# LA. the end is near



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Pete yost, the guy who wrote the puff piece this weekend with the help of Armstrong Legal team, is feeling kinda stupid right now. So much for the investigation being dead in the water. 

The fact is the investigation is moving forward rapidly. People have the misconception that these investigations can be wrapped up in a couple months.....the are not. They can often take years. 

Any faster and the talking point would be "Rush to judgement"


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Why not get 2000 samples as well? IIRC, there was no EPO test until 2001. Good bet the 2000 samples have EPO too.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Why not get 2000 samples as well? IIRC, there was no EPO test until 2001. Good bet the 2000 samples have EPO too.


Supposedly they have asked for other samples, including 2003.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

The end is near? People have been saying that for 9 or 10 years now.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> The end is near? People have been saying that for 9 or 10 years now.


more like 1 or 2 years.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

PhatTalc said:


> more like 1 or 2 years.


When did L. A. Confidentiel come out? 

more like 7 years


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

20/20 Hindsight, but how much easier would it have been when Landis went public to just admit to some unspecified dark period in the past, weep and move on? I mean heck even a guy like McGwire's semi resepectable these days and he's got none of the good will Armstrong has built up from Livestrong.


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Schadenfreude


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

covenant said:


> When did L. A. Confidentiel come out?
> 
> more like 7 years


Did anyone really think that book was going to bring down lance? It certainly changed public opinion but the risks today are far greater.

Few believed that Armstrong would ever face the issues he faces today.


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

*McQuaid turning his back on Lance?*

Saw on Science of Sports blog this link to a Pat McQuaid interview in the Feb 10th printed edition of Cycling Weekly where McQuaid says,


> If . . . proves that the US Postal team were involved in a lot of doping, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. In those days it was possible to beat the system.


Now that sounds like a refutation of Lance "I've never tested positive" defense!


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did anyone really think that book was going to bring down lance? It certainly changed public opinion but the risks today are far greater.
> 
> Few believed that Armstrong would ever face the issues he faces today.


You should have seen this forum in 2004, although I'll admit Tyler was the talk of the town at the time.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Supposedly they have asked for other samples, including 2003.


This is what I have contended all along should be done- interviewing everyone under the sun for here-say is nonsense.... Get all the samples they can, ensure that the samples have been properly stored, that the chain of custody and test protocols used are legally valid and re-test the samples. Its the only definitive way to prove if L.A. doped or not.... 

Then it raises the ethical question of whether or not L.A. should be singled out in this manner..... Why not re-test all of Contador's samples? Or Ullrich's? Or......


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

slegros said:


> Why not re-test all of Contador's samples? Or Ullrich's? Or......


Jurisdiction.

And my guess is that there are chain of custody problems with the 1999 samples, and probably others. But you're right that they should go after some hard evidence first. If there are chain of custody problems, they need to assess whether the case has a snowball's chance in hell of being a successful prosecution.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> This is what I have contended all along should be done- interviewing everyone under the sun for here-say is nonsense.... Get all the samples they can, ensure that the samples have been properly stored, that the chain of custody and test protocols used are legally valid and re-test the samples. Its the only definitive way to prove if L.A. doped or not....
> 
> Then it raises the ethical question of whether or not L.A. should be singled out in this manner..... Why not re-test all of Contador's samples? Or Ullrich's? Or......


Witness testimony is not hearsay. For example if his former assistant, Mike Anderson, testifies that he saw Armstrong takes bags of cash at post Tour Crit's that could put Armstrong in trouble if he did not declare it to the IRS. Even more trouble if he used it to pay Ferrari. 

As for the samples. The people building that case are USADA, with The Fed's help. They do not have jurisdiction over Ullrich or Contador.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

ragweed said:


> Saw on Science of Sports blog this link to a Pat McQuaid interview in the Feb 10th printed edition of Cycling Weekly where McQuaid says,
> Now that sounds like a refutation of Lance "I've never tested positive" defense!


How the heck is that a refutation? Was Lance ever tested positive, like Contador?


----------



## ragweed (Jan 2, 2009)

Axe said:


> How the heck is that a refutation? Was Lance ever tested positive, like Contador?


Lance: "I've never failed a doping test."
Pat: "In those days it was possible to beat the system."
I think Pat, the president of the UCI trumps Lance, the alleged doper.

My original point though is that it's a surprise that Pat would hang his buddy out to dry like that.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

That'll be the last straw. 

As much as I'd like to see a clean sport, backtesting samples that are a decade old is the kiss of death. Everything they test is going to be positive. 

Glad the networks are already contracted to cover the Tour this year. It may be the last time they care.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Axe said:


> How the heck is that a refutation? *Was Lance ever tested positive,* like Contador?


Yes
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## DiegoMontoya (Apr 11, 2010)

Axe said:


> How the heck is that a refutation? Was Lance ever tested positive, like Contador?


Yes, Once for cortisone, six times for EPO,


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Damn. I'd better get all the use I can out of my Livestrong jogging shirt now!


----------



## malanb (Oct 26, 2009)

Nah! It gonna be cooler afterwards. bad boy armstrong


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

covenant said:


> Damn. I'd better get all the use I can out of my Livestrong jogging shirt now!


sell it on ebay while you cannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Rydbyk has spoken, now we can all relax, drink a beer and go bykryd


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> Rydbyk has spoken, now we can all relax, drink a beer and go bykryd



I don't care what everyone thinks about you here on RBR. I still think you are great. You have become very predictable in your poasts. Your general feeling towards people being that "people are idiots" must do wonders for you in your personal life. Congrats. You rock hard core amigo.

You have the attitude of a champion.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

I like this quote from the article

_"Every citizen must answer to justice when approached by it," _


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

gh1 said:


> I like this quote from the article
> 
> _"Every citizen must answer to justice when approached by it," _


Unless your name is Julian Assange.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

mohair_chair said:


> Unless your name is Julian Assange.


Or, in Lance's case, sue the pants off of justice until it gets fed up and goes away!


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

rydbyk said:


> I don't care what everyone thinks about you here on RBR. I still think you are great. You have become very predictable in your poasts. Your general feeling towards people being that "people are idiots" must do wonders for you in your personal life. Congrats. You rock hard core amigo.
> 
> You have the attitude of a champion.


 I like you too Rydbyk, despite your callous remarks toward me. You write really well amigo and always have insightful remarks, the hallmarks of a true intellect! Ciao for now. Got to go bykryd!


----------



## Tight Nipples (Feb 18, 2011)

Hay-Seuss, it's like a sword-fight at the urinal in here!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

rubbersoul said:


> I like you too Rydbyk, despite your callous remarks toward me. You write really well amigo and always have insightful remarks, the hallmarks of a true intellect! Ciao for now. Got to go bykryd!


Well, it seems as though we can at least agree on one thing. Sarcasm is nifty.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Hey, fun boys, get a room!


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Man, I go away for 5 months and it's like I never left. Same old dogs chasing the same old tails.

Lance reminds me of Col Jessup - you need him on that bike. His existence, while incomprehensible and grotesque to you, probably is necessary to keep this place going. You weep for Lemond and you curse Lance's existence. You have that luxury.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

JohnHemlock said:


> Man, I go away for 5 months and it's like I never left. Same old dogs chasing the same old tails.
> 
> Lance reminds me of Col Jessup - you need him on that bike. His existence, while incomprehensible and grotesque to you, probably is necessary to keep this place going. You weep for Lemond and you curse Lance's existence. You have that luxury.


Congrats on your release


----------

