# Lance Armstrong ban flouted anti-doping law: Experts



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

A topic that is continually discussed in the forum is the debate on whether Lance's sanctions were unfair and it was a witch hunt and others say he got what he deserved. If you disagree, you are an apologist. Here is an article (that I believe) is not partisan to either side.

Lance Armstrong ban flouted anti-doping law: Experts - Cycling News



> Several sports law specialists said the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) report that triggered Armstrong's downfall and world cycling's confirmation of its punishment ignored the statute of limitations that ordinarily applies in such cases.





> "We've not got a classic anti-doping procedure but an Armstrong procedure," said Alexis Schoeb, another Swiss lawyer specialising in sport.
> "We're focusing solely on him and we're accepting, in exchange for testimony favourable to the dossier, to have a number of other athletes spared by this tidal wave.
> "A lot of former cyclists are currently owning up, like the head of the Garmin team, Jonathan Vaughters. In these cases, the eight-year limitation has been respected.





> "We've not got a classic anti-doping procedure but an Armstrong procedure," said Alexis Schoeb, another Swiss lawyer specialising in sport.
> "We're focusing solely on him and we're accepting, in exchange for testimony favourable to the dossier, to have a number of other athletes spared by this tidal wave.





> "No one dares criticise the USADA for fear of appearing to defend Armstrong. But we need to have dispassionate judges who apply the law as it stands," added the former Court of Arbitration for Sport judge.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

This is a paper published by St Louis University Law Journal. The author, Brian Dziewa was also a pro cyclist who is anti-doping. Although he doesn't excuse Lance's doping, he does agree with Lance's statement that the process is one-sided and unfair, and that the arbitration process with the USADA is almost impossible to win. 

It is a long but interesting read on one lawyer's opinion on the process.

http://www.slu.edu/Documents/law/Law Journal/DziewaArticle.pdf


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Is anyone really surprised that lawyers who make their living defending dopers (Vino, Contador, Schleck, Bruyneel) would take a shot at USADA? 

The facts are clear. The Hellebuck case is the standard for Tolling SOL in a WADA case
http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Given that Armstrong lied in multiple official investigations, under oath, in interviews, and in contracts for over a decade it would not be hard to reset SOL. 

CAS has already ruled on the use of tolling of the WADA code SOL. The ruling occurred in a previous Statute of Limitation opinion sought by CONI
http://www.rdes.it/TASopinion.pdf

in addition WADA already reviewed this topic



> WADA said it had an external, independent review of the application of the statute of limitations, and said, "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".
> 
> "WADA has no such concerns as to the complete process and the overwhelming weight of evidence,"


WADA will not appeal USADA decision on Lance Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com

You are welcome to believe a couple of "Experts" who make their living defending dopers but WADA and CAS are the real experts and they are clear on what the facts are.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to believe a couple of "Experts" who make their living defending dopers but WADA and CAS are the real experts and they are clear on what the facts are.


One of those experts is a law professor. Can't say for sure if he also defends dopers or not, but he does appear to be fairly neutral on the subject. 



> "The case is certainly unique in its scale but it's not a reason not to apply or even ignore the (anti-doping) rules, as we've seen," said Antonio Rigozzi, a doping law professor at the university of Neuchatel in Switzerland.
> 
> The lawyer, however, said that although he could understand why the International Cycling Union (UCI) preferred to ratify the USADA findings, the sport's world governing body had lost credibility by "giving precedence to politics over law".


Have you had a chance to read the second link I've sent? It is quite detailed (as one would expect from a lawyer), but it really does make a good argument for the unfairness in the arbitration process.

One point that he made was the fact that if you had any other job and had to legally defend yourself for whatever reason, there is a higher standard of proof and processes in place that allow the defense to be able to argue (the basis of North America's court systems) their defense. Yes, professional athletes have signed up for this, but the point is that it is not a fair system when compared to our legal court proceedings. Once the USADA has their hooks into an athlete, you are doomed.

My point of this thread is that there are two sides of the Lance outcome and there are many people, who are experts in the field that do not agree with all the punishments that were given to Lance. That the USADA went overboard to punish Lance, whereas they handed out minimal or non existent ones to other dopers. Because of this, it appears to the general public that this was indeed a "witch hunt".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> One of those experts is a law professor. Can't say for sure if he also defends dopers or not, but he does appear to be fairly neutral on the subject.


Antonio Rigozzi was Contador, Vino, and Schleck's lawyer. 

Dziewa was not a lawyer when he wrote that, he just passed the bar a few months ago. Now that he has moved on from being an intern to an entry level corporate lawyer he must realize that arbitration is mandated in most of the contracts he works on. Arbitration is SOP for most commercial contracts as well as employment and professional groups. 

Gotta laugh when Lance says the process is one sided and unfair......the process was written by his agent/lawyer, and co-defendant, Bill Stapleton when he was on the USIOC's ethics committee. 

Regardless, there are not two sides of this. WADA and CAS write the rules and it is clear that the rules were followed. No amount of smoke and mirrors from dopers changes that


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Antonio Rigozzi was Contador, Vino, and Schleck's lawyer.
> 
> Dziewa was not a lawyer when he wrote that, he just passed the bar a few months ago. Now that he has moved on from being an intern to an entry level corporate lawyer he must realize that arbitration is mandated in most of the contracts he works on. Arbitration is SOP for most commercial contracts as well as employment and professional groups.
> 
> ...


well, two Rigozzi worked with are Michael Rasmussen and Vinokourov. Another two victims of vicious witch hunts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

den bakker said:


> well, two Rigozzi worked with are Michael Rasmussen and Vinokourov. Another two victims of vicious witch hunts.


Here is another "Experts" view on USADA. 

Welcome to 53x12.com

Mike Ferrari, unbiased, independent observer. He is looking for work these days, maybe he can do some expert witness work for Rigozzi?


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

I hate to tell you, but you are either misguided, insane, or in the pay of that evil (I can't even say his name) L.A.
Any and all of your arguments are just piffle when dissected by the experts of the sport that you can find here. 
You must give up and accept their wise and learned pronouncements. (You know how the internet works, don't you??)
.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Dziewa was not a lawyer when he wrote that, he just passed the bar a few months ago.


I agree, he was not a lawyer when he wrote this paper, however, it was written while he was at St Louis University and knowing what I know about universities the paper was probably reviewed by his peers before it was posted. Also, just because you are a student, doesn't mean that you can't accurately research your arguments. 

This is a quote from that article:



> The biggest question raised by Armstrong is the question about the onesided
> nature of the USADA arbitration process. Despite his admission of guilt,
> Armstrong’s claims about the process remain. This Comment will attempt to
> explain USADA’s arbitration process and why it might cause an athlete to
> ...


He is not arguing Armstrong's guilt (is anybody arguing that anymore????), just the process that is currently in place. I think we can agree that he has done very meticulous research and is based on facts. AND as he was previously cycling for Jelly Belly AND was very anti-doping, you would think that he really has no sympathy for Lance.



> One fact to support Armstrong’s claim is that
> USADA has only lost two cases since its inception in October of 2000.182
> Second, the limits on discovery prevent defendants from gaining valuable
> evidence.183 Third, there are no evidentiary rules to admit or restrict certain
> ...


This suggests that 

1. We can believe Lance when he said he couldn't win and
2. That it makes it "possible" for USADA to do a "witch hunt".

Some quotes from the paper when he is discussing the arguments for the "one-sided" process:



> Finally, to further eliminate the one-sided nature of the USADA process,
> USADA should follow its own rules. Primarily, USADA should follow its
> statute of limitations. The USADA protocol states, “No action may be
> commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation
> ...


His comment on Tygart's tolling defense:

It is a very long section so I'll leave it up to you if you want to read it all but I'll just quote this part:



> USADA relies on Armstrong’s perjury, witness
> intimidation, and seeking to procure false affidavits to make its case for
> concealment. This argument is a stretch. Prior to Armstrong’s perjury, USADA
> had the deposition transcripts of former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu,
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I agree, he was not a lawyer when he wrote this paper, however, it was written while he was at St Louis University and knowing what I know about universities the paper was probably reviewed by his peers before it was posted. Also, just because you are a student, doesn't mean that you can't accurately research your arguments.
> 
> This is a quote from that article:
> 
> ...


The reason USADA wins is the barrier for a positive is so high that by the time it comes to a sanction there is little doubt of the athletes guilt. If you think innocent athletes are being unfairly sanctioned then lets hear your evidence. 

Gotta laugh much of what he writes. It is clear he has little understanding of WADA, USADA, or the UCI. 



> USADA’s power over these athletes was just as extensive in, say 2002, as it was in 2012,


 The UCI was the last Fed to sign the WADA code, in late 2004. USADA had no "power over these athletes" in 2002. Comical. 

It is clear to anyone who has followed this that USADA did not have enough to sanction lance until Floyd, Tyler, George, and Dave Z came in an talked. Floyd and Tyler already lied in their arb hearings to the idea that they would have told the truth to USADA in 2004 is comicalut:

Much of his babble about unfairness was used by Tyler and Floyd.....and exposed as nonsense. 

Brian is not the first college student to write an impassioned, but clueless, position paper......and he will not be the last


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Poor Lance. Such an innocent victim.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Fireform said:


> Poor Lance. Such an innocent victim.



He is still worth in the order of 50 million Net worth I think. So my heart bleeds for him, or would if the EPO was not making it clot so fast.

He is an ******* by most accounts, and a rich one at that. Would I watch all those stages/races again if sent back in time?? You Bet!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Is anyone really surprised that lawyers who make their living defending dopers (Vino, Contador, Schleck, Bruyneel) would take a shot at USADA?


step one: attack the source


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The reason USADA wins is the barrier for a positive is so high that by the time it comes to a sanction there is little doubt of the athletes guilt. If you think innocent athletes are being unfairly sanctioned then lets hear your evidence.
> 
> Gotta laugh much of what he writes. It is clear he has little understanding of WADA, USADA, or the UCI.
> 
> ...


One would think that Brian being an ex-pro cyclist that hated doping would NOT be arguing the "unfairness" of the arbitration process unless he felt strongly about it? Perhaps a legal argument for life time bans for all caught dopers?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> One would think that Brian being an ex-pro cyclist that hated doping would NOT be arguing the "unfairness" of the arbitration process unless he felt strongly about it? Perhaps a legal argument for life time bans for all caught dopers?


He clearly feels strongly, and that is nice.......but as I showed his "Facts" are wrong.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He clearly feels strongly, and that is nice.......but as I showed his "Facts" are wrong.


You pointed out one fact. Brian does state earlier in his paper the history of the USADA, but I haven't had time to read it in detail. I am not familiar enough with the controlling bodies to make any comment on that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> You pointed out one fact. Brian does state earlier in his paper the history of the USADA, but I haven't had time to read it in detail. I am not familiar enough with the controlling bodies to make any comment on that.


Hahaha, You put up his babble and you don't even read it? 

I pointed out much more then one fact. You also must have not read the links I gave that show both WADA and CAS supported tolling of the SOL. I also gave multiple examples of cases where it had been done in the past. 

We get it, reading isn't your thing


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, reading isn't your thing


This doesn't help you. Insults and emotional outbursts detract from your argument.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> This doesn't help you. Insults and emotional outbursts detract from your argument.


step one: attack the source


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hahaha, You put up his babble and you don't even read it?
> 
> I pointed out much more then one fact. You also must have not read the links I gave that show both WADA and CAS supported tolling of the SOL. I also gave multiple examples of cases where it had been done in the past.
> 
> We get it, reading isn't your thing


Oh, I read the paper. And insults are not called for. I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be able to read through their papers. I'm just a normal person who reads the papers and forms opinions based on what I read. Just like millions of others who form their "Lance apologist" opinions. While I'm not naive enough to believe everything I read, I will if there are compelling arguments and facts behind it. 

His arguments are about the fairness of the arbitration process as compared to the US judicial system, a system that is accepted as being an extremely fair system, not whether it was acceptable by other governing bodies who are not the US judicial system. This being one of the arguments that people feel Lance did not get a fair shake. 

He stated the tolling argument could have been argued by the defense as the USADA had evidence of Lance's doping before 2012 and should have started proceedings before as there unlike the Hellebuyck case where USADA started proceedings as soon as they heard of the interview he gave indicating he had perjured himself.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Oh, I read the paper. And insults are not called for. I am not a lawyer and do not profess to be able to read through their papers. I'm just a normal person who reads the papers and forms opinions based on what I read. Just like millions of others who form their "Lance apologist" opinions. While I'm not naive enough to believe everything I read, I will if there are compelling arguments and facts behind it.
> 
> His arguments are about the fairness of the arbitration process as compared to the US judicial system, a system that is accepted as being an extremely fair system, not whether it was acceptable by other governing bodies who are not the US judicial system. This being one of the arguments that people feel Lance did not get a fair shake.
> 
> He stated the tolling argument could have been argued by the defense as the USADA had evidence of Lance's doping before 2012 and should have started proceedings before as there unlike the Hellebuyck case where USADA started proceedings as soon as they heard of the interview he gave indicating he had perjured himself.


There are no insults in my post. You did not read the link you posted and you did not read what I posted. Writing that reading is not your thing is an accurate observation, not an insult. 

Lots of emotion, but no facts. As I pointed out Brian clearly does not understand the history of WADA, the code or the evidence that was available. WADA and CAS both support USADA's use of tolling. The idea that USADA had enough evidence to sanction Armstrong with a non-analytical positive prior to George, Tyler, Floyd, and Dave Z telling the truth is laughable.....just like the idea that there are millions of Armstrong "Apologists" who think he was railroaded.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Stick to you points please.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There are no insults in my post. You did not read the link you posted and you did not read what I posted. Writing that reading is not your thing is an accurate observation, not an insult.
> 
> Lots of emotion, but no facts. As I pointed out Brian clearly does not understand the history of WADA, the code or the evidence that was available. WADA and CAS both support USADA's use of tolling. The idea that USADA had enough evidence to sanction Armstrong with a non-analytical positive prior to George, Tyler, Floyd, and Dave Z telling the truth is laughable.....just like the idea that there are millions of Armstrong "Apologists" who think he was railroaded.


def'n of insult from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:


> 1in·sult verb \in-ˈsəlt\
> : to do or say something that is offensive to (someone) : to do or say something that shows a lack of respect for (someone)


The point to the paper is that the arbitration process does not have the same due process as our legal system and that is not fair to those athletes who have (or choose to) defend themselves (guilty or not) to keep their jobs as other citizens of the US. I believe the US has a great judicial system and the adversary process that it is based on keeps the plaintiff/prosecutor in check and to give the defense the opportunity to be able to defend itself. That includes providing the defense with all evidence and providing the chance for the defense to question those who are accusing the defendant. As Brian points out, this is not happening in the USADA case against Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> def'n of insult from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
> 
> 
> The point to the paper is that the arbitration process does not have the same due process as our legal system and that is not fair to those athletes who have (or choose to) defend themselves (guilty or not) to keep their jobs as other citizens of the US. I believe the US has a great judicial system and the adversary process that it is based on keeps the plaintiff/prosecutor in check and to give the defense the opportunity to be able to defend itself. That includes providing the defense with all evidence and providing the chance for the defense to question those who are accusing the defendant. As Brian points out, this is not happening in the USADA case against Lance.


I agree, your misrepresentation of my posts is disrespectful and insulating but I will not hold it against you.

Brian has shown he has limited understanding of the arbitration process. When he does start practicing law he will realize it has much of the due process he is saying it does not have. That is why is has been used to adjudicate hundreds of thousands of disputes and is used by thousands of companies and professional organizations world wide. The ubiquity of arbitration is why Armstrong agent, Bill Stapleton, used it as the basis for the portion of the code he wrote. 

I do agree that it is one sided......on the side of of the athlete. The barrier of proof greatly favors the athlete, which is what allows dopers like Armstrong to continue for so long without a sanction. 

This case has been reviewed for years now. So far the only folks questioning it are a couple lawyers who make their living trying to defend dopers and damage the anti doping system.....and an intern. 

The people that matter, WADA and CAS, are clear on the facts.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I do agree that it is one sided......on the side of of the athlete. The barrier of proof greatly favors the athlete, which is what allows dopers like Armstrong to continue for so long without a sanction.


It's huge, it goes on forever, and it predates anything to do with Armstrong, but Trust but Verify, trust but verify, goes into minute detail the due process shortcomings of USADA's arbitration (at least at the time of the Landis hearing) with most of the analysis coming from Bill Hue a Wisconsin state judge. The inequality in the USADA arbitration process is pretty clear and plainly in favor of USADA.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> step one: attack the source


Hey- on this, you and Lance agree!


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Of course Lance knew that he couldn't win with USADA. He was guilty, they had the evidence to prove it, and he knew (to a large degree) the extent that they could prove it. Instead of cooperating and accepting a sanction, he spent a lot of money on the case on several fronts (and made USADA and the Fed spend a lot of money on several fronts) fighting a case he knew there was no way he could win. Even if he believed he was justified in doping, he also knew that his agreement to be subject to WADA/USADA codes meant they had the authority to sanction him. And yet, he fought on...

If I was in his place, I might have too. The loss of the admiring masses probably hurt far more than the loss of the money. But, a lot of resources that could have been used to fight doping in the current peloton (and in other sports) was spent on bringing him down. If I was USADA or the Fed and went through that after offering several lesser sanctions, I would go for the jugular too.

If I were a doping athlete looking at this, I would think twice about messing around with USADA if I knew they had me dead to rights. Lance tried, fought the costliest court battles in the history of cycling (as far as I can tell), and came out far worse than if he had just admitted guilt and moved on with life. Arguing if it's fair or not? When you signed the code, you agreed to be bound to it and how it's applied. Lance didn't have to come back, and didn't have to sign the code. It's doubtful any of this would have happened to Lance if he just stayed retired.

I think a lifetime ban is a bit extreme, but I'd rather not hear about Lance for a while. I'd rather not hear about Tyler, Floyd, or any number of the riders from that generation. Every time I hear their names, I'm reminded of how dirty the sport is and has been. I have a large stack of WCP videos I watch on the trainer, and I'm sick of immediately thinking about a rider's doping history as their name is mentioned. I'd rather forget, because me knowing doesn't affect anything but my own appreciation of the sport, but that is unlikely. I woke up (and admitted what I'd hadn't wanted to) during Stage 17 of the '06 TDF, and was forced to look at races in a completely different way. That was Floyd, not Lance. I had given up on Lance long before that. I wanted to believe in Floyd. I wanted believe that the hard-core dopers were in the minority. I had no idea.

I don't watch professional racing with the same enthusiasm anymore. That's a problem for broadcasters, because without the nut-jobs like me that actually watch the programming, their product is not worth much.

Maybe if I never heard about these guys again, maybe if there could be a lifetime media blackout imposed, I might actually forget. Somehow I don't think that will happen.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

asgelle said:


> It's huge, it goes on forever, and it predates anything to do with Armstrong, but Trust but Verify, trust but verify, goes into minute detail the due process shortcomings of USADA's arbitration (at least at the time of the Landis hearing) with most of the analysis coming from Bill Hue a Wisconsin state judge. The inequality in the USADA arbitration process is pretty clear and plainly in favor of USADA.


Thank you for posting this. 

I know it is what it is, but that doesn't make it fair when you compare it to the civil courts in the US (and Canada).


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Alaska Mike: but fighting on until you've exhausted all means is a right that all US citizens enjoy in the US, is it not? If that is our rules, shouldn't every citizen be able to do just that? I do hate hearing about guilty people doing just this as it wastes court time, but I also love that they can defend themselves unlike other citizens in this world. 

But this difference in ability to defend oneself could be one of the reasons that average Joe believes Lance did not get a "fair shake". And IMHO, they are right. I'm pretty sure in the end, he would have been found guilty, but he should have (and every other athlete that goes up against the USADA) been given the same due process as civil courts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> that average Joe believes Lance did not get a "fair shake".


The average Joe believes Lance is a dirtbag who got what he deserved. A handful may push the victim talking point but few buy into that


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> It's huge, it goes on forever, and it predates anything to do with Armstrong, but Trust but Verify, trust but verify, goes into minute detail the due process shortcomings of USADA's arbitration (at least at the time of the Landis hearing) with most of the analysis coming from Bill Hue a Wisconsin state judge. The inequality in the USADA arbitration process is pretty clear and plainly in favor of USADA.


Bill is a great guy but given that most of what he and Brower wrote has been exposed as completely wrong they might not be the best best source on this topic. They do deserve a prize for the world class obfuscation they pumped out for several years. 

What some seem to miss is the arbitration portion of a sanction comes at the end of a long process that is tilted greatly in the favor of the doper.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> Alaska Mike: but fighting on until you've exhausted all means is a right that all US citizens enjoy in the US, is it not? If that is our rules, shouldn't every citizen be able to do just that? I do hate hearing about guilty people doing just this as it wastes court time, but I also love that they can defend themselves unlike other citizens in this world.
> 
> But this difference in ability to defend oneself could be one of the reasons that average Joe believes Lance did not get a "fair shake". And IMHO, they are right. I'm pretty sure in the end, he would have been found guilty, but he should have (and every other athlete that goes up against the USADA) been given the same due process as civil courts.


somehow I doubt average Joe has the faintest clue what USADA, WADA, or UCI means.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Bill is a great guy but given that most of what he and Brower wrote has been exposed as completely wrong they might not be the best best source on this topic.


Where and by whom? It wasn't in the course of the discussion on Trust but Verify.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What some seem to miss is the arbitration portion of a sanction comes at the end of a long process that is tilted greatly in the favor of the doper.


Which is a fine distraction and misdirection since the subject was the arbitration process itself. A kangaroo court is no less a kangaroo court depending on how an accused person might have been treated earlier.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

den bakker said:


> somehow I doubt average Joe has the faintest clue what USADA, WADA, or UCI means.


I agree. And that is one of the reasons why they think Lance got a bum deal. Along with lawyers being quoted in articles stating the USADA does not have a fair due process. You can't blame them for that. More and more I find publishers are not telling both sides of the story and bend their stories towards their biases.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> I agree. And that is one of the reasons why they think Lance got a bum deal. Along with lawyers being quoted in articles stating the USADA does not have a fair due process. You can't blame them for that. More and more I find publishers are not telling both sides of the story and bend their stories towards their biases.


but why would I care about some peoples opinion on a case they essentially don't know anything about. Should I worry about the moon landing deniers among them as well?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I agree. And that is one of the reasons why they think Lance got a bum deal. Along with lawyers being quoted in articles stating the USADA does not have a fair due process. You can't blame them for that. More and more I find publishers are not telling both sides of the story and bend their stories towards their biases.


A couple people may have believed the lies of Armstrong's lawyers but most think he got what he deserved. The "Lance is a victim" narritive never gained traction. 

You keep repeating the talking point "lack of due process" but have yet to provide a specific example. While you are looking for an example perhaps you can share with us a list of innocent athletes who have been railroaded by the process.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Lance may have more legal leverage after the Claudia Pechstein decision, in which a German federal court allowed Pechstein to sue the governing body (the International Skating Union) for suspending her for doping. This court ruling supersedes a CAS decision denying Pechstein's appeal, which alone is a major problem for anti-doping agencies in any sport. Essentially the decision allows athletes to sue governing bodies in civil courts in their respective country. Pechstein is asking for an unspecified amount exceeding 4.4 million Euros. The case was based on CAS being biased because the governing bodies choose the judges on CAS. 

This has the potential to collapse the enforceability of doping bans, never mind bankrupting sports governing bodies. The whole UCI push to not allow individual countries to set aside decisions seems threatened as well.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> Lance may have more legal leverage after the Claudia Pechstein decision, in which a German federal court allowed Pechstein to sue the governing body (the International Skating Union) for suspending her for doping.


Can you explain how a ruling in a German court sets any precedent or has any bearing in the U.S.?


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Can you explain how a ruling in a German court sets any precedent or has any bearing in the U.S.?


The lifetime ban is from the UCI. Lance may now have legal options to sue the UCI just like Pechstein did. He never tested positive. Even with an admission the evidence doesn't seem airtight. Pechstein did "test" positive, but disputed the positive. Lance was very non-specific when admitting his doping, the timing of the doping may be disputable and he could for example argue that it did not occur during a time when the UCI had jurisdiction or that it occurred after the statute of limitations had expired. If there is any wiggle room, Lance has the legal firepower to take advantage of it. I'm not saying it will clear him, but it may give him leverage for a settlement.

Just to reiterate, I always thought Lance was dirty, and said so on here many years before he admitted he was. I am no Lance fanboy. I'm just saying this may open up some avenues of legal recourse for him, which sucks.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> The lifetime ban is from the UCI.


You've already gone off the rails. The ban is from USADA (hence his ban from all sports under WADA jurisdiction).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> Lance may have more legal leverage after the Claudia Pechstein decision, in which a German federal court allowed Pechstein to sue the governing body (the International Skating Union) for suspending her for doping. This court ruling supersedes a CAS decision denying Pechstein's appeal, which alone is a major problem for anti-doping agencies in any sport. Essentially the decision allows athletes to sue governing bodies in civil courts in their respective country. Pechstein is asking for an unspecified amount exceeding 4.4 million Euros. The case was based on CAS being biased because the governing bodies choose the judges on CAS.
> 
> This has the potential to collapse the enforceability of doping bans, never mind bankrupting sports governing bodies. The whole UCI push to not allow individual countries to set aside decisions seems threatened as well.


Lance already tried that. He sued USADA in Federal court, and lost.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

asgelle said:


> You've already gone off the rails. The ban is from USADA (hence his ban from all sports under WADA jurisdiction).


Legally incorrect. The quote from McQuaid:

"The UCI will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and it will recognise the sanctions that USADA has proposed," McQuaid said. "*The UCI will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling and the UCI will strip him of his seven titles*. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling."


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

DrSmile said:


> "The UCI will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and it will recognise the sanctions that USADA has proposed," McQuaid said. "*The UCI will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling and the UCI will strip him of his seven titles*. Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling."


I'd say that proves my point; recognizing sanctions is not the same as issuing them. UCI can say whatever they want, and if it made them feel good to say they were banning Armstrong, fine; but that statement had little effect since he was already banned from all WADA sports.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

asgelle said:


> I'd say that proves my point; recognizing sanctions is not the same as issuing them. UCI can say whatever they want, and if it made them feel good to say they were banning Armstrong, fine; but that statement had little effect since he was already banned from all WADA sports.


Logically I agree, but legally this could be quite problematic... we shall see.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DrSmile said:


> The lifetime ban is from the UCI.


The ban is from USADA. It is recognized by all Feds, including the UCI, IAAF and ITF. Which is why folks like Lance, Tyler, Ricco, etc cant race a bike, run a marathon, or do a Tri

Lance has no chance, nor does Pechstein. She was sanctioned, lost her arbitration, lost her CAS appeal, and lost her appeal to the Swiss Supreme court (Twice). She, like Lance, signed an agreement that details the process for a doping sanction. Finding a homer judge does not change the validity of that agreement.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

I haven't read this thread or any other thread for years that addresses Lance Armstrong and the doping and lifetime ban. So my response is just my stand alone opinion and not a specific response to any the POV of any specific post or poster. I read many news, opinion pieces, watched the interviews during the accusation phases and pounding by the USADA. Then read everything in reaction to his admitting doping as well as comments and talks by people like Landis, Ligget, Hampstead, et. al. Watched the Oprah Interview. Read many forums thread in different sites of people debating Armstrong before and after he admitted doping. 

My opinion is:

Anyone that followed cycling as an informed fan and viewer, especially of the TDF should have all ways known that Armstrong and his rivals doped. If they did not they either were lying to themselves or being foolisn. I all ways thought he and his chief rivals if not all doped from his first TDF win. (For example it is foolishness to think someone like Phil Ligget did not grasp the concept that doping was rampant in the sport of which he covered so well and so long as an announcer and commentator.) 

The USADA abused due process and exercised jailhouse informants and a form of blackmail to get Armstrong to confess his doping.

In light of the known doping and the punishment of others that had tested positive combined with the method or tactics used by the USADA the punishment did not fit the crime IMO. 

What is the bigger story of the following: One, a professional rider that cheats by doping or that one of the biggest sports regulatory agencies in the world "cheats" to get him to confess?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Mandeville said:


> one of the biggest sports regulatory agencies in the world "cheats" to get him to confess?


Could you give an example of this supposed cheating?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Mandeville said:


> The USADA abused due process and exercised jailhouse informants and a form of blackmail to get Armstrong to confess his doping.


You know the cliche, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts? Well, in this case, your opinions seemed to be informed by a bunch of falsehoods you've taken as fact without question.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

Mandeville said:


> I haven't read this thread or any other thread for years that addresses Lance Armstrong and the doping and lifetime ban. So my response is just my stand alone opinion and not a specific response to any the POV of any specific post or poster.
> 
> Anyone that followed cycling as an informed fan and viewer, especially of the TDF should have all ways known that Armstrong and his rivals doped. If they did not they either were lying to themselves or a fool. I all ways thought he doped from his first TDF win. (For example it is foolishness to think someone like Phil Ligget did not grasp the concept that doping was rampant in the sport of which he covered so well and so long as an announcer and commentator.)
> 
> ...


Addendum: IMO the USADA if not technically than at least in spirit also practiced what is known legally as selective prosecution to the point of persecution.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

robt57 said:


> He is still worth in the order of 50 million Net worth I think. So my heart bleeds for him, or would if the EPO was not making it clot so fast.
> 
> He is an ******* by most accounts, and a rich one at that. Would I watch all those stages/races again if sent back in time?? You Bet!


I would watch those races, they are good entertainment - and Landis' miracle solo attack is the most entertaining of them all. So what?

You know, I hear that a lot, yes, he did make 50 millions - but is 50 mils really worth all the trouble for you? To have people spit at you everywhere you go, your kids be taunted that your dad is a known cheat and a liar - is that worth 50 millions?

50 Billions (with a "B"), maybe. I would even settle for 15 Billions (see Rupert Murdoch).
But 50 millions is too low price to go through this hell. Integrity, PR and public image of someone like Lance is worth at least a billion dollars. 

He lost big time in the end, even financially. I think this is one of those scenarios where being a major @ss#ole outweighed being a gifted athlete about 1000:1. Temporarily it seemed like he was doing just great, but in the long run it caught up to him.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Mandeville said:


> Anyone that followed cycling as an informed fan and viewer, especially of the TDF should have all ways known that Armstrong and his rivals doped.


Really? That's a lot of revisionist history.
I watched Armstrong win 1999 Tour after Festina affair and then in 2000, 2001, 2002 and I honestly can say I really didn't think he was doping then. It may have changed around 2004-2006 or so when I started having doubts - but it took 2006 and what followed to unravel the truth. 

Are you really saying YOU, and the vast majority of us hardcore fans watched Armstrong tours and thought he is 100% doping all the way? 

The reason why I am asking is that I think it's very easy to fool yourself. This applies to Armstrong and to statements like you are making. There is similarity there.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Mandeville said:


> Addendum: IMO the USADA if not technically than at least in spirit also practiced what is known legally as selective prosecution to the point of persecution.


Could you give an example of this?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Mandeville said:


> I haven't read this thread or any other thread for years that addresses Lance Armstrong and the doping and lifetime ban.


Will treat your post the same then.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

55x11 said:


> Really? That's a lot of revisionist history.
> I watched Armstrong win 1999 Tour after Festina affair and then in 2000, 2001, 2002 and I honestly can say I really didn't think he was doping then.


You didn't think a post-dated TUE which was incorrectly filled out and shouldn't have been accepted at all didn't raise red flags?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

55x11 said:


> I would watch those races, they are good entertainment - and Landis' miracle solo attack is the most entertaining of them all. So what?
> 
> You know, I hear that a lot, yes, he did make 50 millions - but is 50 mils really worth all the trouble for you? To have people spit at you everywhere you go, your kids be taunted that your dad is a known cheat and a liar - is that worth 50 millions?
> 
> ...


as I would watch a doped Museeuw and Knavren beat up a doped Hincapie @ Roubaix. Or a doped Tchmil go on a solo attack. Or a doped Grillo or Rebellin make the jump on the Huy.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

atpjunkie said:


> as I would watch a doped Museeuw and Knavren beat up a doped Hincapie @ Roubaix. Or a doped Tchmil go on a solo attack. Or a doped Grillo or Rebellin make the jump on the Huy.



Are you actually suggesting other riders beside 'Attila the LA' dope.:mad2:


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

I guess it's because when I see Tchmil or Museeuw or anyone in that era go on the attack or bridge, my first thought isn't "what an incredible move", but "I wonder if he was transfusing, micro-dosing, or whatever at this point in his career". Takes some of the joy out of it. Then again, I've worn holes in those DVDs watching them on the trainer, so I kinda know how they turn out.

At a certain point, I just couldn't suspend disbelief anymore, and now, even if the peloton was verifiably 100% clean, I would still have doubts. They've collectively earned those doubts, and their support organizations certainly have.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

robt57 said:


> Are you actually suggesting other riders beside 'Attila the LA' dope.:mad2:


i don't remember anyone ever saying that.


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

You think it's enough winning 7 Tours on doping alone? It takes commitment, keeping a cool head, being fresh, maintaining focus over three weeks (at least), getting good nights' sleep, getting along with your team peers. Believe me, a cycling team can be full of ****s.

To me it's what you do off the bike that matters as much if not considerably more, than the relatively short 3-4 hour performance stint.

Most people, cycling fans especially don't get that.

Lance Armstrong was brought down largely because of negative fan power and media hype. People like drama espcially when it's going up or down.

He is right though, when it was time to get to work he/they did the work.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I agree, your misrepresentation of my posts is disrespectful and insulating but I will not hold it against you.
> 
> Brian has shown he has limited understanding of the arbitration process. When he does start practicing law he will realize it has much of the due process he is saying it does not have. That is why is has been used to adjudicate hundreds of thousands of disputes and is used by thousands of companies and professional organizations world wide. The ubiquity of arbitration is why Armstrong agent, Bill Stapleton, used it as the basis for the portion of the code he wrote.
> 
> ...


Here is another paper published by Maureen Watson, J.D. Prof of Law Pepperdine University. I will wait with bated breath for you to give me your reasons as to why she is not worthy to criticize the arbitration process.

*Their points are not disputing the WADA or USADA rules, that their rules should be as fair as the US legal courts are. * So in saying that, once again, if there are legal experts stating that the arbitration process is NOT fair, then the average Joe is going to believe that Lance could not get a fair trial with the USADA.

Like Brian, she does not condone doping in no way shape or form, however, since the athletes livelihood and reputation is based upon doping allegations, she does feel that they should be entitled to the same legal rules as offered by the US justice system.

http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-resolution-law-journal/issues/volume-ten/Weston Article.pdf



> World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules purport to provide the
> athlete a “right to a fair hearing.”14 However, the applicable rules,
> participants, and system for arbitrating a doping charge are markedly
> different from a court of law. Under WADA rules, the doping report,
> ...





> *A. Process Concerns with Doping Arbitrations*
> An accused athlete entering the doping arbitration process not only lacks
> assurances of the rule of law, due process, and evidentiary protections that
> exist in a civil or criminal justice proceeding, but also has to overcome
> ...





> *2. Lack of Discovery Rights*
> 
> Discovery in doping arbitration is intended to be limited.173 However,
> neither CAS nor WADA rules guarantee discovery or require disclosure of
> ...





> *4. The “So What” Factor: ISL Errors Not Fatal*
> An accused athlete has the significant burden of establishing that his or
> her testing result involved a departure from International Standard practices.
> Yet even where this burden is met, victory is not assured. The majority in
> ...





> C. The Right to a “Fair Hearing” and How Doping Arbitrations Fall Short
> Irrespective of the state action element and application of Constitutional
> due process standards, the WADA Code provides that an athlete who is
> accused of doping is entitled to a fair hearing.219 Individual prosecuting
> ...





> *IV. PROVIDING MEANINGFUL HEARING RIGHTS*
> Doping adjudications are imbued with many of the elements of a civil
> and quasi-criminal proceeding, without corresponding process
> protections.232 Arbitration. a recognized form of private dispute resolution,
> ...





> Although it admitted seemingly inadmissible evidence,215 the CAS panel announced it based
> Montgomery’s conviction solely upon the teammate’s testimony that
> Montgomery had asked her at a party: “Does it make your calves tight?”216
> The CAS panel announced it took a negative inference from the athlete’s
> ...


 In other words: The arbitrators are not bound by the same rules of evidence as required by the US Legal system.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Here is another paper published by Maureen Watson, J.D. Prof of Law Pepperdine University. I will wait with bated breath for you to give me your reasons as to why she is not worthy to criticize the arbitration process.
> 
> *
> In other words: The arbitrators are not bound by the same rules of evidence as required by the US Legal system.*


*


It appears she listened to Landis's defense team while they spent a month working on his defense at her university. Odd that she makes no mention of landis hacking the LNDD computers or using forged documents in his defense. Guess she is OK with that. 

Much of what she writes is flat wrong or deliberately misleading. Not really surprising as her focus has always been representing athletes, not ADA's

By the time a case goes to arbitration an athlete has already been found guilty so of course the burden of proof is on them. Prior to this the assumption of innocence is significantly slanted in the athletes favor, which is why Armstrong was able to get away with it for so long

The lack of discovery is nonsense. USADA shared boxes of discovery information with landis. 

Dopers do have the right to question the accusers, take statements, etc......but neither they, nor USADA, have subpoena power. 

Did you even read what she wrote about Athletes lawyers? How is that even a valid criticism? That is comical. Tyler, Marion, Butch Reynolds, and Floyd outspent USADA many times over. Armstrong hired the best lawyers in the country. Her point makes no sense. Does it bother her that USADA cannot wage multi-million dollar misinformation campaigns? 

Arbitrators have to disclose conflicts. Dopers get to pick one of the arbitrators, which is why both Floyd and Tyler picked Christopher Campbell, who has a long history of ruling for dopers......which he did in both their cases. 

She is making a huge stretch that pretend that doping cases are quasi criminal. That is nonsense. We are talking about breaking the rules of what is essentially a trade organization. 

The facts are that WADA, USADA, the Swiss Federal courts, and the US Federal courts have consistently ruled in the favor of the ADA's and their process. Is it a grand conspiracy that keeps the "Truth" from coming out?

Ok, your turn. Please give us examples of innocent athletes who have been railroaded.*


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> step one: attack the source


Good parroting but it doesn't fit. What I wrote was not a personal attack. Better luck next time?


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Horze said:


> He is right though, when it was time to get to work he/they did the work.


Honestly, you believe that clean riders don't do the work? I would suggest that the work clean riders do is actually harder, because it's not propped up with T, EPO, and any number of other substances that not only allow you to increase output, but recover from efforts quicker. Dopers do the work, but it's work they couldn't have done otherwise.

Lance was brought down because he's an egotistical jerk that wouldn't stay retired and stay away from the sport. Lance was brought down because he thought he was too big to fail. Lance was brought down because he pissed off Floyd, and Floyd knew where the bodies were buried. Lance was brought down because once he fell, all sorts of other dopers and their enablers would fall. Lance was brought down for all sorts of reasons.

Lance was not brought down because public opinion changed. That happened after the truth started coming out, and people started seeing him for what he was.

But please, enlighten us about how it was Lance's work ethic that got him to the top. If you could, please cite the pages from _*It's Not About The Bike *_that you got the information from.


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

I read both of his books, _*It's Not About The Bike *_included. That was 9 years ago and the funny thing is at this point I can't seem to recall much from them.

No, simply following common sense and personal experience you have to realize and appreciate the question of the work ethic involved. No doubt the same applies to clean riders as well no less.

You've got to be able to handle yourself on a doping programme which is certainly no feat task. Far easier said than done, added to a full time hectic race schedule.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Horze said:


> .... added to a full time hectic race schedule.


full time race schedule? how does that apply to LA?


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)




----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Horze said:


>


According to the ASO, nobody has won the Tour 7 times.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> According to the ASO, nobody has won the Tour 7 times.


let people dream.


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

Alaska Mike said:


> According to the ASO, nobody has won the Tour 7 times.


I'm sure there are plenty of people who have won the tour 7 or more times, around their house.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Horze said:


> I'm sure there are plenty of people who have won the tour 7 or more times, around their house.


I'm not one of them. I know enough elite athletes (including World Cup/Olympic athletes) to know I'm not anywhere near that level. The best I can hope for is winning my class in a podunk cycling race. I'm a realist.

However, you obviously have great insight into what it takes to be a champion, probably garnered here. Seriously, your responses thus far have been exactly the stuff Lance and Co used to trot out every time doping came up.

Lance certainly took all sorts of precautions and measures to maximize his potential. He also took a ton of prohibited performance-enhancing substances to maximize his potential. Without them, he would have been a mid-tier professional rider. His clean athletic potential, while far exceeding mine, was not near the podium in the Tour.

The record for Tour wins still stands at 5. Are they all clean records? Probably not, but they have not been stripped.


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

Alaska Mike said:


> ...
> Lance certainly took all sorts of precautions and measures to maximize his potential. He also took a ton of prohibited performance-enhancing substances to maximize his potential. Without them, he would have been a mid-tier professional rider. His clean athletic potential, while far exceeding mine, *was not near the podium in the Tour.*
> ..


So was it? All well and good projecting claims "could've" or "should've" but if you are indeed a realist you might appreciate that reality is usually the result of making things happen. By doing and not "projecting".


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears she listened to Landis's defense team while they spent a month working on his defense at her university. Odd that she makes no mention of landis hacking the LNDD computers or using forged documents in his defense. Guess she is OK with that.
> 
> Much of what she writes is flat wrong or deliberately misleading. Not really surprising as her focus has always been representing athletes, not ADA's


step one: attack the source


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

So anybody who is not on the side of the USADA is wrong, then?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> step one: attack the source



Watson's job is to represent athletes and to teach people to represent athletes. She hardly comes into the discussion unbiased..... Neither does the lawyer who represented Contador, Bruyneel, Schelck. Most can see the validity of pointing out this conflict. Most can also see that I cited specific examples of why her biased paper was wrong. 

......easier to cut and paste then address the topic.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears she listened to Landis's defense team while they spent a month working on his defense at her university. Odd that she makes no mention of landis hacking the LNDD computers or using forged documents in his defense. Guess she is OK with that.


Wasn't it Quiros that hacked the lab's computers? Didn't the judges in the case state that there was no evidence that Landis hacked the computers and only convicted him because he benefited from it? Is there any proof that Landis hired Quiros to do it or did Quiros act on his own and send the results to Landis?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

> Much of what she writes is flat wrong or deliberately misleading. Not really surprising as her focus has always been representing athletes, not ADA's
> 
> By the time a case goes to arbitration an athlete has already been found guilty so of course the burden of proof is on them. Prior to this the assumption of innocence is significantly slanted in the athletes favor, which is why Armstrong was able to get away with it for so long



Is Landis not entitled to a defense? And if a lawyer works on a defense, then they are not entitled to their opinion on the fairness of the arbitration process? Doesn't working on the defense of an athlete allow them to be better informed of the process and allow them to be better experts on comparing the processes?

The reason Armstrong got away with it for so long is that there was too much corruption at the head of the UCI and he had good lawyers to ensure that the plaintiffs had definitive proof.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Wasn't it Quiros that hacked the lab's computers? Didn't the judges in the case state that there was no evidence that Landis hacked the computers and only convicted him because he benefited from it? Is there any proof that Landis hired Quiros to do it or did Quiros act on his own and send the results to Landis?


French court convicts Floyd Landis for role in hacking into doping lab - ESPN

Landis was convicted of hacking. He used forged documents from this hacking in his case.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> French court convicts Floyd Landis for role in hacking into doping lab - ESPN
> 
> Landis was convicted of hacking. He used forged documents from this hacking in his case.


Yes, I know he was convicted, but he didn't actually do it, nor was there any proof he asked Mr. Quiros to do it. However, he did use the stolen information to his benefit, but he claims he received the documents anonymously.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Is Landis not entitled to a defense? And if a lawyer works on a defense, then they are not entitled to their opinion on the fairness of the arbitration process?


Of course, I don't see anyone claiming any different. Pointing out why their claims are nonsense does not mean they are not allowed to make them. Free speech is a great thing, it makes it easier to know who the idiots are.

It is great that doper's paid liars keep making the same ridiculous claims and filing doomed cases. Each time they lose their cases in various Federal courts it creates a nice precedence of failure for future smoke and mirrors campaigns.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Yes, I know he was convicted, but he didn't actually do it, nor was there any proof he asked Mr. Quiros to do it. However, he did use the stolen information to his benefit, but he claims he received the documents anonymously.


Nonsense
Landis convicted in hacking case | Cyclingnews.com



> “prosecutors say Landis and coach Arnie Baker masterminded a plot to hack into the lab’s computer system to obtain documents as they sought to defend the cyclist’s name.”





> the lab reported that its computer systems had been infected with a "Trojan Horse" virus, which was used by someone to access the lab's confidential documents. The lab said that data had been removed or changed, allegedly in an attempt to discredit the work of the organisation.
> 
> An email carrying the virus was alleged to have been* sent from a computer with the same IP address as that of Landis' coach Arnie Baker.*


Of course pointing out this questionable conduct is "Attacking the source" :crazy:


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nonsense
> Landis convicted in hacking case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> 
> ...


Cyclist Landis Is Convicted in France - WSJ



> The French court, at Nanterre, near Paris, gave Mr. Landis's former trainer, Arnie Baker, the same sentence in connection with the incident, in which a hacker uploaded files from the lab's computers. Judges said that although* no evidence directly linked Messrs. Landis and Baker to the hacking, both men benefited from the illegal intrusion*.
> 
> The court also sentenced A*lain Quiros, who has admitted hacking into the lab's computers*, to six months in prison and a fine of €4,000 ($5,416).
> 
> Mr. Quiros was also convicted on Thursday of hacking into the computers of environmental lobby group Greenpeace on behalf of employees of French power giant Electricité de France SA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Cyclist Landis Is Convicted in France - WSJ


So who do you think paid him 2,000 Euros to hack LNDD, take documents related to Floyd's case and plant forged documents related to Floyds case? Was it Bigfoot? Kargas says it was what he calls "The Anglo-Saxons", A french catch all phase for English speakers.

Do you think the French convicted him just for fun?

Or Arnie


> Further investigations by French justice officials determined that the program probably got into the lab's system via an e-mail sent from an IP address allegedly traced to Landis' coach Arnie Baker —


Floyd claims he got the documents from the anonymous source who emailed the documents out to media....
La justice française attend Floyd Landis


> internal documents were distributed by mail and mails sports authorities and international anti-doping as well as media in order to discredit the lab.
> 
> Investigators from the Central fight against crime related to technologies of information and communication* (OCLCTIC) showed that the IP (Internet Protocol) address of the sender was none other than that of 'Arnie Baker, the trainer of Floyd Landis. The same documents were used in 2007 by Arnie Baker - who presents himself as a doctor of medicine - to try to prove the innocence of Floyd Landis arbitration before an American court. In vain. *They are still available on its website.


ut:


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Alaska Mike said:


> I'm not one of them. I know enough elite athletes (including World Cup/Olympic athletes) to know I'm not anywhere near that level. The best I can hope for is winning my class in a podunk cycling race. I'm a realist.
> 
> However, you obviously have great insight into what it takes to be a champion, probably garnered here. Seriously, your responses thus far have been exactly the stuff Lance and Co used to trot out every time doping came up.
> 
> ...


Anquetil admitted as much with his bread and water statement, Eddy had three positive tests (one of which he still disputes), and while Hinault never failed a test, he ducked one. So no, they're not all clean. But you're also talking about guys who were podium capable the day they signed a pro contract and doped to get a slight edge over a particular stage or single day race. Not guys who dope turned into contenders. All three were capable of winning clean, and probably did.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

mpre53 said:


> All three were capable of winning clean, and probably did.


I would agree that all 3 were of the caliber to win without doping. Then again, most of the doping protocols of their era were as likely to cause them to lose as win. There were a lot of interesting concoctions riders took over the years, and even the best of them only provided a very marginal gain over the course of a multi-stage race. It wasn't until EPO came on the scene that pack mules started beating the race horses.

However, I think all 3 took something under that table during the course of their GT careers to gain an edge.


----------



## Jackhammer (Sep 23, 2014)

Horze said:


> So was it? All well and good projecting claims "could've" or "should've" but if you are indeed a realist you might appreciate that reality is usually the result of making things happen. By doing and not "projecting".



Thank you Tony Robbins!


----------



## Horze (Mar 12, 2013)

FLandis the hacker.










Haha.. OMG


----------

