# USADA asks for evidence



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

USADA has made a formal request for the evidence from the Feds in the Armstrong investigation




> In 2008, the U.S. Senate ratified the UNESCO Convention, a treaty created to give governments a legal framework to address doping in sport, mandating that criminal investigators share information with their national anti-doping agencies






> "There are no legal hurdles" to the U.S. Attorney's office working with USADA, says one international official familiar with this case. *"If they don't [hand evidence over], it will be because they're sitting on overwhelming evidence of drug cheating in sport. It will be an international sports doping cover-up of the worst sort.*"


The USADA is not finished investigating Lance Armstrong - Austin Murphy - SI.com


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Wow. Austin Murphy's words, not mine.

" 'The arc of the moral universe is long,' as Martin Luther King Jr. observed, 'but it bends toward justice.' Years from now, or perhaps sooner, Armstrong may be on the receiving end of a bad-news phone call. He may find himself reaching for another beer, this time for a different reason."


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

As the world turns.........


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Wow. Austin Murphy's words, not mine.
> 
> " 'The arc of the moral universe is long,' as Martin Luther King Jr. observed, 'but it bends toward justice.' Years from now, or perhaps sooner, Armstrong may be on the receiving end of a bad-news phone call. He may find himself reaching for another beer, this time for a different reason."


Good quote

Remember all those front cover, multi page, articles Sports Illustrated ran on Armstrong back in 1999-2005? Fawning over the hero? .........Those were ALL written by Austin Murphy

Things change


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if no evidence at all is turned over. He's an innocent man according to the justice system so why should evidence collected in a dropped criminal investigation be turned over to a private third party? Privacy is treated a bit differently for celebrities but it's still not a precedent I'd like to see set.

If his attorneys prevail in that effort, I somehow doubt the USADA would be as successful as the Feds in getting people to testify against LA, especially given his teflon armor to date, and large war chest.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

terzo rene said:


> OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if no evidence at all is turned over. He's an innocent man according to the justice system so why should evidence collected in a dropped criminal investigation be turned over to a private third party? Privacy is treated a bit differently for celebrities but it's still not a precedent I'd like to see set.
> 
> If his attorneys prevail in that effort, I somehow doubt the USADA would be as successful as the Feds in getting people to testify against LA, especially given his teflon armor to date, and large war chest.


They have to, the US signed a UNESCO agreement that clearly outlines it. They also have shared it many times in the past. The only reason they would withhold it is if they wanted to cover up why they dropped such a slam dunk case

There is also the Federal Civil fraud case. It will harder to withhold evidence from them.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

I just read (very quickly) the Unesco treaty and don't see anything obligating the FBI or FDA to disclose interview reports and other non-grand jury evidence they may have developed. Here's what I looked at:
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31037&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Even if it does purport to cover no public federal law enforcement information, I also am not convinced that Senate ratification of a UN convention compels the federal law enforcement agencies to comply. My point is simply that I don't think it's as cut and dried as all that, and frankly I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the core evidence is in fact handed over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I just read (very quickly) the Unesco treaty and don't see anything obligating the FBI or FDA to disclose interview reports and other non-grand jury evidence they may have developed. Here's what I looked at:
> International Convention against Doping in Sport
> 
> Even if it does purport to cover no public federal law enforcement information, I also am not convinced that Senate ratification of a UN convention compels the federal law enforcement agencies to comply. My point is simply that I don't think it's as cut and dried as all that, and frankly I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the core evidence is in fact handed over.


Thanks.

There is precedent. They shared info in the BALCO case as well 

There is also the Civil Fraud Case. If the Feds decide to join the case they will have access to all the evidence, except GJ testimoney, gathered by the criminal side


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Wasn't aware they did in Balco. That's good to know. Hopefully something comes of it.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

worst_shot_ever said:


> I just read (very quickly) the Unesco treaty and don't see anything obligating the FBI or FDA to disclose interview reports and other non-grand jury evidence they may have developed. Here's what I looked at:
> International Convention against Doping in Sport
> 
> Even if it does purport to cover no public federal law enforcement information, I also am not convinced that Senate ratification of a UN convention *compels* the federal law enforcement agencies to comply. My point is simply that I don't think it's as cut and dried as all that, and frankly I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if the core evidence is in fact handed over.


But why wouldn't they? They should not turn over information if they are PREVENTED from doing so by a legal protest from Armstrong. The whole convention is about cooperation. The United States hasn't exercised Article 39 so why wouldn't they cooperate unless of course there is a cover up...

The U.S.A. aspires to be as transparent as possible. The government shouldn't act as if they are hiding something.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Wow. Austin Murphy's words, not mine.
> 
> " 'The arc of the moral universe is long,' as Martin Luther King Jr. observed, 'but it bends toward justice.' Years from now, or perhaps sooner, Armstrong may be on the receiving end of a bad-news phone call. He may find himself reaching for another beer, this time for a different reason."


When _From Lance to Landis_ came out Murphy mocked armstrong's statement that "some people are born with 12 cylinders" by calling him "12 cylinder man."

Austin Murphy: New revelations about doping in cycling - 06.27.07 - SI Vault

"Wow?" Are you surprised? Someone with some balls in the mainstream media? Armstrong so far has dodged a bullet and should be in jail.. This is nothing new and all of the apologists, fans, and defenders of Pharmstrong should open their eyes and recognize what a fraud the guy is and stop engaging in recriminations with people who present the facts here.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

I wonder if USADA will want to talk with this guy?


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Just bringing nice cold cans of Coca-Cola to the Discovery team.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I've said many times before that Armstrong should fess up, come clean, and tell the truth about the way it was (and is) in professional cycling. If he did so, he would be forgiven by the public in the U.S. in a heartbeat. Problem is he would forfeit lots of titles and I guess that is not something he is willing to do. 

If he fessed up, wouldn't he deserve more respect for doing so than continuing to lie? We all know all the big stars were doping--most of them have in fact been busted and Armstrong is the exception. The evidence against him is overwhelming even if you just look at known big picture facts reported in the media. 

The more I think about this, the more it seems the whole sport of cycling needs change. The UCI can't be trusted. The biopassport is essentially a way to moderate doping and try to level the playing field, not prevent it, and is also for publicity to look good (i.e. cycling can truly say "we have the most rigorous testing in any sport"). The grand tours are so brutal that half the riders would probably never make it to the finish without extraordinary help (5-7 hours per day for 3 weeks covering tough terrain with hard racing in at least the last hour very stage?). 

I love this sport, can't wait for the Spring Classics, but we've got a long way to go to improve it in the governing and doping arena. Busting Armstrong is just one very necessary step in the right direction. It will send a huge message to athletes that you WILL eventually get busted.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

terzo rene said:


> OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if no evidence at all is turned over. He's an innocent man according to the justice system so why should evidence collected in a dropped criminal investigation be turned over to a private third party? Privacy is treated a bit differently for celebrities but it's still not a precedent I'd like to see set.
> 
> If his attorneys prevail in that effort, I somehow doubt the USADA would be as successful as the Feds in getting people to testify against LA, especially given his teflon armor to date, and large war chest.


So in your mind OJ Simpson is also innocent, despite having the blood of both victims in his car and at his house which was not released to the jurors (for a variety of reasons that I don't remember now)? 

Also, the Justice Dept. was investigating him for racketeering and fraud, not blood doping. There is a difference between no charges brought forth and innocence...


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> I've said many times before that Armstrong should fess up, come clean, and tell the truth about the way it was (and is) in professional cycling. If he did so, he would be forgiven by the public in the U.S. in a heartbeat. Problem is he would forfeit lots of titles and I guess that is not something he is willing to do.
> 
> If he fessed up, wouldn't he deserve more respect for doing so than continuing to lie? We all know all the big stars were doping--most of them have in fact been busted and Armstrong is the exception. The evidence against him is overwhelming even if you just look at known big picture facts reported in the media.
> 
> ...


Problem for him if he confessed to doping is that he would be immediately set upon by those "unsuccessful" litigants to recover past litigation settlements based on his clean status..

He would be stripped of TdF titles and for loss of one title, 2004, he would be obligated to repay SCA all its costs and the settlement of 2005. It may also apply to prior year SCA bonuses for winning paid to Tailwind for the benefit of Armstrong.

Doubt given his character and these obstacles that Armstrong would yield.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I wonder if USADA will want to talk with this guy?



O.K.; I give up. 

Who's the dude with as big a lunch cooler as mine  ?!


----------



## foto (Feb 7, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They have to, the US signed a UNESCO agreement that clearly outlines it. They also have shared it many times in the past. The only reason they would withhold it is if they wanted to cover up why they dropped such a slam dunk case
> 
> There is also the Federal Civil fraud case. It will harder to withhold evidence from them.


Since when does anyone care about the UN, let alone UNESCO?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

foto said:


> Since when does anyone care about the UN, let alone UNESCO?


Should the U.S. ignore all international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate and signed by the President or just the ones that effect Lance?


----------



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

Veloflash said:


> Problem for him if he confessed to doping is that he would be immediately set upon by those "unsuccessful" litigants to recover past litigation settlements based on his clean status..
> 
> He would be stripped of TdF titles and for loss of one title, 2004, he would be obligated to repay SCA all its costs and the settlement of 2005. It may also apply to prior year SCA bonuses for winning paid to Tailwind for the benefit of Armstrong.
> 
> Doubt given his character and these obstacles that Armstrong would yield.


If he confess or found guilty after 2013, he keeps all is TDF titles base on the 8 year statue limitation? Just curious? thanks in advance!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

WAZCO said:


> If he confess or found guilty after 2013, he keeps all is TDF titles base on the 8 year statue limitation? Just curious? thanks in advance!


SOL starts at the start of the investigation, late 2009-early 2010. It can also be tolled if there was an effort to cover up the infractions.


----------



## WAZCO (Sep 16, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> SOL starts at the start of the investigation, late 2009-early 2010. It can also be tolled if there was an effort to cover up the infractions.


Right on! :thumbsup: There's a good chance he won't have the record of most TDF wins! Well at least i hope so but having doubt the way things have been going. I'm all about supporting the US cyclists but not in dirty way.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> SOL starts at the start of the investigation, late 2009-early 2010. It can also be tolled if there was an effort to cover up the infractions.


How does this work? SOL is from the date of alleged offense. I don't see anything in the WADA code that relates to SOL from evidence collection. Article 17 is very short.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> How does this work? SOL is from the date of alleged offense. I don't see anything in the WADA code that relates to SOL from evidence collection. Article 17 is very short.


There are a couple important points. The simplest is that it reaches back from the start of the investigation. That would be late 2009, so 2001. It is also possible to reach back even farther with evidence of a coverup in response to an investigation. It is rather clear now that Armstrong lied about the Cortisone and EPO in 1999 and the dumping of actovigen in 2001. 

regardless the harder part is the UCI. USADA has had some success with USATF with some recent SOL issues.....but I see no way the UCI does anything to assist, in fact they will impede. The UCI fought WADA for years. UCI was the last Fed to sign the WADA code. This leaves August 2004 (when the UCI signed the WADA code) on.

The 2005 Tour, the comeback, and those races he is doing in his Speedo. Those are the most at risk


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

Much ado about nothing.

Haters gonna hate. And lose.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There are a couple important points. The simplest is that it reaches back from the start of the investigation. That would be late 2009, so 2001. It is also possible to reach back even farther with evidence of a coverup in response to an investigation. It is rather clear now that Armstrong lied about the Cortisone and EPO in 1999 and the dumping of actovigen in 2001.
> 
> regardless the harder part is the UCI. USADA has had some success with USATF with some recent SOL issues.....but I see no way the UCI does anything to assist, in fact they will impede. The UCI fought WADA for years. UCI was the last Fed to sign the WADA code. This leaves August 2004 (when the UCI signed the WADA code) on.
> 
> The 2005 Tour, the comeback, and those races he is doing in his Speedo. Those are the most at risk


I guess I'm missing the connection. If the SOL won't go back further than 2009 then what will they do with evidence that's only pertinent to a period much earlier? 

I think a potential risk is that if USADA evokes inadmissible/pre-SOL evidence to support their case that they could have LA's lawyers on them for defamation (speculation, I am not an attorney). Sounds far-fetched but he's one of the few guys in cycling that can demonstrate brand damage with large $$ numbers. It's looking more and more risky to go after him since the FED dropped their case.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

davidka said:


> I guess I'm missing the connection. If the SOL won't go back further than 2009 then what will they do with evidence that's only pertinent to a period much earlier?
> 
> I think a potential risk is that if USADA evokes inadmissible/pre-SOL evidence to support their case that they could have LA's lawyers on them for defamation (speculation, I am not an attorney). Sounds far-fetched but he's one of the few guys in cycling that can demonstrate brand damage with large $$ numbers. *It's looking more and more risky to go after him since the FED dropped their case*.


Is this wishful thinking?

The truth is an absolute defense. 

Do you think the truth is on the side of LA?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> I guess I'm missing the connection. If the SOL won't go back further than 2009 then what will they do with evidence that's only pertinent to a period much earlier?
> 
> I think a potential risk is that if USADA evokes inadmissible/pre-SOL evidence to support their case that they could have LA's lawyers on them for defamation (speculation, I am not an attorney). Sounds far-fetched but he's one of the few guys in cycling that can demonstrate brand damage with large $$ numbers. It's looking more and more risky to go after him since the FED dropped their case.


I may not have made it clear. 2009 is the start of the investigation. SOL would reach back 8 years from then, 2001. 

USADA has recently had success in tolling (Resetting) SOL when earlier investigations were lied to. In Armstrong case there are many of these. 

Regardless if USADA gets all of the Feds non-GJ testimony then USADA will have plenty of evidence for the 2004-2010 period. I expect they would play it safe and not try for the pre 2004 stuff

USADA has made it clear that they think the Fed case uncovered a lot of evidence. They apparently do not see the same risk you do. Also do not forget the Qui Tam case. That is far from over


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

*please,please,please*

I honestly wish that people would stop using the word* hater*. Imo, I think that it sounds incredibly juvenile and tired at this point in time.
Thank you.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I may not have made it clear. 2009 is the start of the investigation. SOL would reach back 8 years from then, 2001.
> 
> *USADA has recently had success in tolling (Resetting) SOL when earlier investigations were lied to. In Armstrong case there are many of these.
> *
> ...



Can you show me something that backs up the part in bold. I ask because everything I have read says they got rid of the SOL in that case was due to the fact that he admitted doping after lying about it. The key part being his admission.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Chris-X said:


> Is this wishful thinking?
> 
> The truth is an absolute defense.
> 
> Do you think the truth is on the side of LA?


Maybe not but the law may be. What you know and what is true are often different things in the eyes of the law. Read about the OJ Simpson trial (tons of evidence that was public knowledge, restricted from the case-legally) for an example of how wrong it can go. 

People believe that the "truth" is that Lance doped through his whole career, yet he had 15+ years, with 6-7 of those years earning more money than any cyclist has before or since, yet with all of this "truth" around, he could not be brought down. It's not like they weren't trying.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

davidka said:


> ... It's not like they weren't trying.


Actually, the evidence is piling up that it's exactly like they weren't trying.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

davidka said:


> Maybe not but the law may be. What you know and what is true are often different things in the eyes of the law. Read about the OJ Simpson trial (tons of evidence that was public knowledge, restricted from the case-legally) for an example of how wrong it can go.
> 
> People believe that the "truth" is that Lance doped through his whole career, yet he had 15+ years, with 6-7 of those years earning more money than any cyclist has before or since, yet with all of this "truth" around, he could not be brought down. *It's not like they weren't trying*.


Who was trying? 

During most of his career Armstrong was seldom tested OOC and when he was tested he was given advanced notice. In the 90's his Test ratios were way off and the USIOC ignored it. He tested positive for Cortisone and the UCI accepted a back dated TUE, he tested positive for EPO and the UCI covered it up. Even during his comeback his blood values were indicative of blood doping and the UCI did nothing.....the head of the Biopassort was told some riders are too well funded to pursue as the legal challenge would be too huge


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

davidka said:


> Maybe not but the law may be. *What you know and what is true are often different things in the eyes of the law*. Read about the OJ Simpson trial (tons of evidence that was public knowledge, restricted from the case-legally) for an example of how wrong it can go.
> 
> People believe that the "truth" is that Lance doped through his whole career, yet he had 15+ years, with 6-7 of those years earning more money than any cyclist has before or since, yet with all of this "truth" around, he could not be brought down. It's not like they weren't trying.


Actually they're not.

In the Simpson case, a lot of evidence was held back by the prosecution, it wasn't ruled inadmissable.

As other posters mentioned, not only were "they" not trying to get LA, "they" were aiding his criminal activities, which are themselves, criminal activities.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who was trying?
> 
> During most of his career Armstrong was seldom tested OOC and when he was tested he was given advanced notice. In the 90's his Test ratios were way off and the USIOC ignored it. He tested positive for Cortisone and the UCI accepted a back dated TUE, he tested positive for EPO and the UCI covered it up. Even during his comeback his blood values were indicative of blood doping and the UCI did nothing.....the head of the Biopassort was told some riders are too well funded to pursue as the legal challenge would be too huge


Oh, please. Give me a break. Who was trying??? There were people going through his trash. There was L'Equipe going through the 1999 samples and matching them up. There was David Walsh writing several books. Say what you want about the UCI, but there were plenty of people actively trying to get him throughout his career.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh, please. Give me a break. Who was trying??? There were people going through his trash. There was L'Equipe going through the 1999 samples and matching them up. There was David Walsh writing several books. Say what you want about the UCI, but there were plenty of people actively trying to get him throughout his career.


So you're arguing those people didn't get him?

It doesn't seem like the heads of any governing bodies are paying attention to the work products of their underlings, does it?

The US Asst Attorney General? How about him? How about Borat?

You're arguing Armstrong is clean?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> So you're arguing those people didn't get him?
> 
> It doesn't seem like the heads of any governing bodies are paying attention to the work products of their underlings, does it?
> 
> ...


Read my words. There is no ambiguity in my post. There is no secret meaning. Take your game somewhere else, please.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

mohair_chair said:


> Read my words. There is no ambiguity in my post. *There is no secret meaning.* Take your game somewhere else, please.


Actually there is no meaning.

What is your argument?

One guy behind the curtain stopped the proceedings. 

What do you conclude from that?

This is what I conclude.



asgelle said:


> Actually, the evidence is piling up that it's exactly like they weren't trying.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh, please. Give me a break. Who was trying??? There were people going through his trash. There was L'Equipe going through the 1999 samples and matching them up. There was David Walsh writing several books. Say what you want about the UCI, but there were plenty of people actively trying to get him throughout his career.


For all the TdF's 1999 to 2004 the UCI had total control of disseminating the lab tests results and either taking action or taking no action. There was no accountability to any other party. _L'Equipe_, David Walsh et al or could any party enforce UCI to take action..

From 2005 (note Armstrong retired after 2005 TdF) a copy of all lab results had to be provided to WADA.

Armstrong failed a doping test in 1999 for glucocorticosteroids. UCI covered the positive up by claiming Armstrong had a (backdated) prescription but rules required an "advance" TUE therefore could not be backdated. Also, UCI claimed the positive was under a 6:1 t/e threshold when that threshold only applied to synthetic steroids. Glucocorticosteroids had no threshold.

In 2001 Armstrong failed 4 EPO tests during the Tour of Switzerland (TdS) - the race before the 2001 TdF.

The Swiss lab director has informed Fed investigators that the EPO levels were "suspicious" because the French lab developer of the EPO urine test had not established parameters.

But the French urine EPO test was introduced for the 2000 Olympics and during 2001 and before the TdS a number of riders were proven to be EPO positive as a result of the French urine test.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Oh, please. Give me a break. Who was trying??? There were people going through his trash. There was L'Equipe going through the 1999 samples and matching them up. There was David Walsh writing several books. Say what you want about the UCI, but there were plenty of people actively trying to get him throughout his career.


David Walsh and L'Equipe can hand out sanctions? That is news to me. Do you have a link?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> David Walsh and L'Equipe can hand out sanctions? That is news to me. Do you have a link?


Your question was, "Who is trying?" 

Answer: Lots of people were trying to get the goods on Armstrong. That's a fact that even you can not ignore.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Actually, the evidence is piling up that it's exactly like they weren't trying.





mohair_chair said:


> Your question was, "Who is trying?"
> 
> Answer: Lots of people were trying to get the goods on Armstrong. That's a fact that even you can not ignore.


And they got the goods. Are you ignoring that fact or do you think Armstrong was clean?

Bottom line, are you still defending Armstrong? Why would that be?

At what level is this "discussion? taking place? What is your point? Is there a point from you?

It should be clear to everyone by this time that Armstrong should have been disqualified for doping for ALL of his Tour de France "wins." Do you disagree with that?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Your question was, "Who is trying?"
> 
> Answer: Lots of people were trying to get the goods on Armstrong. That's a fact that even you can not ignore.


Try to keep up

The thread is about how USADA is requesting evidence from the Feds. The head of WADA has said 



> "From the information I have, the data and evidence that has been gathered will reveal a lot of information that indicates doping offenses,"


It is clear to even the casual observer that "They" (WADA) think they have enough evidence to "Get him" (Sanction Armstrong)

David and I then had a very nice discussion about the various aspects of the possible case, including if the Statue of Limitations will come into play. David also thought that it might be risky for USDA to go after him now that the Feds dropped the Criminal investigation.....both very valid points. 

Now it is pretty clear to most here that no governing bodies tried to "Bring down" Armstrong over the years, many would say the UCI did the exact opposite. It appears David was unaware of this. Not surprising as part of the Lance myth is the often repeated lie that he is the "Most tested athlete" It does appear that WADA is about to make the first attempt to "Take him down" 

Most understand that the Media cannot sanction Armstrong. But they can show that he is a petty bully who doped his way to his wins....they have done a pretty good job of that


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

It's a corrupt world


----------



## JapanDave (Mar 11, 2012)

Who is Lance Armstrong?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

JapanDave said:


> Who is Lance Armstrong?


some guy who made people think Trek were good bikes.


----------

