# Death threats,



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Translation of today's l'Equipe interview with Travis

Transcript of Travis Tygart’s interview with L’Équipe « Tour De José

UCI will get their info shorty....



> "In theory, we were going to receive at least the testimonies given to the grand jury, but we did not get anything. We had to take it up from zero,"


Um, of course 

Cyclingnewstory

Tygart Received Death Threats During USADA's Armstrong Investigation | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Some of the key points

*Increased security due to multiple death threats to staff
*Bruyneel is screwed
*UCI will have file in next few days
*Public will see case file end of the year
*No evidence from the Feds
*Armstrong was offered a deal if he told the truth, he declined and sued Travis personally the next day. He lost
*The evidence against Armstrong in their report is 30 times worse then any book or public evidence. 

I think I can say I told you so now right? :thumbsup:


----------



## zosocane (Aug 29, 2004)

This is somewhat of a bizarre response, assuming the translation to English is correct -- the head of a federal agency in the United States telling a French reporter that Bruyneel basically shouldn't have bothered exercising his 5th Amendment due process rights to a hearing because he's going to lose no matter what. Would have preferred to have seen a low-key response like, "The respondent is exercising his right under our laws to a hearing before impartial arbiters," etc.

"_Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong’s mentor refused your judgment and opts for a hearing in front of an independent USADA panel. He plays it big?
Oh for sure. I don’t know what he hopes for. Winning time? Take advantage of the inertia of the system_?"


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

fornaca68 said:


> This is somewhat of a bizarre response, assuming the translation to English is correct -- the head of a federal agency in the United States telling a French reporter that Bruyneel basically shouldn't have bothered exercising his 5th Amendment due process rights to a hearing because he's going to lose no matter what. Would have preferred to have seen a low-key response like, "The respondent is exercising his right under our laws to a hearing before impartial arbiters," etc.
> 
> "_Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong’s mentor refused your judgment and opts for a hearing in front of an independent USADA panel. He plays it big?
> Oh for sure. I don’t know what he hopes for. Winning time? Take advantage of the inertia of the system_?"


USADA is not a Federal agency
He is the prosecutor, not the judge, not the jury. Of course he is confident. 

The evidence is overwhelming, Johan will not go to Arbitration he waiting for the UCI to try to obstruct the case.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

So where are our legal eagles? Is it accurate that Armstrong can be compelled to testify under risk of perjury charges if he's caught lying?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I like that Tygart went to L'equipe, a newspaper which was vindicated in North America for standing up against Armstrong. It sends a message.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So where are our legal eagles? Is it accurate that Armstrong can be compelled to testify under risk of perjury charges if he's caught lying?


Perjury charges in a civil case are very rare but there are other elements to it that Lance is well aware of. 

It will never happen. Johan is not going to go to arbitration.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So where are our legal eagles? Is it accurate that Armstrong can be compelled to testify under risk of perjury charges if he's caught lying?


Amstrong can be compelled to testify under oath. However, he can invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself with respect to any question that he is asked. Armstrong does not have a Fifth Amendment right vis-a-vis incriminating any third party, such as Bruyneel. However, things get tricky when someone is being asked to testify about an alleged conspiracy of which he was a part.

If USADA has all of the evidence that it claims to have from a variety of witnesses, I would think that calling Armstrong and working through the Fifth Amendment issues would be more problems than it was worth. But, I also can understand the desire to force Armstrong to testify under oath in a public forum and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So where are our legal eagles? Is it accurate that Armstrong can be compelled to testify under risk of perjury charges if he's caught lying?


Lying is generally a meaningless term unless it is done under oath and with the penalty of perjury. Getting caught lying does nothing for your credibility or your case, but if it wasn't under oath, then there is no punishment. And I believe the only way anyone could ever be compelled to testify would be if you offered them immunity for anything they might say.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It will never happen. Johan is not going to go to arbitration.


is this because you think that JB will change his plead to accept the sanctioning? Or because you see his attempt to get UCI interferance will work?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Not to make light of getting death threats, but that seems to be par for the course for anyone in the news today. There are a lot of strange people out there who have Twitter accounts. Some recent examples:

Washington Redskins' Joshua Morgan gets death threats on Twitter - ESPN

French Closer editor 'receives death threats over Duchess topless pictures' - Telegraph

Nicki Minaj Receiving Twitter Death Threats Over “Romney” Rap: Morning Mix | Music News, Reviews, and Gossip on Idolator.com


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It will never happen. Johan is not going to go to arbitration.


That's what I've been thinking all along as well. Some sort of "arrangement" is going to be made so that neither Bruyneel or Marti go to arbitration and all the dirty laundry gets aired.

Most of the Armstrong faithful and certainly the general public are never going to bother reading whatever reports emerge from this stuff. If it's never blatantly in the public most will either remain ignorant or keep their heads in the sand.


----------



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Some of the key points
> 
> *Increased security due to multiple death threats to staff
> *Bruyneel is screwed
> ...


You have received your vindication :thumbsup: Once again you have posted and convinced us all that you are right, and all of the Lance Fans are wrong, stupid individuals, by referencing an unofficial blog post from an unofficial source that was only a portion of an interview. A post that lost all credibility to me when at the end of the article it says "I was going to post pictures but I think its illegal" I believe everything I see posted on the internet as well...:wink5: I am not saying you are incorrect in your accusations. I don't believe that the post from cycling news about Tygart receiving death threats is news to anyone. There is still a lot to play out in this case, it is far from over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

There are few points that were lost in translation. 

USADA never expected to get Grand Jury evidence, but they did expect to get the Non-Grand Jury evidence. They got neither. 

The public will not have to wait to the end of the year to see the evidence. It will come much, much sooner.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The public will not have to wait to the end of the year to see the evidence. It will come much, much sooner.


Christmas is coming early this year!


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Not to make light of getting death threats, but that seems to be par for the course for anyone in the news today.


Although I would not ignore the death threats were I Travis Taggart, I would not lose any sleep over them either. 

I know a retired judge who sat on both a local court that dealt with mundane things and then sat on a federal court and handled several high profile cases involving some very dangerous people. The judge said that the death threats that the authorities took most seriously were not the ones related to high profile federal cases, but those that were related to the family law cases from the local court. And, the people who really want to harm a judge or public official, usualy do not serve notice in advance.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

MarkS said:


> Amstrong can be compelled to testify under oath. However, he can invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself with respect to any question that he is asked. Armstrong does not have a Fifth Amendment right vis-a-vis incriminating any third party, such as Bruyneel. However, things get tricky when someone is being asked to testify about an alleged conspiracy of which he was a part.
> 
> If USADA has all of the evidence that it claims to have from a variety of witnesses, I would think that calling Armstrong and working through the Fifth Amendment issues would be more problems than it was worth. But, I also can understand the desire to force Armstrong to testify under oath in a public forum and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights.




Does Armstrong have to show up at all? What if he says, "No thanks, not coming." Can he do that?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

toymanator said:


> You have received your vindication :thumbsup: Once again you have posted and convinced us all that you are right, and all of the Lance Fans are wrong, stupid individuals, by referencing an unofficial blog post from an unofficial source that was only a portion of an interview. A post that lost all credibility to me when at the end of the article it says "I was going to post pictures but I think its illegal" I believe everything I see posted on the internet as well...:wink5: I am not saying you are incorrect in your accusations. I don't believe that the post from cycling news about Tygart receiving death threats is news to anyone. There is still a lot to play out in this case, it is far from over.


Hopefully it ends once and for all. I just hope USADA its case compiled properly with no procedural errors which can later be overturned. The questions regarding the ethics of this remain. There was more at work in the pursuit of LA than solely championing clean sport. If it was solely about clean sport, part of me thinks that every rider from that era should be pursued with the same intensity that LA was. Most teams had their doping operations going, and most riders were not riding clean...... Postal and LA were not unique.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

88 rex said:


> Does Armstrong have to show up at all? What if he says, "No thanks, not coming." Can he do that?


If Armstrong is served with a valid subpoena, he will have to show up and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. He cannot just fail to show up. Now, given the aggressive stance that his lawyers took with respect to the USADA arbitration, I would not be surprised if they tried to do something to derail things. The process that one should followed if one is served with a subpoena and has a reason for not showing up is to file for a protective order in advance of the hearing.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> There was more at work in the pursuit of LA than solely championing clean sport.


Or less. Someone knocked on USADA's door and said, "I have evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to systematically dope." USADA didn't ignore him. Could they have credibly done any less?

And by the way, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, and Frankie Andreu have said U.S. Postal absolutely were unique.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Or less. Someone knocked on USADA's door and said, "I have evidence of an ongoing conspiracy to systematically dope." USADA didn't ignore him. Could they have credibly done any less?
> 
> And by the way, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, and Frankie Andreu have said U.S. Postal absolutely were unique.


True, I agree that USADA would have ben remiss if they didn't act. Without a doubt. It was the timing of the Novitzky/FDA investigation which seemed to indicate there may have been more at work.

All anyone has to do is go down the list of finishers in anyone of those tours to see doping was rampant. Sure you can make an example of one team, one rider, but the problems were more widespread. The problem was with the UCI allowing a culture/environment to take hold where doping was rampant. Postal/LA excelled in that environment, but were not the root cause of the problem, nor were they the only ones guilty. If the issue were solely about cleaning up cycling, I can't help but think the efforts should be aimed at the root cause. The money/effort spent chasing one athlete/one team could have gone a long way to seeking institutional changes in cycling, and addressing the root causes of the doping problem. I think that would do more for the sport moving forward, although it can be argued that making an example of LA will be a deterrent....


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Did you read Tyler's book ? Or Landis's interview ? It's apparent that US Postal was a MAJOR part of the problem. They pushed organized doping to its maximum, they bought off the sports' main body, and apparently they were also involved in getting competitors busted. I'd say putting out the USPS conspiracy into plain light is a very good thing for the sport.

I also think if half the stuff that the UCI is accused of turns out to be true, and is published as part of USADA's investigation, the institutional changes will follow by themselves. Public outrage will force the UCI to change, and doping control in the sport to change, lest professional cyclists want to become the mockery of professional sports.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> True, I agree that USADA would have ben remiss if they didn't act. Without a doubt. It was the timing of the Novitzky/FDA investigation which seemed to indicate there may have been more at work.


So let's see. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate and misdirect by confusing USADA, FDA, and DOJ, or are you merely ignorant of their different purposes and jurisdictions?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Not to make light of getting death threats,


But you do anyways. :thumbsup: Classy

These threats were not limited to social media


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Wait a minute I thought Falsetti has made it clear that USADA is not a government agency? Since when does a private business which is what Falsetti insists the USADA is, since when do they get governmental subpoena powers? 

So if the USADA can now subpoena people under the color of law that answers the question of weather they are in fact a quasi governmental agency. 

Attorneys get to subpoena people because they are dealing with real court cases. Again we have been assured by Falsetti that there is no court case as the USADA is a private business not affiliated with the government so what subpoena power do they have? 

I have never heard of the FIA issuing subpoenas to compel drivers and crew members to testify nor have I heard of the NFL issuing subpoenas to compel a player to testify in a sport level issue not involving court. 

The fact is USADA can not force anyone to testify the only thing they can do is offer deals to not suspend them or ban them under their license to give information on others. 

In that case the USADA's entire case is built on dopers and liars who were given sweetheart deals to turn in Armstrong. 

Anyone who believes that Travis Tygart and the USADA did not get any evidence from the federal government believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well.

After all is has been documented that Travis Tygart was sitting in on Federal testimony and it is documented that Travis Tygart said he and the USADA were excitedly waiting for the federal evidence from the Armstrong investigation. 

Both well documented but I am sure Falsetti will be along shortly to say other wise and that the documented reports are wrong.


----------



## Shawner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Corrections*

Weather = wind and rain
Whether = expresses doubt
Week = days of the week: Monday Tuesday etc
Weak = not strong

As a Forgivestrong intern you should know the differences. Say hi to Lance for me!!


----------



## Shawner (Dec 10, 2001)

*Had to post this...*

During this interesting time everyone comes out of the woodwork. Hey AntiUSADA?


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

I want to go back to an earlier post re: the interview with Tygart. We have discussed ad nauseum that this is not a civil or criminal court case. So the legit question is: Can USADA compel Lance Armstrong to appear before them and force testimony from him? Can they subpoena him?

Apologies for my ignorance of WADA protocol.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> But you do anyways. :thumbsup: Classy
> 
> These threats were not limited to social media


You and the word "classy" are strangers, for sure.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> I want to go back to an earlier post re: the interview with Tygart. We have discussed ad nauseum that this is not a civil or criminal court case. So the legit question is: Can USADA compel Lance Armstrong to appear before them and force testimony from him? Can they subpoena him?
> 
> Apologies for my ignorance of WADA protocol.


Yes, if there is an arbitration hearing. Since Armstrong did not seek an arbitration hearing on the charges against him, USADA cannot compel testimony from him in his case. But, is someone else is charged by USADA and requests an arbitration hearing, Armstrong could be compelled to give testimony in that arbitration hearing. Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. sec. 7, states in pertinent part:

The arbitrators . . . may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. . . . Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; *if any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States*.

(Emphasis added.)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> You and the word "classy" are strangers, for sure.


It is not my fault your hero is in trouble


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is not my fault your hero is in trouble


My hero? 

My heroes are all dead.

I love how anyone who doesn't blindly accept your views is castigated and accused of all kinds of things. It reveals you as a fraud. If you were actually on solid ground, you wouldn't need to bother with petty insults toward anyone who questions you. So keep posting. Eventually most will catch on. A lot already have, believe me.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> My hero?
> 
> My heroes are all dead.
> 
> I love how anyone who doesn't blindly accept your views is castigated and accused of all kinds of things. It reveals you as a fraud. If you were actually on solid ground, you wouldn't need to bother with petty insults toward anyone who questions you. So keep posting. Eventually most will catch on. A lot already have, believe me.


Thanks for the insults, I can image this is a hard time for you. If you do get around to something other then insults please let me know what I have posted that is incorrect. 

oh, and please excuse me if I do not "believe you".....


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

MarkS - I'm assuming then that Armstrong could invoke the 5th amendment?


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> MarkS - I'm assuming then that Armstrong could invoke the 5th amendment?


Correct. Unless Armstrong finds some legal argument and gets a court to issue a protective order before any hearing in which he is called as a witness, he would have to appear and invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to each question that he is asked. As I wrote above, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege vis-a-vis crimes that third persons have committed. Thus, the only way that Armstrong legitimately can invoke the Fifth Amendment is if he believes that his testimony would incriminate himself. Now, given the theory that there was a grand conspiracy of which Armstrong was a part, he might be able to invoke it even if he is asked questions only about acts committed by Bruyneel (or other third persons). The only thing about which I am certain is that a lot of lawyers on both sides will be spending a lot of time analyzing each potential nuance and I expect that both Armstrong and USADA will be pushing each other to the limits of their respective rights.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Invoking his 5th Amendment right will definitely give look bad (think M. Mcquire testifying in front of Congress). I think this is a moot point because I personally don't believe Bruyneel will go through with the arbitration hearing. I think he will back out.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Wow. Thanks for the reply, MarkS. Sounds like L.A. will be in some deep kimchi.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

What will the groupies do when George makes his big statement this week? 

Bitter, hater, out for money.


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

The Tedinator said:


> Wow. Thanks for the reply, MarkS. Sounds like L.A. will be in some deep kimchi.



Mmmmm, kimchee!


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

CoffeeBean2 said:


> MarkS - I'm assuming then that Armstrong could invoke the 5th amendment?


First the summons has to be delivered to someone who does not want to receive it and is an expert at dodging out of competition testers.

November might be a good time for a long vacation in Australia or New Zealand.


----------



## runningboy (Sep 25, 2012)

Well looks like the omerta is finally going out the window
hopefully this means no more cyclists will be killed by "garage doors"
what a coincidence, a guy fingers a doping ring and dies from a garage door, totally believable...


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for the insults, I can image this is a hard time for you. If you do get around to something other then insults please let me know what I have posted that is incorrect.
> 
> oh, and please excuse me if I do not "believe you".....


Where did mohair_chair insult you? On the other hand you clearly insulted him. I am sorry Falsetti but you really don't have a clue. Your hatred of Armstrong has blurred your ability to see clearly and comprehend what others post. 

Mohair_chair is correct anyone who does not walk in lockstep with the anti lance crowd is berated and insulted and just shows the lack of class of those people.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

No offense, falsetti and chris-x, but you guys come out as really rude in a lot of your posts against people who are skeptical, uninformed, or disagree with some of what you say. 
It's not because someone disagrees with you that they are automatically a Lance fanboy out to destroy the universe. The fanboys are pretty easy to recognize.

FYI, Falsetti, it turned out the file was not handed over by the end of the month, and we're still waiting on that big Hincapie confession. And even if he does talk this week, nothing says he's just going to break his decade-long silence, call out his best buddy in public and confess to everything. It doesn't fit the character at all.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

moskowe said:


> No offense, falsetti and chris-x, but you guys come out as really rude in a lot of your posts against people who are skeptical, uninformed, or disagree with some of what you say.
> It's not because someone disagrees with you that they are automatically a Lance fanboy out to destroy the universe. The fanboys are pretty easy to recognize.
> 
> FYI, Falsetti, it turned out the file was not handed over by the end of the month, and we're still waiting on that big Hincapie confession. And even if he does talk this week, nothing says he's just going to break his decade-long silence, call out his best buddy in public and confess to everything. It doesn't fit the character at all.


Given what is what is tossed at me here it should not be surprising if I occasionally respond curtly. 

The furor over the timing of the turnover is invented. It will be forgotten within days of USDA turning over it's evidence. We should all prefer that USADA take it's time to incorporate additional evidence, a few days here or there will not matter in the long run. 

George will be giving a statement soon, perhaps at Levi's Gran Fondo this weekend but more likely in his normal quite style. I do not think he will spill the beans Tyler style but he will have to make some attempt to manage the wave of information that is about to break


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> So let's see. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate and misdirect by confusing USADA, FDA, and DOJ, or are you merely ignorant of their different purposes and jurisdictions?


USADA was founded in 2000. Rumors of LA doping started in 1999 with his first tour win, but USADA didn't get actively involved and sanction until 2012....


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> USADA was founded in 2000. Rumors of LA doping started in 1999 with his first tour win, but USADA didn't get actively involved and sanction until 2012....


how do you know? because there were no press releases?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> USADA was founded in 2000. Rumors of LA doping started in 1999 with his first tour win, but USADA didn't get actively involved and sanction until 2012....


The UCI was the last Fed to sign the WADA code. They held out until the IOC threaten to keep them out of the Olympics. The Signed in August 2004. Prior to this they had zero input into cycling. 

This means USADA only have oversiite of one of Armstrong's soon to be stripped Tours. The real question you should be asking is why the UCI and USAC ignored the problem for so long? Don't worry, USADA will soon give you the answer


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> how do you know? because there were no press releases?


You're right, I don't know. But it seems that the basis of USADAs case is their own investigation which followed on the back of the FDA investigation. If that's the case I'm just curious as to why it appears to have taken until 2011 for USADA to start the investigation that finally resulted in sanctions. Sad that it took this long.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> You're right, I don't know. But it seems that the basis of USADAs case is their own investigation which followed on the back of the FDA investigation. If that's the case I'm just curious as to why it appears to have taken until 2011 for USADA to start the investigation that finally resulted in sanctions. Sad that it took this long.


You are right. It is sad the UCI covered it up for so long. it is sad they ignored multiple positives tests. It is sad they would not share the results of Armstrong's Biopassport testing from 09/10 until earlier this year. It is sad they destroyed the samples from that testing. It is sad that Armstrong and his buddies smeared and harassed anyone who told the truth.

There are a lot of things to be sad about, but USADA finally overcoming a decade of cover-ups and obstruction is not one of them


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are right. It is sad the UCI covered it up for so long. it is sad they ignored multiple positives tests. It is sad they would not share the results of Armstrong's Biopassport testing from 09/10 until earlier this year. It is sad they destroyed the samples from that testing. It is sad that Armstrong and his buddies smeared and harassed anyone who told the truth.
> 
> There are a lot of things to be sad about, but USADA finally overcoming a decade of cover-ups and obstruction is not one of them


Absolutely! Its great that USADA acted! 

I'm just curious as to why it took until 2011-2012 for USADA to start their investigation when there were a substantial number of witnesses who came forward basically since LA's cancer treatment. I guess it took this long to reach critical mass....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Absolutely! Its great that USADA acted!
> 
> I'm just curious as to why it took until 2011-2012 for USADA to start their investigation when there were a substantial number of witnesses who came forward basically since LA's cancer treatment. I guess it took this long to reach critical mass....


Prior to Floyd how many witness came forward with direct witness testimony of lance's doping? Please give a list

Thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Prior to Floyd how many witness came forward with direct witness testimony of lance's doping? Please give a list
> 
> Thanks:thumbsup:


None that I can think of!

Many as you know, came forward prior to Floyd with serious allegations. I can only guess that because they did not actually witness LA putting the products in his body, that the sum total of these allegations prior to Floyd were not enough for USADA to start an investigation..... Which is sad. Hard to say in hindsight, but I think that without the many who came forward prior to Floyd, Floyd's testimony would have existed in a vacuum, and may not have been seen as credible. That's why I used the term 'critical mass'.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> None that I can think of!


Exactly. So perhaps you can stop with this silly "USADA ignored it for years" stuff.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Exactly. So perhaps you can stop with this silly "USADA ignored it for years" stuff.


I didn't say USADA ignored it.....

I said it was sad that the sum total of the allegations that came prior to Floyd were not enough for USADA to start an investigation..... I mean, it sort of looks like even the addition of Floyd wasn't enough for USADA to launch an investigation of its own accord, and that it was the turnover of the FDA case that compelled USADA to act?

In fact.... You're right!! They didn't ignore it after the FDA brought it to their attention! Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> I didn't say USADA ignored it.....
> 
> I said it was sad that the sum total of the allegations that came prior to Floyd were not enough for USADA to start an investigation..... I mean, it sort of looks like even the addition of Floyd wasn't enough for USADA to launch an investigation of its own accord, and that it was the turnover of the FDA case that compelled USADA to act?
> 
> In fact.... You're right!! They didn't ignore it after the FDA brought it to their attention! Thanks for the clarification!


Floyd talked to USADA, then emailed USAC months before the Fed got involved.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Floyd talked to USADA, then emailed USAC months before the Fed got involved.


Wow! Thats scary!! USADA and USAC didn't act after getting contacted by Floyd? It took months after that for the FDA to get involved and start the process? 

Did the FDA get involved of its own accord or was it brought in at the behest of USADA? If the FDA came in at the behest of USADA why would an anti-doping agency seek to hand over the lead to the FDA? 

You would figure that the enforcement of the sporting violations side of the case falls only under USADAs jurisdiction, and not the FDA's. Couldn't USADA have pursued the sporting violations side of the case either simultaneously or independently of the FDA pursuing the trafficking etc.? Yet they didn't pursue the sporting violations until after the FDA passed on the case? Weird.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Wow! Thats scary!! USADA and USAC didn't act after getting contacted by Floyd? It took months after that for the FDA to get involved and start the process?
> 
> Did the FDA get involved of its own accord or was it brought in at the behest of USADA? If the FDA came in at the behest of USADA why would an anti-doping agency seek to hand over the lead to the FDA?
> 
> You would figure that the enforcement of the sporting violations side of the case falls only under USADAs jurisdiction, and not the FDA's. Couldn't USADA have pursued the sporting violations side of the case either simultaneously or independently of the FDA pursuing the trafficking etc.? Yet they didn't pursue the sporting violations until after the FDA passed on the case? Weird.....


I think I understand your negative reputation :mad


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Oh, I get it you are trolling.


No I'm not. I ask honest questions and I'm trolling? Or crazy? 

Silly me, I should know better... I have the audacity to ask questions or hold a differing viewpoint from yours, so I need to be either shouted down or discredited.... That's one of this forum's unspoken rules. I forgot. My bad.

I'm honestly questioning the timing of the USADA investigation and when/how the FDA first become involved. Its sad it took until now, and many who had the courage to come forward went unsupported. That to me seems wrong. 

By asking why it took so long and holding people accountable I think it helps produce a better process. Doesn't it? I mean the UCI, WADA, USADA, a lot of agencies who's mandate it was to act dropped the ball for a long time here, and I think their failings need to be addressed in order to produce a better process.

BTW seeing the names who have contributed to my negative rep actually makes me see it as a compliment! :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I'm starting to wonder if "AntiUSADA" is slegros's trolling sock puppet. 

These two have wayyy too much in common to be separate posters.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> I'm starting to wonder if "AntiUSADA" is slegros's trolling sock puppet.
> 
> These two have wayyy too much in common to be separate posters.



Silly me, I should know better... I have the audacity to ask questions or hold a differing viewpoint from the majority, so I need to be either shouted down or discredited.... That's one of this forum's unspoken rules. I forgot. My bad. 

I question Falsetti, and now here comes Rob, as predictable as a sunrise with his witty repartee!! :thumbsup:

Trolling sock puppet!! Good one!! You're a funny guy!! Got any more? :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Silly me, I should know better... I have the audacity to ask questions or hold a differing viewpoint from the majority, so I need to be either shouted down or discredited.... That's one of this forum's unspoken rules. I forgot. My bad.
> 
> I question Falsetti, and now here comes Rob, as predictable as a sunrise with his witty repartee!! :thumbsup:
> 
> Trolling sock puppet!! Good one!! You're a funny guy!! Got any more? :thumbsup:


Considering you've been proven wrong more times than I can count, it's not an issue of being discredited: you never had any credit to begin with.

All you do is repeat the same old tired argument over and over:
"I'm glad they caught him, but I'm worried they didn't do it right. He'll probably go free, right? But I don't like him, so I hope he won't go free, but I'm pretty sure they screwed up, right?"

Get a grip dude. Your hero is busted and finished. Move on, find some other false idol and go to town on that one for a while.

When Bruyneel is banned and the UCI finally realized they can't win, we'll get the evidence. Hang out and have a beer until then. It might even raise your T:eT ratio a little bit...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> I have the audacity to ask questions ...


The problem is you don't just ask questions. You phrase them in such a way as to convey an implied premise or point of view. It doesn't fool anybody and that is what people are responding to either to correct the record or your misconception. If you truly want to understand what transpired, may I suggest Google.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Considering you've been proven wrong more times than I can count, it's not an issue of being discredited: you never had any credit to begin with.
> 
> All you do is repeat the same old tired argument over and over:
> "I'm glad they caught him, but I'm worried they didn't do it right. He'll probably go free, right? But I don't like him, so I hope he won't go free, but I'm pretty sure they screwed up, right?"
> ...


Never had any credit to begin with.... OUCH.... Dude, why the personal animosity? Disagree with my opinions, OK.... But the name calling (trolling sock puppet and others) and the personal insults.... Not cool.... 

I've refrained... Please do the same.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Yes, the comment was targeted more towards you, Chris-X, you're being a rude d*** to anyone who disagrees with you. At least Falsetti tries to argue for a while before losing his cool.

The way you write, and the way you reply to people who either a) are ignorant about the sport or b) haven't had the opportunity to read the material which, by the way, has taken years of painstaking effort to get, is downright offensive. It's got nothing to do with "truth," it's got to do with treating others with respect and not throwing half-baked statements to silence whoever was talking before you. I could pick up pretty much any of the posts you've put in the doping forum, because you usually post when you know you can go on the attack.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who follows doping and the Lance story that Pharmstrong has been a lot more agressive, and very perseverant, in destroying the lives of whoever came in his path in the past 15 years than any other pro cyclist accused of doping. But that doesn't give you the right to behave the same way towards anyone who still doesn't believe what you think. Your attitude is pretty much: "Armstrong is a bully to anyone who disagrees with him IRL, so I'll just be a bully to anyone who supports him on a forum." And since your standards of "supporting Armstrong" seem to extend to just about anyone disagreeing with you, that makes a LOT of people. In the space of one short post you've already accused me of being a nonsensical Armstrong fan, and called my post "ridiculous garbage." But I'm sure you think your behavior is perfectly cool :thumbsup:

Regardless, it doesn't matter what the fanboys say. In a couple of weeks, we'll know what USADA has in store for us, and hopefully they won't need you to tell them "the truth," it'll just speak out by itself.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> No I'm not. I ask honest questions and I'm trolling? Or crazy?


You did not ask a question, you twisted what I wrote in order to bait me into responding to you. Something you have done over and over to multiple users. Strange way to get your kicks but to each his own


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You did not ask a question, you twisted what I wrote in order to bait me into responding to you. Something you have done over and over to multiple users. Strange way to get your kicks but to each his own


Not at all!!! Honestly sorry if it came across a such!!

Just looking for answers to the question I posted earlier in this thread regarding USADAs timing. Do you know?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> The problem is you don't just ask questions. You phrase them in such a way as to convey an implied premise or point of view. It doesn't fool anybody and that is what people are responding to either to correct the record or your misconception. If you truly want to understand what transpired, may I suggest Google.


Not exactly....

I try when stating my opinion to be as explicit as possible... HONESTLY!

If by asking certain questions a certain way it forces others to examine whether or not their viewpoint may either be hypocritical, or tainted to a degree by personal bias, well that I assure you is totally unintended and accidental..... :aureola:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Not exactly....
> 
> I try when stating my opinion to be as explicit as possible... HONESTLY!
> 
> If by asking certain questions a certain way it forces others to examine whether or not their viewpoint may either be hypocritical, or tainted to a degree by personal bias, well that I assure you is totally unintended and accidental..... :aureola:


This coming from the guy who's smoldering love of Armstrong is palpable, even though you continually claim to not care or be glad he's busted?

You're a comedian.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> This coming from the guy who's smoldering love of Armstrong is palpable, even though you continually claim to not care or be glad he's busted?
> 
> You're a comedian.


Glad you enjoy my particular brand of humor! Always great to know I have fans! 

Where is all the hate coming from man? What does this post have to do with my previous post in this thread? Feel free to disagree with my opinions. But whats with the personal attacks and name-calling? Necessary?

I get it man... You feel the need to take a shot at me. Done. Received loud and clear.

Feel better?

Now give it a rest.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Glad you enjoy my particular brand of humor! Always great to know I have fans!
> 
> Where is all the hate coming from man? What does this post have to do with my previous post in this thread? Feel free to disagree with my opinions. But whats with the personal attacks? Necessary?
> 
> ...


You assume it's a shot at you, but it's more a shot at the inane and tireless garbage you're posting. If you really were so concerned with the process, you'd bother to familiarize yourself with the process instead of constantly referencing these two doofus lawyers (who also didn't bother to familiarize themselves with the process.) 

If you claim that the FDA investigation was the issue, then why didn't you raise your concerns at that point instead of during the USADA investigation?

Simply put, your arguments about "hoping they did it right" is a thinly veiled hint that the USADA was wrong and your buddy was subject of an unfair singling out process. We get it, you're a fanboy who's afraid to admit it. But your arguments not only don't make sense, but they really are just plain wrong.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> You assume it's a shot at you, but it's more a shot at the inane and tireless garbage you're posting. If you really were so concerned with the process, you'd bother to familiarize yourself with the process instead of constantly referencing these two doofus lawyers (who also didn't bother to familiarize themselves with the process.)
> 
> If you claim that the FDA investigation was the issue, then why didn't you raise your concerns at that point instead of during the USADA investigation?
> 
> Simply put, your arguments about "hoping they did it right" is a thinly veiled hint that the USADA was wrong and your buddy was subject of an unfair singling out process. We get it, you're a fanboy who's afraid to admit it. But your arguments not only don't make sense, but they really are just plain wrong.



You've said all this before. I get it. Loud and clear. For some reason you feel the need to discredit me. Anything else you'd like to add? I liked the bit about the space aliens myself... Thats always a good one worth repeating... Any other slanderous comments about me personally you'd like to add?

The difference between us is that I have been stating my opinion on the ISSUES.... 

You're now stating your opinion of ME.

There is a big difference there....

That's a line I haven't crossed.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> You've said all this before. I get it. Loud and clear. For some reason you feel the need to discredit me. Anything else you'd like to add? I liked the bit about the space aliens myself... Thats always a good one worth repeating... Any other slanderous comments about me personally you'd like to add?
> 
> The difference between us is that I have been stating my opinion on the ISSUES....
> 
> ...


I'm stating a fact on the issues you're arguing. They're wrong. 

My opinion on you is simply that you're too stubborn to read the material and understand that your arguments are incorrect. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

The fact remains that due process was executed and the silly Armstrong suit was dismissed. Tygart received death threats for doing his job. There's no realm in the planet where it's acceptable for people to threaten the guy because he's upholding the USADA charter (which is his job.)


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> I'm stating a fact on the issues you're arguing. They're wrong.
> 
> My opinion on you is simply that you're too stubborn to read the material and understand that your arguments are incorrect. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
> 
> The fact remains that due process was executed and the silly Armstrong suit was dismissed. Tygart received death threats for doing his job. There's no realm in the planet where it's acceptable for people to threaten the guy because he's upholding the USADA charter (which is his job.)


Dude you gave me what-for, and thoroughly put me in my place. I see the LIGHT!

That's 4 or 5 posts in a row where you have gone after me personally, while I have refrained from doing likewise...... Feel better now? Or do you need to slander me and try to discredit me some more to REALLY feel good about yourself? :thumbsup:

That's some serious anger there man... Over what? My opinions differ from yours, and I publicly stated them? Why the hate? Why go after me personally?

Rodney King said it best......

'Can't we all just get along?'


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

slegros said:


> The difference between us is that I have been stating my opinion on the ISSUES....


an opinion happily living a parallel life untouched by any facts :thumbsup:


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

den bakker said:


> an opinion happily living a parallel life untouched by any facts :thumbsup:



What is this? Pile on?? LOL!! Anyone else want to take a personal shot? Evidently its OK, and is the popular thing to do, because I stated my opinion, and many here don't like it....

Have I ever commented on you personally or on any of your posts?

Very classy man. Keep following the crowd..... :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Dude you gave me what-for, and thoroughly put me in my place. I see the LIGHT!
> 
> That's 4 or 5 posts in a row where you have gone after me personally, while I have refrained from doing likewise...... Feel better now? Or do you need to slander me and try to discredit me some more to REALLY feel good about yourself? :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


Bro, I don't need to discredit you. Your own ramblings do a fine job of that without my help.

But yet, you still don't get it. That's perfectly OK. I'm sure you're very happy in your own little bubble.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Bro, I don't need to discredit you. Your own ramblings do a fine job of that without my help.
> 
> But yet, you still don't get it. That's perfectly OK. I'm sure you're very happy in your own little bubble.


Out of gas with this one? Or still need to slam me some more?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> Out of gas with this one? Or still need to slam me some more?


I should ask you the same:

How many times are you going to cut and paste the same BS you've been touting for a week now, and still believe it?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

And we are done.


----------

