:


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> I appreciate your comments on the political/legal minutia of the procedural aspects of this case but you keep seem to keep applying civil law to what is essentially a private hearing. Those arbitrators aren't government employees. AAA and CAA are private conflict resolution non profits.
> 
> here is a link to their list of USADA cases.
> 
> I think of you stick to the relevant issues you wont come off sounding like this guy.



I was only responding to what was asked. I was asked what we could know if a criminal pled guilty. So I answered in kind. 

I do NOT believe that the Anti-doping regime should adhere to all the same rules as the "regular" judicial system. The burdens of proof I have no issue with as an example. I just think a little more transparency would benefit it thats all.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA already made a summery of evidence public.
> 
> 
> It is common in a case where the target has a history of harassment that some witnesses are kept confidential until the discovery phase.
> 
> In the end this means nothing, as the real fun starts soon :thumbsup:


The thing is here the procedural steps I think are a little off. In the regular system you have a preliminary hearing, sorta the USADA hearing. At that time if you are going to present a statement as evidence the person who gave the statement can't be concealed. Right to confront the accuser and all that. The way you get around this is by NOT presenting that evidence at the time. Then the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty at a formal arraignment. After that though the case is not listed for trial. First discovery happens, then you have a pre-trial conference to see if a plea can be worked out, THEN if it can't it goes to trial list. 

If just these steps were followed, no change to burdens of proof, no changes to what is and what is not admissible etc. the primary issue that the doping apologists have gets under cut, the lack of transparency. It is this lack of transparency that allows people to complain about due process rights and all that crap with even a thin veil of logic. Take away that veil and they will be reduced to arguments like a friend of mine once used to defend Landis pre-confession.."he is such a nice guy."


----------

