# Armstrong 2009 tests "Consistent with blood doping"



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

> , his results during the 2009 Tour de France are consistent with the use of blood transfusion,





> Studying the spreadsheet of USADA’s blood lab evidence, Ashenden noted that Armstrong’s hemoglobin levels were essentially constant during the 2009 Tour de France, where Armstrong finished third. “It is not normal for those values to remain constant during a Tour de France, where typically the strenuous exercise leads to a dilution of the blood and a 10% decrease in haemoglobin levels,” Ashenden said. “Armstrong’s haemoglobin levels actually increased during the race where he finished third overall.”


Lance Armstrong's fall from grace only beginning after USADA strips seven Tour de France titles - NY Daily News

This is only helped by the fact USADA also has witnesses of transfusions and EPO use in 2009 and 2010


----------



## toymanator (Dec 14, 2010)

.... We get it Doctor Falsetti, you hate Lance Armstrong


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

toymanator said:


> .... We get it Doctor Falsetti, you hate Lance Armstrong


"Consistent with" means we think so, but we can't prove it.


----------



## PinarelloGirl (Aug 26, 2012)

At the crux of the matter is a bullying athlete, filled with greed and pride, who set out to win races at any cost. LA made a conscious choice to dope and consistently lied and cheated his way to his victories. When other posters cite facts about the fraud, the well-compensated LA public relations team goes into overdrive and resorts to emotional cries citing "personal hatred." No surprise. That is there modus operandi.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

David Loving said:


> "Consistent with" means we think so, but we can't prove it.


That being the case, why didn't Lance go to arbitration where this tissue of half-truths, surmise, innuendo, witch-hunting, finger-pointing and allegation by a bunch of washed-up and embittered former team mates could be ridiculed by the golden boy to the satisfaction of all right-thinking sports lovers and cancer sufferers?

Maybe because Lance is a little bit smarter than his fan base?


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Exactly. If they can't prove it, why didn't Lance's team rise up in righteous anger and rip their flimsy case to shreds?

Simple. Because he knows they can prove it.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

From a guy who was equally convinced of the same thing with Contador, but his argument wasn't even solid enough to allow him to even testify. And that was a guy who was actually actively racing at the time and still is. 

How much more fully consistent is it this time?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Handbrake said:


> From a guy who was equally convinced of the same thing with Contador, but his argument wasn't even solid enough to allow him to even testify. And that was a guy who was actually actively racing at the time and still is.
> 
> How much more fully consistent is it this time?


Could you be a teensy weensy bit more specific? Your post means absolutely nothing as written.


----------



## FR hokeypokey (Apr 12, 2010)

Armstrong's team did stand up and fight against the circumstantial evidence presented by the Federal prosecutors and to a Federal Grand Jury. 

Successfully.

Then the USADA took the same evidence and pronounced Armstrong guilty. No new evidence, no new witnesses. Just a lower standard of proof and no accountability. 

At this point, the argument of guilt is ridiculous. Armstrong critics believe the evidence is enough, they have for years. Those that believe the evidence is circumstantial will not have their minds changed. He will still be the champion.

There is no certainty in this case. We can all suspect or have doubts, but in reality it just does not matter anymore. I applaud Armstrong for moving on with his life. This farce and the events of the past decade are over. 

Perhaps now we can move on to the present and ensuring the sport of cycling gets cleaned up. Funds, energy and policies can be spent on the current riders instead of focusing on the most visible retired rider.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

sir duke said:


> Could you be a teensy weensy bit more specific? Your post means absolutely nothing as written.


I think he's referring to this.

_Alberto Contador’s Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing was awash in controversy. The president of the three arbitrator panel, Efraim Barak, was accused by Radio Shack-Nissan team owner Flavio Becca of being biased for Contador. *Then WADA lawyers were blocked from cross examining their expert witness Michael Ashenden, an act that nearly drove the WADA lawyers to walk out in protest.* Finally, the panel’s ruling settled on a theory that Clenbuterol entered Contador’s system via a tainted supplement, a theory that Contador flatly rejected._


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Fireform said:


> Exactly. If they can't prove it, why didn't Lance's team rise up in righteous anger and rip their flimsy case to shreds?
> 
> Simple. Because he knows they can prove it.


Could be he is guilty. Could be he is simply tired of spending money on bloodsucker lawyers and wants to move on with life. Could be both.

"Simply" indeed. If it was so simple they would have buried him a long time ago.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

If he really is innocent and really does want to put it all behind him and move on with life, he just blew the last, best opportunity he will ever get.

Now and for the rest of his life he's a cheat and a fraud. I wouldn't call that putting it behind him.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Fireform said:


> If he really is innocent and really does want to put it all behind him and move on with life, he just blew the last, best opportunity he will ever get.
> 
> Now and for the rest of his life he's a cheat and a fraud. I wouldn't call that putting it behind him.


What planet do you live on? He keeps fighting it, he keeps having to appear in court and deal with allegations and keeps having to spend money on lawyers. Even *if* he beats it now, odds are quite high it'll come up again and again in the future. How is continuing to fight it "moving on"?

If the RIAA/MPAA send you a letter for $5,000 demanding you pay them or they'll sue you in court for more...is fighting it and court and losing "moving on"? Is not fighting it and simply paying up an admission of stealing $5,000 worth of movies and music?

According to your somewhat twisted logic Armstrong is damned if he doesn't...and common sense dictates he's damned if he does.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

He lucked into a situation where the feds dropped his case. Now, if he's innocent, he wins the arbitration with the USADA. Who would charge him with anything after that? Nobody, very likely. Then, he rides smugly into the sunset. 

Now he's open to lawsuits over sponsorships and bonuses he accepted on the condition he was riding clean. He has done anything but put it behind him, but at least he can comfort himself with the outrage of his gulls.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Fireform said:


> He lucked into a situation where the feds dropped his case. *Now, if he's innocent, he wins the arbitration with the USADA. Who would charge him with anything after that? Nobody, very likely. Then, he rides smugly into the sunset.
> *
> Now he's open to lawsuits over sponsorships and bonuses he accepted on the condition he was riding clean. He has done anything but put it behind him, but at least he can comfort himself with the outrage of his gulls.


You're delusional if you believe that if he beat this rap he'd be free from court forever over doping allegations. It would come back sooner or later. Just like this investigation years after he's out of the pro-tour level of the sport.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm sure he takes great comfort from the legions of fans who've swallowed his fable of persecution and martyrdom hook line and sinker.

Seriously, if he's innocent, why wouldn't he want the evidence made public? If they really are wronging him, why would he refuse the chance to confront his accusers and the full case against him and discredit them? 

The answer is that he's not innocent.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> I think he's referring to this.
> 
> _Alberto Contador’s Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing was awash in controversy. The president of the three arbitrator panel, Efraim Barak, was accused by Radio Shack-Nissan team owner Flavio Becca of being biased for Contador. *Then WADA lawyers were blocked from cross examining their expert witness Michael Ashenden, an act that nearly drove the WADA lawyers to walk out in protest.* Finally, the panel’s ruling settled on a theory that Clenbuterol entered Contador’s system via a tainted supplement, a theory that Contador flatly rejected._


That is odd......as this does nothing to support what he wrote.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Fireform said:


> I'm sure he takes great comfort from the legions of fans who've swallowed his fable of persecution and martyrdom hook line and sinker.


Whoever said I was a fan and thought him innocent? I think the man is a jerk, and most likely a cheat and a liar. Find one post of my 16,000 where I ever said he was as pure as snow and he's been persecuted unfairly. You won't find one. I know that you got nothing and have nothing substantive to add so you resort to making it mildly personal. 

That being said, this case is like the Casey Anthony trial. Lots of armchair experts on the internet who want to believe it is all over before it has even begun. Armstrong is already winning in the court of public opinion, where lots of non-cyclists see the USADA's move as another example of blatant overreach of governmental power and convicting without evidence.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

It was a general observation. If you thought I was referring to you I sincerely apologize.


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

FR hokeypokey said:


> Armstrong's team did stand up and fight against the circumstantial evidence presented by the Federal prosecutors and to a Federal Grand Jury.
> 
> Successfully.
> 
> ...


The grand jury was for money laundering/fraud charges, which isn't what the USADA was going after him for. You can still dope and not defraud the government to do it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Handbrake said:


> From a guy who was equally convinced of the same thing with Contador, but his argument wasn't even solid enough to allow him to even testify. And that was a guy who was actually actively racing at the time and still is.
> 
> How much more fully consistent is it this time?


Ashenden couldn't testify to the fact because it was a CAS arbitration on Clenbuterol, not on blood doping.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

fontarin said:


> The grand jury was for money laundering/fraud charges, which isn't what the USADA was going after him for. You can still dope and not defraud the government to do it.


Agreed 100%. The case was about defrauding sponsors. 

Barry Bonds was not charged with doping. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. The Roger Clemens case was also about perjury and obstruction, not whether he doped. In addition, there are all sorts of considerations that go into the decision whether to bring criminal charges against someone or not. The Bonds case may have influenced the decision to drop the case against Armstrong. For example, the government may have had enough evidence to convict, but they may have believed a jury just wasn't going to follow the evidence. This happens all the time.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> That is odd......as this does nothing to support what he wrote.


Yes it does actually. 

Ashenden would have made the same argument against Contador: that per his opinion the delivery method for Contador's clenbuterol was a blood transfusion rather than a steak, baed on this same type of passport evidence. The CAS declined to listen to him.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> Yes it does actually.
> 
> Ashenden would have made the same argument against Contador: that per his opinion the delivery method for Contador's clenbuterol was a blood transfusion rather than a steak, baed on this same type of passport evidence. The CAS declined to listen to him.


Wrong again. 

CAS did not allow Ashenden to testify because he was going to focus on the plasticizer test. Contador's legal team objected as the test was not yet approved. 



> lawyers objected to Ashenden’s testimony and *CAS appear to have held Ashenden back on the basis that he may have gone into further detail on explaining how the traces of clenbuterol may have been linked to a possible blood transfusion, although no test for such measure has been ratified by the WADA code*. Cyclingnews attempted to contact Ashenden but he was unavailable for comment.
> 
> AP added that, “Contador's lawyers argued that if he transfused, clenbuterol and *plastic residues would have appeared together in his July 21 sample* and because they didn't, the transfusion scenario was impossible.”


For Armstrong USADA has not only fluxuation in blood values but also witness testimony of transfusions. They would have also had plasitczier tests as well, but the UCI stopped them from using Armstrong samples for this


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Marc said:


> Armstrong is already winning in the court of public opinion, where lots of non-cyclists see the USADA's move as another example of blatant overreach of governmental power and convicting without evidence.


so cases should be decide by who is able to get the most people to buy into the myth? The largest media budget wins? 

Just because the public has little understand of what USADA is and what their processes are does not mean Armstrong is getting screwed.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> so cases should be decide by who is able to get the most people to buy into the myth? The largest media budget wins?
> 
> Just because the public has little understand of what USADA is and what their processes are does not mean Armstrong is getting screwed.


Correct. However, if you're concerned about the widespread view of cycling and the USADA...they (the USADA) are blowing their credibility on this. 

I post over on Hardforum, and most of the folks over there are in the "innocent until proven guility" camp...and as Armstrong has cited he is one of the most tested athletes in the world and as he has cited has yet to be sanctioned from a test. And as we all know just because you've never gotten a speeding ticket doesn't mean you've never broken the speed limit. Head in the sand or not, to those folks the whole thing looks bad and vindictive....which to a degree it does seem to be. If results "seem to indicate" doping in 09, why aren't they yanking his results from 09 instead of all his TdF wins especially when it is debatable whether the USADA has juristiction or not to do so is at best debatable to lay people.

And in fairness, I'm not entirely sure what the point of the whole exercise is...taking down Armstrong by discrediting the WADA and the UCI would only seem to hurt the sport and the anti-doping authorities for the visible future. And for what?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Marc said:


> Correct. However, if you're concerned about the widespread view of cycling and the USADA...they (the USADA) are blowing their credibility on this.
> 
> I post over on Hardforum, and most of the folks over there are in the "innocent until proven guility" camp...and as Armstrong has cited he is one of the most tested athletes in the world and as he has cited has yet to be sanctioned from a test. And as we all know just because you've never gotten a speeding ticket doesn't mean you've never broken the speed limit. Head in the sand or not, to those folks the whole thing looks bad and vindictive....which to a degree it does seem to be. If results "seem to indicate" doping in 09, why aren't they yanking his results from 09 instead of all his TdF wins especially when it is debatable whether the USADA has juristiction or not to do so is at best debatable to lay people.
> 
> And in fairness, I'm not entirely sure what the point of the whole exercise is...taking down Armstrong by discrediting the WADA and the UCI would only seem to hurt the sport and the anti-doping authorities for the visible future. And for what?


What has USADA done to "Blow their creditably"? 

The fact is Armstrong tested positive for EPO multiple times, Cortisone, and Testosterone. The UCI covered it up for years, in doing so they damaged the sport. USADA is cleaning it up

In the next 2 weeks you will see a lot of evidence. Most will understand why Armstrong chose to quite rather then fight.... because he is a doper.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What has USADA done to "Blow their creditably"?
> 
> The fact is Armstrong tested positive for EPO multiple times, Cortisone, and Testosterone. The UCI covered it up for years, in doing so they damaged the sport. USADA is cleaning it up
> 
> In the next 2 weeks you will see a lot of evidence. Most will understand why Armstrong chose to quite rather then fight.... because he is a doper.


Is the USADA cleaning the house, or burning the house down to kill one rat? It would seem to me the later, especially when their jurisdiction is at best debatable. Their entire case is based on the entire cycling governing body is corrupt, which if they're shown to be right (which may well be the case) will be proverbially burning the house down.

I remember not too long ago when hordes of people came out of the woodwork in this very forum declaring loudly that Armstrong would get strung up by the federal government...and they also declared that we would see lots of evidence that the special prosecutor would expose...and Armstrong would be thrown in jail and the key would be lost...and and and...all those people got a massive pile of nothing for all their excitement and mouth foaming.

We shall see what we see. Don't count your chickens til they hatch.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and if the USADA*



Marc said:


> Is the USADA cleaning the house, or burning the house down to kill one rat? It would seem to me the later, especially when their jurisdiction is at best debatable. Their entire case is based on the entire cycling governing body is corrupt, which if they're shown to be right (which may well be the case) will be proverbially burning the house down.
> 
> I remember not too long ago when hordes of people came out of the woodwork in this very forum declaring loudly that Armstrong would get strung up by the federal government...and they also declared that we would see lots of evidence that the special prosecutor would expose...and Armstrong would be thrown in jail and the key would be lost...and and and...all those people got a massive pile of nothing for all their excitement and mouth foaming.
> 
> We shall see what we see. Don't count your chickens til they hatch.


can convict him on the evidence that did not find him guilty in a standard trial I can see why he's not fighting it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Marc said:


> Is the USADA cleaning the house, or burning the house down to kill one rat? It would seem to me the later, especially when their jurisdiction is at best debatable. Their entire case is based on the entire cycling governing body is corrupt, which if they're shown to be right (which may well be the case) will be proverbially burning the house down.
> 
> I remember not too long ago when hordes of people came out of the woodwork in this very forum declaring loudly that Armstrong would get strung up by the federal government...and they also declared that we would see lots of evidence that the special prosecutor would expose...and Armstrong would be thrown in jail and the key would be lost...and and and...all those people got a massive pile of nothing for all their excitement and mouth foaming.
> 
> We shall see what we see. Don't count your chickens til they hatch.


You are writing talking points that have no basis in reality. 

There is zero debate on the jurisdiction. USADA is doing their job. Do you expect them to ignore a mountain of evidence? 

McQuaid, Verbruggen, and their buddies will be removed from the sport. The UCI will remain, hopefully run by non-criminals. 

Armstrong's entanglement with the Feds is far from over.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are writing talking points that have no basis in reality.
> 
> There is zero debate on the jurisdiction. USADA is doing their job. Do you expect them to ignore a mountain of evidence?


Obviously there is zero debate on jurisdiction, which is why I and many others lay person and otherwise are asking. How can the USADA revoke wins an athlete was awarded in another country that was overseen by another ADA?


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

David Loving said:


> "Consistent with" means we think so, but we can't prove it.



You wrong according to Dr. F lol


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Marc said:


> Obviously there is zero debate on jurisdiction, which is why I and many others lay person and otherwise are asking. How can the USADA revoke wins an athlete was awarded in another country that was overseen by another ADA?


I am not sure what you are asking? 

Hundreds of athletes have been sanction by their national ADA for a positive test in another countries ADA. Floyd, Tyler are the easiest but I can give you many, many more. 

WADA set up standardized testing and sanctioning to insure that athletes were testing and sanctioned the same world wide.


----------



## FR hokeypokey (Apr 12, 2010)

Bottom line is Armstrong will never be able to convince the critics of his innocence. Good enough reason to just move on with life. Instead of repeatedly defending yourself against circumstantial and questionable evidence. 

Review all your evidence that you continue to cite. There is no definitive proof of doping. That is why we are in this position. If the proof was there, Armstrong would have already been sanctioned as all the other riders that tested positive before him have been. 

I know it is difficult for some of you to imagine, but suppose for a moment that Armstrong would have continued his arguments with the USADA. Suppose his case is dropped. Would you suddenly change your minds? 

Probably not. You would claim conspiracy, and political or financial interference. But you still would believe that Armstrong is a cheater. He may very well have cheated. He was just better at it then all his closest rivals. We will never know for certain.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

FR hokeypokey said:


> Armstrong's team did stand up and fight against the circumstantial evidence presented by the Federal prosecutors and to a Federal Grand Jury.
> 
> Successfully.
> .


You do know everything you just said was made up and pulled out of where the sun don't shine. You know, that, right? Please tell me you do.

The Feds never brought charges - their charges were on if LA/Postal and co committed fraud with Postal sponsorship money - they uncovered a doping ring, but could not prove that the finances were being used from the Postal sponsorship fund. The Fed did their research and never pressed charges - so there was nothing for Armstrong's team to stand up a fight - as you say. The fed then gave evidence to USADA who does prosecute for doping - LA knew it was coming an set forth with "I'm not going to defend any more" - or do you not remember that.

Cause, yea, martyrdom, almost always means you didn't do it :mad2:

I love how no one now trying to say he didn't dope - which all you all did before - now it's "they all did it" - "I mean, regardless USADA is a farce" - blah, blah, blah.

Homeboy got away with it 7 times and he NEVER, EVER should have came back - but with his ego, is anyone really surprised. Not me, he has be in an alternative reality for some time. I mean, look, people like you spin up this tripe!!!!!


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

ronderman said:


> ... he NEVER, EVER should have came back...



Ironic, he brought so much of this onto himself. Had he stayed retired, this would have never come upon him. Megalomania, arrogance, hubris will always come back to bite you.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The tired of spending money and time fighting argument has one big problem: L'Equipe. When LA had time, money and inclination to sue any and everybody, he threatened L'Equipe but never sued them for their 1999 EPO tests story. Faced with the prospect of using the 14th century pseudo-science of spontaneous generation as the explanation for the appearance of EPO in his samples, he wisely chose to bluff, but avoid a fight.

Time has apparently not diminished his intelligence too much since he bluffed and folded again with the USADA (there is some evidence EPO improves mental function too). But I suspect he will fight some more if the UCI gets on board with control of the case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

FR hokeypokey said:


> Bottom line is Armstrong will never be able to convince the critics of his innocence. Good enough reason to just move on with life. Instead of repeatedly defending yourself against circumstantial and questionable evidence.
> 
> Review all your evidence that you continue to cite. There is no definitive proof of doping. That is why we are in this position. If the proof was there, Armstrong would have already been sanctioned as all the other riders that tested positive before him have been.
> 
> ...


Come back next month and let us know if you still feel there is no proof


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> CAS did not allow Ashenden to testify because he was going to focus on the plasticizer test


No. 

While you report the above as if it were fact, your own quote contradicts you by contains the weasel words 'appear to have'. The CAS didn't specifically say why they didn't let Ashenden in, they just didn't. But then you unflinchingly report guesses as facts when the guesses support your argument. 

Ashenden has repeatedly referred to Contador's passport numbers as being sufficient to support the assertion that he was receiving transfusions. Ashenden:



> The inescapable conclusion was that his reticulocyte results were unusual for him. In fact, neither his own blood expert nor myself could conceive of any naturally-induced circumstance that could explain his elevated reticulocyte results during the Tour... Both of us also agreed that some forms of doping, for example a microdose EPO regime, could yield higher-than-expected reticulocytes.... The calculation found that the probability of Contador's four highest results occurring at a single race was less than 1 in 7000.


I don't see a single reference to DEHP or any other plasticizer in that quote. You might, but I don't. Just like I haven't seen the USADA's evidence, though you seem to have?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Handbrake said:


> No.
> 
> While you report the above as if it were fact, your own quote contradicts you by contains the weasel words 'appear to have'. The CAS didn't specifically say why they didn't let Ashenden in, they just didn't. But then you unflinchingly report guesses as facts when the guesses support your argument.
> 
> ...


You must have a hard time reading, eh?

He didn't say that in open court, he said it in the interview he gave to Velonation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> No.
> While you report the above as if it were fact, your own quote contradicts you by contains the weasel words 'appear to have'. The CAS didn't specifically say why they didn't let Ashenden in, they just didn't. But then you unflinchingly report guesses as facts when the guesses support your argument.
> 
> I don't see a single reference to DEHP or any other plasticizer in that quote. You might, but I don't. Just like I haven't seen the USADA's evidence, though you seem to have?


Again, you are confused. Do you do this intentionally? 



WADA lawyers considered walking out of Contador CAS hearing after key testimony excluded | road.cc | Road cycling news, Bike reviews, Commuting, Leisure riding, Sportives and more



> *Ashenden was due to testify that traces of plasticizers* in samples taken from Contador during the 2010 Tour could provide evidence of an illegal blood transfusion having taken place.





> Although it is understood to have formed one of the key elements of WADA’s case, it is a controversial issue, in part because no test has ever been formally approved for plasticizers.





> The theory, according to the report’s sources, surrounds the type of bag that may have been used in the supposed transfusion and subsequent storage of blood plasma.





> However, Contador’s legal team raised a procedural objection, claiming the alleged chain of events meant that the theory was impossible because of the absence of *DEHP* in the rest day sample. An expert, testifying on Contador’s behalf, also said that the presence of *DEHP *in the 20 July sample could have come from a water bottle or by using a drinking straw.





> After retiring to consider the issues, the arbitration panel gave its decision, with Barak stating that Ashenden would not be allowed to testify on the issue of *plasticizers.*


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> You must have a hard time reading, eh?
> 
> He didn't say that in open court, he said it in the interview he gave to Velonation.


You think I don't know where I found a quote I just posted? You think that I thought he said that in court, despite my previously noting (several times) that the CAS didn't allow him to speak at the hearing?

Stoop to point out where I wrote that he said it in court?


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Again, you are confused. Do you do this intentionally?
> 
> 
> 
> WADA lawyers considered walking out of Contador CAS hearing after key testimony excluded | road.cc | Road cycling news, Bike reviews, Commuting, Leisure riding, Sportives and more


Not a single sourced quote among them. As I wrote, the CAS didn't state why they didn't let him in. If, as his own words indicate, he didn't need plasticizers to make the case how is it reasonable to assume their denial was to keep him from speaking about them?

Indeed, WADA's strategy to show a transfusion had taken place was based on 3 pieces of evidence, and Ashenden had the blood values covered (paragraph 380 of the decision). Who'd think he was bringing plasticizers to the hearing, when that was Greyer's point to cover (paragraph 381)?

Further still, the CAS panel actually did discuss the presence and absence of plasticizers in Contador's samples, with a different expert.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Marc said:


> Could be he is guilty. Could be he is simply tired of spending money on bloodsucker lawyers and wants to move on with life. Could be both.
> 
> "Simply" indeed. If it was so simple they would have buried him a long time ago.


Bingo!!!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

FR hokeypokey said:


> Bottom line is Armstrong will never be able to convince the critics of his innocence.


Actually there is a very good piece of evidence that would go a long way to showing this is just all a big misunderstanding and should be available in Armstrong's records with the UCI.

I'd bet good money Armstrong's hematocrit numbers over the years are funky as all get out since for much of it he had no reason to manipulate it beyond keeping it below 50%, probably get real interesting if they have hemoglobin and reticulocyte numbers too, but I'm not sure they recorded those pre-Biopassport.

What to you think the odds are that Armstrong would let a reporter have a look at those if they asked?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> As I wrote, the CAS didn't state why they didn't let him in.


Are you trolling or did you not read the article? 



> the arbitration panel gave its decision, with Barak stating that Ashenden would not be allowed to testify on the issue of plasticizers.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> What to you think the odds are that Armstrong would let a reporter have a look at those if they asked?



Extremely slim. WADA does not encourage riders to release their values at all due to armchair hematologists coming to uneducated decisions.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

ronderman said:


> Y The Fed did their research and never pressed charges - so there was nothing for Armstrong's team to stand up a fight - as you say. The fed then gave evidence to USADA who does prosecute for doping - LA knew it was coming an set forth with "I'm not going to defend any more" - or do you not remember that.


You've got your facts very mixed up. The feds used their power to convene a Grand Jury, which could then subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify. However, it is expressly forbidden for the Grand Jury testimony to be shared with USADA or any other body.

The USADA's case _should_ (and I say should because we don't know yet) have been reliant on the testimony of potential witnesses who testified of their own volition, i.e., not by order of a Grand Jury subpoena.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

88 rex said:


> Extremely slim. WADA does not encourage riders to release their values at all due to armchair hematologists coming to uneducated decisions.


I don't even think _real_ hematologists can unequivocally say whether someone's profile is indicative of doping or not, Ashenden's proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

jorgy said:


> You've got your facts very mixed up. The feds used their power to convene a Grand Jury, which could then subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify. However, it is expressly forbidden for the Grand Jury testimony to be shared with USADA or any other body.
> 
> The USADA's case _should_ (and I say should because we don't know yet) have been reliant on the testimony of potential witnesses who testified of their own volition, i.e., not by order of a Grand Jury subpoena.


If USADA does indeed have the Grand Jury testimony then what does that legally mean?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

88 rex said:


> If USADA does indeed have the Grand Jury testimony then what does that legally mean?


USADA received zero evidence from the Feds


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA received zero evidence from the Feds


You hope you're right.


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Are you trolling or did you not read the article?


Just refusing to stand alongside you at the cherry tree. For me, facts are facts. Thy don't have to ratify my views for me to accept them. 

In short, your article mischaracterizes what was said. Barak told them they wouldn't be allowed to examine Ashenden, no specific reason was given at the time. Every other source described that as 'not allowed to question him about the transfusion issue' or some similar phrasing.

They did lay out their reasoning in their decision. Suprise, plasticizers isn't one of them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> Just refusing to stand alongside you at the cherry tree. For me, facts are facts. Thy don't have to ratify my views for me to accept them.
> 
> In short, your article mischaracterizes what was said. Barak told them they wouldn't be allowed to examine Ashenden, no specific reason was given at the time. Every other source described that as 'not allowed to question him about the transfusion issue' or some similar phrasing.
> 
> They did lay out their reasoning in their decision. Suprise, plasticizers isn't one of them.


Thanks for answering my question, you are trolling:thumbsup:

The AP story, that is the source for all of the stories, is clear that the topic was plasticzers


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

I understand that you think the only way someone can disagree with you is to be trolling, but that simply isn't so. 

Why don't these articles use the same language, specifying plasticizers as the reason he wasn't allowed?

Report - WADA lawyers unhappy with Contador CAS hearing

Alberto Contador case marred by protest at CAS, report says - ESPN


As you are aware I'm sure, I could give you a dozen links that phrase it the same way. 

I can understand your conflating the arguments Contador's attorney's made against Ashenden, because it is so convenient for you to do so. But CAS didn't.


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Thanks for answering my question, you are trolling:thumbsup:
> 
> The AP story, that is the source for all of the stories, is clear that the topic was plasticzers


See, that's the "genius" behind Armstrong quitting the fight now. He knew he was finally beat, he didn't want all the witnesses and evidence to finally come forward. This way he still has his fanboys clutching at straws and repeating his lies.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> I understand that you think the only way someone can disagree with you is to be trolling, but that simply isn't so.
> 
> Why don't these articles use the same language, specifying plasticizers as the reason he wasn't allowed?
> 
> ...


Keep digging the hole

you did not even read your own links



> objected on procedural grounds to Ashenden testifying about that part of WADA's argument, *specifically about why DEHP residues *showed up in the first sample but not the second


Here is the original AP story the source for all the other stories. I was in the link I gave you that was ignored

Protest mars Contador case | Sport24

It is increadble clear that this had everything to do with Plasticziers. Blood values are never mentioned



> The July 20 sample had no clenbuterol,* but did contain traces of plastic residues that could have come from plastic pouches often used to store blood,* hearing participants said.
> 
> The July 21 sample did contain a very low concentration of clenbuterol, but *no plastic traces.*
> 
> ...


It is clear to everyone that Asheden testimony was bared on plastizers, not on blood values. His expertise on blood values has been used to sanction multiple riders


----------



## Handbrake (May 29, 2012)

There is a hole only in your Imagination. 

Your first quote is specifically what I just (1 post ago) accused you of conflating: an argument by Contador's attorneys. That is different from the reason(s) why the CAS didn't let Ashenden speak.

The rest of your quote is about some of the things Ashenden was prevented from testifying about. That also is different from *why* the CAS didn't allow him. *That* is clearly laid out in the actual decision written by the actual CAS panel members, one needn't even rely on an AP writer's translation. Of course, at the time of your Sports 24 link, that had yet to be written and CAS hadn't penned their reasoning.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

jorgy said:


> I don't even think _real_ hematologists can unequivocally say whether someone's profile is indicative of doping or not, Ashenden's proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.


Perhaps but I would suspect it depends on if the amount of variation, especially if timed with Armstrong's known goal of the TdF every year.

Not to mention I think Vaughter's has talked about how in '99 the whole team was brought to just under the 50% hematocrit level.

I'm just saying if it was me and someone was accusing me of such things I would just release my data and show them it wasn't true...unless of course it was.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Handbrake said:


> snip.


Thanks for proving my point:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> I don't even think _real_ hematologists can unequivocally say whether someone's profile is indicative of doping or not, Ashenden's proclamations to the contrary notwithstanding.


You should ask the multiple riders who have been sanctioned by the BioPassport this question. It helps when you couple the changes in blood values with direct witness testimony of transfusions like USADA can


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should ask the multiple riders who have been sanctioned by the BioPassport this question. It helps when you couple the changes in blood values with direct witness testimony of transfusions like USADA can



We should have access to the results of the riders who have NOT been under investigation for their biopassport. All of them. Every last rider. Lets compare them all.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

toymanator said:


> .... We get it Doctor Falsetti, you hate Lance Armstrong


Arguments haven't advanced since kindergarten.



David Loving said:


> "Consistent with" means we think so, but we can't prove it.


You were a lawyer?



sir duke said:


> That being the case, why didn't Lance go to arbitration where this tissue of half-truths, surmise, innuendo, witch-hunting, finger-pointing and allegation by a bunch of washed-up and embittered former team mates could be ridiculed by the golden boy to the satisfaction of all right-thinking sports lovers and cancer sufferers?
> 
> *Maybe because Lance is a little bit smarter than his fan base?*


Just a little bit?:lol: :thumbsup:



Marc said:


> Could be he is guilty. Could be he is simply tired of spending money on bloodsucker lawyers and wants to move on with life. Could be both.
> 
> "Simply" indeed. If it was so simple they would have buried him a long time ago.


Who's they? The people he paid off? Ah, you're right! He might not be guilty!



DIRT BOY said:


> Bingo!!!


Hopeless.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> Hopeless.


Ok 

You only see hate though your glasses and that's your business.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Good grief!*



DIRT BOY said:


> Ok
> 
> You only see hate though your glasses and that's your business.


I see a little dirt boy holding back reality with his finger in the dike.ut:


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Would someone please keep the Lance fans outta here? 

It's so disturbing.

If an non-doped athlete can beat all these other doped up athletes the more important question is... Are some of us turning super-human? Is teleportation next? How about super-strength or flight?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Chris-X said:


> I see a little dirt boy holding back reality with his finger in the dike.ut:


I never said he was did not dope, did I? Get your facts straight and stop seething with hate on a matter than has ZERO effect on YOUR LIFE!


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

adimiro said:


> Ironic, he brought so much of this onto himself. Had he stayed retired, this would have never come upon him. Megalomania, arrogance, hubris will always come back to bite you.


I know right, he's such an arrogant maglomaniac for coming back and pursuing his life's passion while he was still of the age to do so


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

MaddSkillz said:


> Would someone please keep the Lance fans outta here?
> 
> It's so disturbing.
> 
> If an non-doped athlete can beat all these other doped up athletes the more important question is... Are some of us turning super-human? Is teleportation next? How about super-strength or flight?


Have you considered that many of the people who don't despise Armstrong (aka fans) actually acknowledge that he cheated... but just have a grip on reality?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Fireform said:


> Exactly. If they can't prove it, why didn't Lance's team rise up in righteous anger and rip their flimsy case to shreds?
> 
> Simple. Because he knows they can prove it.


They have no published positives they can enforce, but they have Landis and Hamilton at the very least saying he did. That's why you don't bet millions on a pair of nines.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Fireform said:


> He lucked into a situation where the feds dropped his case. Now, if he's innocent, he wins the arbitration with the USADA. Who would charge him with anything after that? Nobody, very likely. Then, he rides smugly into the sunset.
> 
> Now he's open to lawsuits over sponsorships and bonuses he accepted on the condition he was riding clean. He has done anything but put it behind him, but at least he can comfort himself with the outrage of his gulls.


The UCI has yet to confirm USADA's findings. The UCI controls how many TDF Lance will lost. The verdict and sentence recommendations are in, but the UCI is the governing body of cycling.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA received zero evidence from the Feds


OK and you know this how? 
Sometimes I feel like you have the solution to the economy, taxes, healthcare, but just like the two guys running for pres you don't cite any real information so that we can make a solid decision of if they are full of s**t or not. Yes some facts have bled through the curtain they hide their version of the truth behind, but most of what has been shown is just like yours... an opinion at best.


----------

