# Lance gives up



## Doctor Falsetti

In a soon to be released Men's Journal interview Armstrong says he will not fight the pending USDA sanctions. Says he is ok with losing one of his Tours, he has 6 more.....and then talks about how Bill Clinton is his idol because he lied for years but people still love him. 

How funny is that, he pushes Floyd and Tyler to fight it but he caves as soon as it gets hot


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...he-wont-fight-expected-USADA-doping-case.aspx

Now up on Velonation


----------



## davidka

There's no good reason to think that anything else will happen. We're in a time where everyone is sick of waste. Pressure will fall on USADA, just like it did on the Fed investigation, to use their modest budget on working in the now, not the past. People doped. Lots of people doped. It happened. It's over.

Lots of people still dope. Instead of trying to burn a retiree, how about working to fix the sport for those still involved. It's becoming so petty and it's doing more damage to the sport than the doping itself.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> There's no good reason to think that anything else will happen. We're in a time where everyone is sick of waste. Pressure will fall on USADA, just like it did on the Fed investigation, to use their modest budget on working in the now, not the past. People doped. Lots of people doped. It happened. It's over.
> 
> Lots of people still dope. Instead of trying to burn a retiree, how about working to fix the sport for those still involved. It's becoming so petty and it's doing more damage to the sport than the doping itself.


So all dopers get a pass from USADA or just Lance?


----------



## davidka

I would rather see USADA concentrate on bettering the sport for participants. Continuing to hound a retiree does absolutely nothing to further that. At this point it only continues to drag the sport through the mud and scare away sponsors (how about fixing that problem for one?).

Wasting so many resources on continuing to pursue LA does give the current dopers a pass. That's all money and resources that are not being spent on policing the active peloton.


----------



## 95zpro

Have the feds ever turned over their evidence to USADA? If not what is the holdup?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> I would rather see USADA concentrate on bettering the sport for participants. Continuing to hound a retiree does absolutely nothing to further that. At this point it only continues to drag the sport through the mud and scare away sponsors (how about fixing that problem for one?).
> 
> Wasting so many resources on continuing to pursue LA does give the current dopers a pass. That's all money and resources that are not being spent on policing the active peloton.


Lance is a current professional in a sport that is tested by USADA. 

WADA's job is to test and sanction those who break the rules of the sport. Should they give every rider a pass so it does not interfere with sponsorship or does only Lance get a free pass on doping because he has created a larger myth? Does Rebillien also get a pass because he was caught with retrospective testing? Marion Jones?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

95zpro said:


> Have the feds ever turned over their evidence to USADA? If not what is the holdup?


Evidence was shared throughout the investigation. More was shared last month

There is a process with cases like this. I assume USADA is confirming some of the easier witness statements, building their case, before they file


----------



## Fireform

What a dbag. What would be good for the sport would be for him to come forward and come clean. Say how, when and why he doped, and apologize for years of lying and of bullying and slandering other riders.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance is a current professional in a sport that is tested by USADA.


How's that work? Aren't there different triathlon organizations? I assume only some are under the auspices of USADA?

There were those reports that he negotiated some sort of deal where he wasn't to be drug tested in those races he is doing? That can't be copacetic if USADA is over seeing the show? Or maybe it's simply not true?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> How's that work? Aren't there different triathlon organizations? I assume only some are under the auspices of USADA?
> 
> There were those reports that he negotiated some sort of deal where he wasn't to be drug tested in those races he is doing? That can't be copacetic if USADA is over seeing the show? Or maybe it's simply not true?


USADA does the testing for Ironman races and Messick has said they would honor any USADA sanction. Professional licenses are given by USA Triathlon, a WADA signatory Federation. 

I doubt Lance had a "No Testing" Rule with Ironman. He was tested after his last two races after the Panama controversy.


----------



## Chris-X

*You're my kind*



Fireform said:


> *What a dbag.* What would be good for the sport would be for him to come forward and come clean. Say how, when and why he doped, and apologize for years of lying and of bullying and slandering other riders.


of person. Unfortunately I'm coming to believe that we're surrounded by the kind of people you lead off with.

Plus many have given up and it's hard to blame them when we see people getting away with murder all around us.

Take a look at the Lance Armstrong facebook page and be amazed at how many Kool Aid drinkers he has following him. It's really mind blowing.

https://www.facebook.com/lancearmstrong#!/lancearmstrong


----------



## Chris-X

Just read the article. LeMond was right, Armstrong is a sociopath. 

If you're innocent, you're innocent. You never concede the point. In Armstrong's eyes it's about how he's viewed and whether it can be proven, which have nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence.


----------



## Chris-X

Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance is a current professional in a sport that is tested by USADA.
> 
> WADA's job is to test and sanction those who break the rules of the sport. Should they give every rider a pass so it does not interfere with sponsorship or does only Lance get a free pass on doping because he has created a larger myth? Does Rebillien also get a pass because he was caught with retrospective testing? Marion Jones?


Rebillin was caught while he was still racing and winning. Jones was caught for perjury in the BALCO thing. Both were caught with relative ease. LA is done. He's gone from the sport. The current generation are competing in the climate that exists now. That is what USADA and WADA should work on, not chasing a guy who's out. If he tests positive in a Tri, bust him by all means, but this has gone on so long that it's become a sporting vendetta and it contributes to the continued struggle to draw sponsors into the sport and that damages the prospects of riders who are out there now even worse than having to race among cheaters. No sponsors = no professional sport.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

davidka said:


> even worse than having to race among cheaters.


You talkin' about tri or cycling?

I'd hate to have to line up against a guy in Kona who everyone knows has no qualms about doping. I mean he told us all that since he almost died from cancer, he would never dope. I guess now we should believe that yes he would dope for cycling but triathlon, well why would he dope for that (in an environment where I would guess the testing is even more half-assed today than it was in cycling back when Armstrong was racking up his TdF wins).

Suspending dopers is not about punishing dopers, it's about trying to allow the clean athlete a chance to be competitive at the top.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Rebillin was caught while he was still racing and winning. Jones was caught for perjury in the BALCO thing. Both were caught with relative ease. LA is done. He's gone from the sport. The current generation are competing in the climate that exists now. That is what USADA and WADA should work on, not chasing a guy who's out. If he tests positive in a Tri, bust him by all means, but this has gone on so long that it's become a sporting vendetta and it contributes to the continued struggle to draw sponsors into the sport and that damages the prospects of riders who are out there now even worse than having to race among cheaters. No sponsors = no professional sport.


Lance is not done, he is currently racing as a licensed Professional in a WADA sanctioned sport. 

So does this free pass to dope without sanction only apply to Armstrong or to all dopers?


----------



## Chris-X

*Nice diversion*



davidka said:


> Rebillin was caught while he was still racing and winning. Jones was caught for perjury in the BALCO thing. Both were caught with relative ease. LA is done. He's gone from the sport. The current generation are competing in the climate that exists now. That is what USADA and WADA should work on, not chasing a guy who's out. If he tests positive in a Tri, bust him by all means, but this has gone on so long that it's become a sporting vendetta and it contributes to the continued struggle to *draw sponsors into the sport* and that damages the prospects of riders who are out there now even worse than having to race among cheaters. No sponsors = no professional sport.


The bike industry sponsors have no one to blame but themselves. They've known exactly what's gone on for decades now and made a calculated decision to keep a lid on things. I've had extensive conversations in the last couple of days with some industry types and they are just as cynical and hypocritical as those at the top of every other business if not more so.

By drawing sponsors from outside the sport are you talking about duping oblivious businesses into sponsoring a sport that is a fraud? We saw what happened to USPS.

People outside the sport cared about LA the cancer survivor and his comeback against all odds. They aren't caring so much about a guy who was pumping pharmacies and blood bags into his veins.

But you keep blaming the people who are exposing the cesspool. Kill the messenger. It's really pathetic.


----------



## SicBith

davidka said:


> Rebillin was caught while he was still racing and winning. Jones was caught for perjury in the BALCO thing. Both were caught with relative ease. LA is done. He's gone from the sport. The current generation are competing in the climate that exists now. That is what USADA and WADA should work on, not chasing a guy who's out. If he tests positive in a Tri, bust him by all means, but this has gone on so long that it's become a sporting vendetta and it contributes to the continued struggle to draw sponsors into the sport and that damages the prospects of riders who are out there now even worse than having to race among cheaters. No sponsors = no professional sport.


I gotta throw my .02 in here. I do feel wasting more money on LA is just taking dollars from areas which could impact the sport NOW not retroactively. Yes LA is a pro tri guy so test him in accordance with those rules that apply to his sport. The road racers of LA generation, while still riding and competing, are slowly retiring and if USADA and WADA spend their money on projects to better the sport NOW and into the FUTURE the cheats of the 2000s will quietly go away. The attention given to the cheats of the past only take away from the success and glory of this generation of riders. Look at what is going on in the Giro.. the ToC stands to be very exciting, focus on the positives of NOW and the negatives of a decade ago will disappear. Obviously if USADA come out and charge LA of doping and take a TOF titles away it will only reaffirm the popular knowledge that he has indeed cheated and this non fight is a part of the deal brokered to get the FED off his back. Wow... I would rather read and hear about Phinney, VG and the young guns on RadioShack and Garmin than listen to, let alone read about LA taking one on the chin cause he decided not to fight for his lack of innocence.


----------



## slegros

Interesting read:

Landis's View On Armstrong’s Lack Of Fight | Cyclingnews.com

Landis raises several valid points, among them is that if you strip Armstrong of a title, who do you give it to? 

Do you then start pursuing ALL the podium finishers of that era with the same scrutiny that Armstrong has been pursued? Where is the point where you say enough is enough, lets move on?


----------



## SicBith

slegros said:


> Interesting read:
> 
> Landis's View On Armstrong’s Lack Of Fight | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Landis raises several valid points, among them is that if you strip Armstrong of a title, who do you give it to?
> 
> Do you then start pursuing ALL the podium finishers of that era with the same scrutiny that Armstrong has been pursued? Where is the point where you say enough is enough, lets move on?


BOOM..... let it go.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance is not done, he is currently racing as a licensed Professional in a WADA sanctioned sport.
> 
> So does this free pass to dope without sanction only apply to Armstrong or to all dopers?


Apparently it applies to most all dopers. While several have been sanctioned, hundreds have not. It's over, in the past. It serves nobody to continue digging. It just damages the sport in the here and now.


----------



## Fireform

I think giving the biggest, most sanctimonious hypocrite in the history of the sport a richly deserved black eye is well worth the money. To suggest that doping is a problem left in the past is just absurd. Have you already forgotten Contador? There is an ongoing cat and mouse game between dopers and monitors, and the value in the present day of having Armstrong held accountable is the lesson that even if you might be getting away with it now, you can be held accountable in the future. That is absolutely a good thing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Apparently it applies to most all dopers. While several have been sanctioned, hundreds have not. It's over, in the past. It serves nobody to continue digging. It just damages the sport in the here and now.


So WADA should just ignore all doping or just LANCE's doping?


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So WADA should just ignore all doping or just LANCE's doping?


What Lance's doping? If he doped and they couldn't catch him then they're either incompetent or LA is simply out of their reach. Either way, they have not been able to bring a case against him in all these years. It's time to move on. Concentrate their presumably small budget on what's happening now. Like you say, he's racing Tri's now. Test him there. If he flags a positive, bust him.

If the UCI really is stonewalling the WADA then the WADA should kick pro cycling out of the olympics and leave them to run the sport they way they see fit, for better or worse. The viewers (outside of the cycling community) wouldn't know the difference anyway.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> What Lance's doping? If he doped and they couldn't catch him then they're either incompetent or LA is simply out of their reach. Either way, they have not been able to bring a case against him in all these years. It's time to move on. Concentrate their presumably small budget on what's happening now. Like you say, he's racing Tri's now. Test him there. If he flags a positive, bust him.
> 
> If the UCI really is stonewalling the WADA then the WADA should kick pro cycling out of the olympics and leave them to run the sport they way they see fit, for better or worse. The viewers (outside of the cycling community) wouldn't know the difference anyway.


I assume you are kidding. 

Do you really think that the only way WADA is able to sanction a rider is if they watch them doping?

Where were you when LeoGrande, Basso, Scarponi, Valverde, Jones, and Ulrich were sanctioned? Didn't see you here screaming for their freedom. 

Does Armstrong's free pass to dope include "The Comeback" or is last season "In the past"?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I gotta throw my .02 in here. I do feel wasting more money on LA is just taking dollars from areas which could impact the sport NOW not retroactively. .


It appears you did not read the article. Lance is not going to contest the sanction. He is giving up. There will be no trial, he will just take the sanction. WADA is not going to "Waste" any money. This could be one of the cheapest sanctions they have ever filed. 

Were you this angry when WADA investigated and sanctioned Ulrich, Valverde, Scarponi and Basso?


----------



## SicBith

Fireform said:


> I think giving the biggest, most sanctimonious hypocrite in the history of the sport a richly deserved black eye is well worth the money. To suggest that doping is a problem left in the past is just absurd. Have you already forgotten Contador? There is an ongoing cat and mouse game between dopers and monitors, and the value in the present day of having Armstrong held accountable is the lesson that even if you might be getting away with it now, you can be held accountable in the future. That is absolutely a good thing.


Why not use the cash it would take to chase LA down for violations made in the early 2000 to develop more sophisticated testing for the drugs they are using NOW. Focus on the guys acutally racing not some dick who got away with it to a point where no one really cares anymore. Conti is a great example. Use the money to develop more testing like the ones which caught him. What if they had spent all the money available to go after guys like Conti on trying to push LA into a corner. Who wins? Conti because the cash needed to bust him was used on an OHG that the sport has a hard on for. Fight the battles which are happening now not the ones that went down 10 years ago.


----------



## Scott in MD

Deep down, we all love Lance. Me included. He beat Cancer so bad he made it seem less of an accomplishment than it was. It was a singularly extraordinary achievement. 

Deep down, we all know he doped. Me included. In my opinion, this is him moving on.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I assume you are kidding.
> 
> Do you really think that the only way WADA is able to sanction a rider is if they watch them doping?
> 
> Where were you when LeoGrande, Basso, Scarponi, Valverde, Jones, and Ulrich were sanctioned? Didn't see you here screaming for their freedom.
> 
> Does Armstrong's free pass to dope include "The Comeback" or is last season "In the past"?


Who cares? I'm not screaming for anyone's freedom. I don't care if LA is sanctioned either way. It makes no difference to my experience as a sports fan. I just want it to stop for the sake of the athletes that are trying to make their way in the sport now.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you did not read the article. Lance is not going to contest the sanction. He is giving up. There will be no trial, he will just take the sanction. WADA is not going to "Waste" any money. This could be one of the cheapest sanctions they have ever filed.
> 
> Were you this angry when WADA investigated and sanctioned Ulrich, Valverde, Scarponi and Basso?


I did read the article DF. WADA is wasting money by bringing a case against him. It is than LA choice to make, but WADA needs to invest in bringing the case to court. If it were as simple as you say he would be down at the WADA office handing in his TOF gear right now. 
It's not anger DF it is common sense. WADA went after the crew you mentioned in a timely manner. Basso got his and some would say it cost him his career. It was right to kick Ulrich out of the TOF and persue sancations at that time. All the BS about him now is a joke and it keeps him in the limelight. I'm not entirely familiar with Valverde and Scarponi, but they are current riders and should be dealt with NOW not in 10 years. Is WADA really trying to scare dopers by pulling trophies off of LA's wall now? Hey you riders know this... if you dope we will get you... you may be 80 and have spent or willed away all your winnings, but we will come for you. Now that is some pressure for me not to dope. Forget, showing not just saying, hey riders we have more resources available to test more frequently and for doping methods that you the rider do not know we are capable of testing for. Now that has some weight to it. Add to that some serious penaltities like jail time and you would have my undivided attention as a rider.


----------



## badge118

I expected in reading the first post to find on researching that I missed something where the USADA brought a case forward. Then I saw it hadn't.

So basically IF a case is brought forward Armstrong is sick and tired of constantly having to defend himself and if a case is brought forward it would cost more money for him to fight than it would would cost him in penalties so he isn't going to fight. No shocker there. How often do companies settle law suits because the settlement is cheaper than the litigation? It is really indicative of little.

To make things even more interesting we are closing in on 7 years from his last TdF win. WADA's rules have an 8 year statute of limitations. From what has been leaked, all of the witness testimony given to the grand jury was from prior to the 2005 win. That means if USADA doesn't have more info I don't even think they can bring a case based on their own rules. The articles do NOT state I accept sanction. To accept sanction a case has to have been brought. No case has yet been brought, all Armstrong has said is IF a case is brought against him he will not contest it. They have about a year to bring it and the only events they can bring into question are those less than 8 years ago. Again how much "real" damage would such a sanction do to him even if the case if brought forward?

I have no doubt at some point there will be some tell all book or something but in the end the only realistic chance Armstrong had of getting any penalty sailed when the Federal case was dropped.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> What Lance's doping? If he doped and they couldn't catch him then they're either incompetent or LA is simply out of their reach. Either way, they have not been able to bring a case against him in all these years. It's time to move on. Concentrate their presumably small budget on what's happening now. Like you say, he's racing Tri's now. Test him there. If he flags a positive, bust him.
> 
> If the UCI really is stonewalling the WADA then the WADA should kick pro cycling out of the olympics and leave them to run the sport they way they see fit, for better or worse. The viewers (outside of the cycling community) wouldn't know the difference anyway.


It appears you are confused. This is not just about something that happened 10 years ago but also about something that happened last season and continues to happen today. 

You can pretend that USADA has not been timely but they received their info on this 2 years ago. Since then they have interview witnesses and waited for the Feds to file their case (At the request of the Feds). If they went any faster the talking point would be "Rush to judgement" 

BTW, want to know why Johan was not at the ToC press conference today? He was stopped by the Feds as soon as he got off the plane Wednesday. Was served and talked to some nice men today. 

You didn't really think this was over did you?


----------



## badge118

That is different than the USADA thing though. Of course it isn't over but lets try to keep civil vs criminal issues seperate?

Long story short. WADA uses rules that require less than a criminal case. Basically it is between "preponderance of evidence" and "beyond reasonable doubt." When you add into this the fact that people who follow Armstrong fall on one of two sides, 1. he doped, 2. he is being persecuted, for the most part fighting a USADA case at this point gains him nothing even if he does win. Those who think him guilty will still think he got away with it. If he loses those who think him innocent will think he was rail roaded. In the end fighting, whether he doped or not, whether he wins or loses costs him more money than simply refunding the purse money for the time frame they can actually sanction him for.

Now personally I think he doped. That said I think WADA or USADA bringing a case at this point is more a matter of principle (when it comes to Armstrong) and it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars because they know he is not bound by an interview. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better used ensuring the sports future is cleaner than the past imo.

They should apply pressure on the right parties to have the Federal case properly pursued. That could result in two things. 1 a criminal case with a higher burden of proof could actually change minds and provide real clarity. 2 the penalties would not be ones someone could just write off.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> So basically IF a case is brought forward Armstrong is sick and tired of constantly having to defend himself and if a case is brought forward it would cost more money for him to fight than it would would cost him in penalties so he isn't going to fight. No shocker there. How often do companies settle law suits because the settlement is cheaper than the litigation? It is really indicative of little.


Armstrong cannot fight any USADA charges without risking criminal charges. He would have to testify during the arbitration proceeding under oath, and he would have to lie. If he lies then he would risk perjury charges. Those charges could be proved with information from the federal investigation. Potentially a huge can of worms could be opened, and this time he might not be so lucky as to have a friendly bureaucrat drop the charges. My guess is that his criminal attorneys have advised him to stand down if the USADA brings an action. 

He is not giving up the fight because he doesn't care anymore. He is giving up the fight because there is no way for him to contest the charges without risking prison time.


----------



## Big-foot

Doctor Falsetti said:


> BTW, want to know why Johan was not at the ToC press conference today? He was stopped by the Feds as soon as he got off the plane Wednesday. Was served and talked to some nice men today.
> 
> You didn't really think this was over did you?


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> Armstrong cannot fight any USADA charges without risking criminal charges. He would have to testify during the arbitration proceeding under oath, and he would have to lie. If he lies then he would risk perjury charges. Those charges could be proved with information from the federal investigation. Potentially a huge can of worms could be opened, and this time he might not be so lucky as to have a friendly bureaucrat drop the charges. My guess is that his criminal attorneys have advised him to stand down if the USADA brings an action.
> 
> He is not giving up the fight because he doesn't care anymore. He is giving up the fight because there is no way for him to contest the charges without risking prison time.


It would not be perjury even if he lied before the USADA. Perjury is when one lies in a court or arbitration that has the force of law. A perjury charge would not apply simply to testimony before the USADA as that body is not a government agency or court and does not have the power of law. 

He could possibly be sued civilly because ultimately the USADA has authority over doping not by law but via either explicit or implied consent (depending on the sport) but I know of no case where the USADA has done so even when it came to BALCO. Even a CAS hearing is not such a situation truth be told. It would not be much different than if you were a stocktrader and a member of FINRA. They could expel you from doing business with companies they certify but to have the power of law dropped on you you would have had to lie in an SEC proceeding.

Now it is POSSIBLE that any testimony in a USADA proceeding could then be used as evidence in a federal case but that is also assuming that he testifies. He is under no obligation what so ever to testify in such a proceeding and would he say anything different than he has already said?

Now it is possible his attorney's said "suck it up" in the hopes that IF the USADA gets a case together before the statute of limitations runs out it will drop off the front page and the feds will find another target, but a perjury charge for lying to the USADA was not a consideration because such a criminal charge is not possible.


----------



## trailrunner68

badge118 said:


> It would not be perjury even if he lied before the USADA. Perjury is when one lies in a court or arbitration that has the force of law. A perjury charge would not apply simply to testimony before the USADA as that body is not a government agency or court and does not have the power of law.
> 
> He could possibly be sued civilly because ultimately the USADA has authority over doping not by law but via either explicit or implied consent (depending on the sport) but I know of no case where the USADA has done so even when it came to BALCO. Even a CAS hearing is not such a situation truth be told. It would not be much different than if you were a stocktrader and a member of FINRA. They could expel you from doing business with companies they certify but to have the power of law dropped on you you would have had to lie in an SEC proceeding.
> 
> Now it is POSSIBLE that any testimony in a USADA proceeding could then be used as evidence in a federal case but that is also assuming that he testifies. He is under no obligation what so ever to testify in such a proceeding and would he say anything different than he has already said?
> 
> Now it is possible his attorney's said "suck it up" in the hopes that IF the USADA gets a case together before the statute of limitations runs out it will drop off the front page and the feds will find another target, but a perjury charge for lying to the USADA was not a consideration because such a criminal charge is not possible.


The USADA does not "try" cases. Armstrong would not be giving testimony to the USADA. If Armstrong wants to fight then it goes to arbitration.


----------



## badge118

If it goes to arbitration it is not an arbitration with the force of law that permits a perjury charge though. You can NOT be charged with perjury before the USADA arbitration panel. Here is an example under Federal law

(1) Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code....

The USADA and WADA codes, its proceedings and violations do not fall underneath this as they are not empowered by law in the US. The arbitration panel is set up under the authority of the WADA code and the USADA and the source of their authority is sourced in what is essentially a civil agreement between the athlete and the governing body. Now in some European countries the fact that sports doping is a crime may allow such bodies to have the weight of law behind them but until the US passes such legislation this is simply not the case.


----------



## davidka

Doctor Falsetti said:


> BTW, want to know why Johan was not at the ToC press conference today? He was stopped by the Feds as soon as he got off the plane Wednesday. Was served and talked to some nice men today.
> 
> You didn't really think this was over did you?


Considering the feds formally announced the end of their investigation, yes I did. I don't know what jurisdiction they would have to serve and question a Belgian citizen on matters that presumably did not happen in the US though. Maybe they're just buddies?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

davidka said:


> Considering the feds formally announced the end of their investigation, yes I did. I don't know what jurisdiction they would have to serve and question a Belgian citizen on matters that presumably did not happen in the US though. Maybe they're just buddies?


Oh, yeah I forgot. The laws of the US do not apply to Belgium citizens:idea:


----------



## Gnarly 928

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In a soon to be released Men's Journal interview Armstrong says he will not fight the pending USDA sanctions. Says he is ok with losing one of his Tours, he has 6 more.....and then talks about how Bill Clinton is his idol because he lied for years but people still love him.
> 
> How funny is that, he pushes Floyd and Tyler to fight it but he caves as soon as it gets hot


 Maybe he is just trying a different way to deal with these people..... for the 400th time someone is trying to climb up on him to make themselves seem important, so this time maybe he just got tired of defending himself and said..."Go ahead, knock yourselves out." 

It might work.... He is like the 'Holy Grail" for people who try to make their own reputations by tearing others down....nobody's proved him a doper yet....but Jeezo, is the guy who does, is he ever going to feel BIG!, and maybe then, everyone will forget about Ol' Lance, till he runs for governor or something..... 

I hope it works for Lance...he has to be really really sick of all the attacks....We all can just hit the "delete" key and do something else, but he's lived this crap almost constantly for years and years...

Don Hanson


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Gnarly 928 said:


> Maybe he is just trying a different way to deal with these people..... for the 400th time someone is trying to climb up on him to make themselves seem important, so this time maybe he just got tired of defending himself and said..."Go ahead, knock yourselves out."
> 
> It might work.... He is like the 'Holy Grail" for people who try to make their own reputations by tearing others down....nobody's proved him a doper yet....but Jeezo, is the guy who does, is he ever going to feel BIG!, and maybe then, everyone will forget about Ol' Lance, till he runs for governor or something.....
> 
> I hope it works for Lance...he has to be really really sick of all the attacks....We all can just hit the "delete" key and do something else, but he's lived this crap almost constantly for years and years...
> 
> Don Hanson


400th time? Please, share with the examples of a body with Sanctioning power "Climbed on" Lance. 

He is giving up because it is a no-win case. Why waste millions?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Funny, I remember a few months ago there were lots of posts jumping at the chance to launch insults my way, where are they now?

Johan gets stopped at passport control and is forced by the Feds to answer questions. Lance is resigned to taking a sanction and losing at least one Tour. 

Anyone still think it is all over? :thumbsup:


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Funny, I remember a few months ago there were lots of posts jumping at the chance to launch insults my way, where are they now?
> 
> Johan gets stopped at passport control and is forced by the Feds to answer questions. Lance is resigned to taking a sanction and losing at least one Tour.
> 
> Anyone still think it is all over? :thumbsup:


I have no problem with launching insults as you. The fact that you carry on with this BS is insult enough to the entire bike riding community. I've asked the powers that be to revoke your bike riding privileges until you deflate your ego or brain by 140psi.


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Funny, I remember a few months ago there were lots of posts jumping at the chance to launch insults my way, where are they now?
> 
> Johan gets stopped at passport control and is forced by the Feds to answer questions. Lance is resigned to taking a sanction and losing at least one Tour.
> 
> Anyone still think it is all over? :thumbsup:


I sure do. It's been over for a long time now. What's going on now is something new.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> I sure do. It's been over for a long time now. What's going on now is something new.


You are welcome to pretend that is the case, but it is not. 

As I have said for over a year. Wonderboy, and his buddies, will be stuck in a mess of legal trouble for years.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I have no problem with launching insults as you. The fact that you carry on with this BS is insult enough to the entire bike riding community. I've asked the powers that be to revoke your bike riding privileges until you deflate your ego or brain by 140psi.


It is not my fault Johan and Lance are in trouble


----------



## Chris-X

SicBith said:


> I have no problem with launching insults as you. The fact that you carry on with this BS is insult enough to the entire bike riding community. I've asked the powers that be to revoke your bike riding privileges until you deflate your ego or brain by 140psi.


Because it takes the truth a long time to catch up with a lie of massive proportions the fraud should get off? Nice theory of enforcing laws and rules.

Didn't some executive at Yahoo get away with padding his resume for years? Guess what happened to him when his fraud was uncovered...

We even have people on here, who should know better btw, saying that it hasn't been proven that Armstrong doped.

Please. Making examples out of Bruyneel and Armstrong is the best thing the sport can do for young riders. It's a lot of incentive to stay on the straight and narrow for everyone involved.


----------



## badge118

Johan yes, Lance not really. At most, when it comes to his cycling career, he will lose number 7. In so far as a criminal case, once an case is dropped by the State, getting it back up and running is a pure PITA, especially when the start and the closing of a case has as much publicity as this one did.

Tbh all a sporting penalty on Lance would show is that you can get caught and still get paid if you are smart. Penalizing him is about principle and that is it and sometimes when you do things based only on principal you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## robdamanii

SicBith said:


> I have no problem with launching insults as you. The fact that you carry on with this BS is insult enough to the entire bike riding community. I've asked the powers that be to revoke your bike riding privileges until you deflate your ego or brain by 140psi.


I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Some people have an unhealthy infatuation with everything Lance.

I almost wonder if Falsetti isn't one of Lance's PR guys; all he does is try to keep Lance's name trending at the top of the forums. No other posts, just continual obsession over Lance.

Weird.

On the topic of sanctions, yup, another waste of money. Might want to think about using that to test the masters racers who are all hopped up on a bucket full of stuff.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Johan yes, Lance not really. At most, when it comes to his cycling career, he will lose number 7. In so far as a criminal case, once an case is dropped by the State, getting it back up and running is a pure PITA, especially when the start and the closing of a case has as much publicity as this one did.
> 
> Tbh all a sporting penalty on Lance would show is that you can get caught and still get paid if you are smart. Penalizing him is about principle and that is it and sometimes when you do things based only on principal you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.


WADA has made it clear that they think they can take more then just 2005. Howman has referred in interviews to their success in the Eddy Hellebuyck case and how he thinks that applies to Lance. There is a reasonable chance that they will pursue all of them. It appears Lance is sending a message in this interview, essentially a plea bargain offer. He is saying he will let 2005 go without a fight. It is possible WADA will take the easy path. 

As for money. The Qui Tam case will bankrupt Lance. The criminal case is far from over. After the USADA case, Tyler's book, and the Qui Tam case make public the long term pattern of criminal activity will be impossible to ignore.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

robdamanii said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again:
> 
> Some people have an unhealthy infatuation with everything Lance.
> 
> I almost wonder if Falsetti isn't one of Lance's PR guys; all he does is try to keep Lance's name trending at the top of the forums. No other posts, just continual obsession over Lance.
> 
> Weird.
> 
> On the topic of sanctions, yup, another waste of money. Might want to think about using that to test the masters racers who are all hopped up on a bucket full of stuff.


A good example of unhealthy obsession would be someone who mindlessly ignores all evidence and continues to push a fraud. 

I do not work for Lance, unlike yourself who admits to being a paid writer for Livestrong.com. Who do you think has an actual agenda here? 

Is pursuing all dopers a "Waste of money" Or just Lance?


----------



## smartyiak

Here's my prediction:
Lance races Kona and comes in 6th...he then talks about how hard it was and retires...before any sanctions can be handed down...
WADA, sometime in 2014, makes it's decision and eventually LA loses the 7th title (and his bronze in 2009)...
Americans will recall what an amazing athlete the 40yr old 6th place Kona finisher and 7x time TdF winner was....some will even insist he is the best bike racer and triathlete ever (I mean, if at 40 he comes in 6th...imagine what he would have done had he focused on them triathletes), ...
When reminded that one of the titles was taken...most will say: oh, yeah...well that was way after he was done and it was just a vendetta anyway...
Lance will continue his life-style: hopping from Livestrong event to Livestrong event on a private jet.

I know you want it to be different Dr. (and maybe it should be), but for all of your hand-wringing, the world will keep spinning, LA will keep being LA, athletes will continue to try to game the system...and the sheeple will keep believing. 

I'm such a pessimist!


----------



## Coolhand

*moderators note*

Back on track everyone- stop debating each other motives and other such nonsense.


----------



## tjeepdrv

I'm not paid by Lance or Livestrong or anyone else and I think you have with an unhealthy obession and contribute nothing to the cycling side of this forum. I'd even be satisfied if you asked a noob question about what pedals or computer to get, but I don't think you could do it without bringing Lance into it. You supposedly have close ties to the sport, go into the other forums and contribute your knowledge.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> WADA has made it clear that they think they can take more then just 2005. Howman has referred in interviews to their success in the Eddy Hellebuyck case and how he thinks that applies to Lance. There is a reasonable chance that they will pursue all of them. It appears Lance is sending a message in this interview, essentially a plea bargain offer. He is saying he will let 2005 go without a fight. It is possible WADA will take the easy path.
> 
> As for money. The Qui Tam case will bankrupt Lance. The criminal case is far from over. After the USADA case, Tyler's book, and the Qui Tam case make public the long term pattern of criminal activity will be impossible to ignore.


That is BS wishful thinking. If I remember right Eddy was a "I doped I'll take my punishment" type confession. Regardless even if that wasn't the case his investigation officially started a bit before. Atm USADA has only had an investigation since after the Federal case started on LA. Statute of limitations when they exist are pretty damn impossible to break.

As for the qui tam case the fact that it was officially closed and now possibly reopened is actually going to hurt the feds BAD. You have no clue how jurors can find people not guilty under such circumstances. It is very easy for attorneys to make jurors think it is a persecution, not a prosecution, when cases start, get closed and start again.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> *That is BS wishful thinking.* If I remember right Eddy was a "I doped I'll take my punishment" type confession. Regardless even if that wasn't the case his investigation officially started a bit before. Atm USADA has only had an investigation since after the Federal case started on LA. Statute of limitations when they exist are pretty damn impossible to break.
> 
> As for the qui tam case the fact that it was officially closed and now possibly reopened is actually going to hurt the feds BAD. You have no clue how jurors can find people not guilty under such circumstances. It is very easy for attorneys to make jurors think it is a persecution, not a prosecution, when cases start, get closed and start again.


It may be wishful thinking, but why is it bs? You don't think Armstrong has it coming to him? Why not?

Yeah, juries do a lot of goofy stuff. So what?

In your life do you do stuff because it's the right thing to do, or do you do things because of what others may or may not think?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

smartyiak said:


> Here's my prediction:
> Lance races Kona and comes in 6th...he then talks about how hard it was and retires...before any sanctions can be handed down...
> WADA, sometime in 2014, makes it's decision and eventually LA loses the 7th title (and his bronze in 2009)...
> Americans will recall what an amazing athlete the 40yr old 6th place Kona finisher and 7x time TdF winner was....some will even insist he is the best bike racer and triathlete ever (I mean, if at 40 he comes in 6th...imagine what he would have done had he focused on them triathletes), ...
> When reminded that one of the titles was taken...most will say: oh, yeah...well that was way after he was done and it was just a vendetta anyway...
> Lance will continue his life-style: hopping from Livestrong event to Livestrong event on a private jet.
> 
> I know you want it to be different Dr. (and maybe it should be), but for all of your hand-wringing, the world will keep spinning, LA will keep being LA, athletes will continue to try to game the system...and the sheeple will keep believing.
> 
> I'm such a pessimist!


USADA will sanction Armstrong before Kona. Messick will have to make the decision if they let him race, and the other Triathletes will have to choose if they will risk losing their license to race with him


----------



## smartyiak

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA will sanction Armstrong before Kona. Messick will have to make the decision if they let him race, and the other Triathletes will have to choose if they will risk losing their license to race with him


I guess we'll see...for certain within the next 5mos. I just don't believe it. I'm guessing if they do, LA will throw out a token appeal just to delay (despite what he says) the case well past October. In the meantime, he'll keep racing and sometime in 2013 they'll deny the appeal...long after he's declared his retirement.

How long did the decision on Conti take?


----------



## Chris-X

tjeepdrv said:


> I'm not paid by Lance or Livestrong or anyone else and I think you have with an unhealthy obession and contribute nothing to the cycling side of this forum. I'd even be satisfied if you asked a noob question about what pedals or computer to get, but I don't think you could do it without bringing Lance into it. You supposedly have close ties to the sport, go into the other forums and contribute your knowledge.


Cycling is a sport where most of the questions revolve around going faster.

There's two sides to that equipment equation, the bike and the person riding it.

What could be more important in the doping forum than discussing what dope makes you go fast and who's taking it?

Now everybody on here is a psychiatrist diagnosing unhealthy obsessions?

Really what does it matter what would satisfy you?

Doctor Falsetti has the best information on the doping forum, oftentimes breaking news before it hits the MSM. Two recent bits are SI and 60 Minutes.

Why wouldn't I want to read what he has to say over someone who's telling me about the Emperor's beautiful clothes?

This is the doping forum. Lance Armstrong is the king of the dopers! Nothing more needs to be said.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> That is BS wishful thinking. If I remember right Eddy was a "I doped I'll take my punishment" type confession. Regardless even if that wasn't the case his investigation officially started a bit before. Atm USADA has only had an investigation since after the Federal case started on LA. Statute of limitations when they exist are pretty damn impossible to break.
> 
> As for the qui tam case the fact that it was officially closed and now possibly reopened is actually going to hurt the feds BAD. You have no clue how jurors can find people not guilty under such circumstances. It is very easy for attorneys to make jurors think it is a persecution, not a prosecution, when cases start, get closed and start again.


You are incorrect on all counts

USADA has been investigating Armstrong, and others, for over two years. They have been working side by side, even facilitating introductions for the Feds overseas. The need for the Feds witness testimony was to insure none of the witnesses tried to change their story, making USADA's case easier. 

SOL can be easy to get around in criminal cases where there is a coverup involved....even easier in a doping sanctioning case which is what were are discussing. Howman has expressed his confidence that SOL is not an issue. Regardless SOL is 8 years from the start of the investigation, that means they can go back to at least late 2000 with few isssues

I do not know where you get your info but the Qui Tam case was never dropped.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

tjeepdrv said:


> I'm not paid by Lance or Livestrong or anyone else and I think you have with an unhealthy obession and contribute nothing to the cycling side of this forum. I'd even be satisfied if you asked a noob question about what pedals or computer to get, but I don't think you could do it without bringing Lance into it. You supposedly have close ties to the sport, go into the other forums and contribute your knowledge.


Post, not poster. 

This is a doping forum. It is where people talk about doping in cycling. You should not be surprised if people talk about doping here. 

Do you go into the wheels forum and insult people who only comment on hubs?


----------



## Samadhi

tjeepdrv said:


> I'm not paid by Lance or Livestrong or anyone else and I think you have with an unhealthy obession and contribute nothing to the cycling side of this forum.


It is an obsession and it is unhealthy. That said, it's DF's life to live as he sees fit.

What will be interesting is the reaction when LA walks away unscathed.

LA throwing the the towel, could be as much a ploy as anything else, to call the anti-doping agencies' bluff and stop all the dick-dancing that's been going on. Kind of like put up or shut up and if their case is weak or there's a misstep, it's Lance Armstrong sues the sh!t outta everyone.

And what usefull purpose will is serve anyway? Doping continues despite how many big names getting busted? IOW, what they're doing obviously hasn't worked and going after LA won't change anything, either.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are incorrect on all counts
> 
> USADA has been investigating Armstrong, and others, for over two years. They have been working side by side, even facilitating introductions for the Feds overseas. The need for the Feds witness testimony was to insure none of the witnesses tried to change their story, making USADA's case easier.
> 
> SOL can be easy to get around in criminal cases where there is a coverup involved....even easier in a doping sanctioning case which is what were are discussing. Howman has expressed his confidence that SOL is not an issue. Regardless SOL is 8 years from the start of the investigation, that means they can go back to at least late 2000 with few isssues
> 
> I do not know where you get your info but the Qui Tam case was never dropped.


I have been a police officer for over 14 years. I can tell you as fact that the suspects covering up a crime is not an excuse to get around statutes of limitations. The only cover ups that may be used are those which are perpetrated by authorities, say the DA or cops involved were in the take. If suspects engaging in cover ups was enough there would be little point of having such limitations because most criminals with half a brain cell try to conceal their crimes via some mechanism.

As for "investigation" it still doesn't matter. The point of the statute of limitations is to force the authority to either pull the trigger or give up. It is NOT the investigation that has to occur with in the limits but the actually "arrest". Using your metric then all the authorities would be able to keep people under perpetual investigation for an offense and that flies in the face of due process. On page 46 of the WADA code they even go so far as to clarify that the limitation does not preclude them from using a previous offense outside the 8 year time frame for the purposes of imposing additional penalties for 2nd and subsequent offenses. It is going to be a long road to hoe in order to get past it in this case. IF Pound hadn't been railing against Armstrong for years maybe but once the head of the anti-doping body makes it clear doping is suspected the clock starts ticking and you have to move. In the few cases where you get around SOL you use the rationale that the clock started ticking later because you did not suspect a crime at the time. This means I will grant you, that they can MAYBE go back further than number 7 but not by much because Pound's big mouth. That was always my issue with him. I get being an advocate but as an investigator my boss acting like that would drive me insane.

I get that people are pissed someone might get away with something. Guess what, it happens all the time. If it didn't I would be out of a job because laws and rules would actually have the deterrent factor we pretend it does.

As for the case dropped google "Lance Armstrong case dropped"


----------



## Chris-X

*Self appointed arbiter of mental health?*



Samadhi said:


> It is an obsession and it is unhealthy. That said, it's DF's life to live as he sees fit.
> 
> What will be interesting is the reaction when LA walks away unscathed.
> 
> LA throwing the the towel, could be as much a ploy as anything else, to call the anti-doping agencies' bluff and stop all the dick-dancing that's been going on. Kind of like put up or shut up and if their case is weak or there's a misstep, it's Lance Armstrong sues the sh!t outta everyone.
> 
> And what usefull purpose will is serve anyway? Doping continues despite how many big names getting busted? IOW, what they're doing obviously hasn't worked and going after LA won't change anything, either.


Thanks for your opinion from on high! Go on living your life as you see fit!:thumbsup:

Quick question. What will LA sue anyone for?


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> Thanks for your opinion from on high!


You're welcome!



> Go on living your life as you see fit!:thumbsup:


Thanks! I'll do just that!



> Quick question. What will LA sue anyone for?


I dunno, whatever LA and his lawyers think they can get the most mileage out of. Remember, a lawsuit need never go to court to accomplish it's purpose. He could sue just to legally harrass someone. If someone sues you, you have to answer the summons and that costs money. Just filing a lawsuit against someone can ruin them financially and that can be the ultimate purpose. Hell after all the crap people have put him thorugh, I wouldn't blame LA one bit if he decided it was time to get even if he got the chance to do so.

For the record, I'm about 99 & 44/100 sure he doped, but if he gets away with it, well, that's how things go sometimes. It seems to me like it could go that way. Same thing with OJ Simpson. Everyone knew he killed those people, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty. End of story. Justice, even if it seems a bit perverted, is served.

Personally, I think this whole Snipe Hunt is a big waste of time and money.


----------



## Chris-X

*Funny sense of justice*



Samadhi said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I'll do just that!
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, whatever LA and his lawyers think they can get the most mileage out of. Remember, a lawsuit need never go to court to accomplish it's purpose. He could sue just to legally harrass someone. If someone sues you, you have to answer the summons and that costs money. Just filing a lawsuit against someone can ruin them financially and that can be the ultimate purpose. Hell after all the crap people have put him thorugh, I wouldn't blame LA one bit if he decided it was time to get even if he got the chance to do so.
> 
> For the record, I'm about 99 & 44/100 sure he doped, but if he gets away with it, well, that's how things go sometimes. It seems to me like it could go that way. Same thing with OJ Simpson. Everyone knew he killed those people, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty. End of story. Justice, even if it seems a bit perverted, is served.
> 
> Personally, I think this whole Snipe Hunt is a big waste of time and money.


and you're very wedded to the idea that your opinion is _the_ opinion that matters.

Clarence Darrow was noted for saying that there is no justice in or out of a court of law and his opinion most likely carries a little more weight than yours.

Odd where your sympathies lie in that you wouldn't blame LA for getting even after "all the crap people have put him through." 

How dare people think he should be honest and not a scumbag.


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> and you're very wedded to the idea that your opinion is _the_ opinion that matters.


Seems you are, too!

And yes, my opinions matter ...... to me.



> Clarence Darrow was noted for saying that there is no justice in or out of a court of law and his opinion most likely carries a little more weight than yours.
> 
> Odd where your sympathies lie in that you wouldn't blame LA for getting even after "all the crap people have put him through."


What's so odd about that?

He hasn't been tried. No evidence has been offered to any court that I'm aware of and niether has there been a judgemnent passed. AFAIC, he's innocent of anything until PROVEN guilty, .......



> How dare people think he should be honest and not a scumbag.


 including being a scumbag.


----------



## Chris-X

*I'm not the one*



Samadhi said:


> Seems you are, too!
> 
> And yes, my opinions matter ...... to me.
> 
> 
> 
> What's so odd about that?
> 
> He hasn't been tried. No evidence has been offered to any court that I'm aware of and niether has there been a judgemnent passed. AFAIC, he's innocent of anything until PROVEN guilty, .......
> 
> 
> 
> including being a scumbag.


who's deciding it's "end of story," or that people who post in the doping forum have unhealthy obsessions.

According to you, you're 99 and 44/100 ths percent sure LA doped but you're completely fine with him going after people, which could lead to their financial ruin, who according to you are giving him crap?

Your morals seem very similiar to those of the subject of this thread.

Please, gimme a break...


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> who's deciding it's "end of story," or that people who post in the doping forum have unhealthy obsessions.
> 
> According to you, you're 99 and 44/100 ths percent sure LA doped but you're completely fine with him going after people, which could lead to their financial ruin, who according to you are giving him crap?


I thought my opinion didn't matter ;-).

Yeah I'm sure he doped, but I am not his judge, jury or executioner, either. That's for authorities higher than me to decide and because I have a lot of respect for our system of justice, whatever happens is fine by me.

I'm also pretty sure it's completely right for someone, wrongfully accused or harrassed to seek simlar justice within that system. Turnabout is fair play.



> Your morals seem very similiar to those of the subject of this thread.


How so? The subject of this thread isn't about a moral issue. It's about Lance finally deciding he's done with the controversy surrounding his TDF wins and alleged doping.

And besides, my morals are not at issue here. You are welcome to start a thread about my morals if you wish, but I'm quite certain, that what you actually know about my morals could be accurately summed up in one word: Nothing.



> Please, gimme a break...


Noone's holding a gun to your head forcing you to continue responding to me. 

Give yourself a break.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> I thought my opinion didn't matter ;-).
> 
> Yeah I'm sure he doped, but I am not his judge, jury or executioner, either. That's for authorities higher than me to decide and because I have a lot of respect for our system of justice, whatever happens is fine by me.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure it's completely right for someone, wrongfully accused or harrassed to seek simlar justice within that system. Turnabout is fair play.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? The subject of this thread isn't about a moral issue. It's about Lance finally deciding he's done with the controversy surrounding his TDF wins and alleged doping.
> 
> And besides, my morals are not at issue here. You are welcome to start a thread about my morals if you wish, but I'm quite certain, that what you actually know about my morals could be accurately summed up in one word: Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Noone's holding a gun to your head forcing you to continue responding to me.
> 
> Give yourself a break.


Ok, Lance sympathizer, armchair psychiatrist, and fat lady impersonator.



Like trying to nail jello to a wall. Thanks for your input....


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



Chris-X said:


> Ok, Lance sympathizer, armchair psychiatrist, and fat lady impersonator.
> 
> 
> 
> Like trying to nail jello to a wall. Thanks for your input....


Really? Even after I posted the warning? For this and the morals crack, enjoy the time out.

Everyone else, please try to follow Doctor Falsetti's example of holding strong opinions yet not violating the forum guidelines. Or if this topic drives you crazy- dont post about it.


----------



## Frankinnj

badge118 said:


> I expected in reading the first post to find on researching that I missed something where the USADA brought a case forward. Then I saw it hadn't.
> 
> So basically IF a case is brought forward Armstrong is sick and tired of constantly having to defend himself and if a case is brought forward it would cost more money for him to fight than it would would cost him in penalties so he isn't going to fight. No shocker there. How often do companies settle law suits because the settlement is cheaper than the litigation? It is really indicative of little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To make things even more interesting we are closing in on 7 years from his last TdF win. WADA's rules have an 8 year statute of limitations. From what has been leaked, all of the witness testimony given to the grand jury was from prior to the 2005 win. That means if USADA doesn't have more info I don't even think they can bring a case based on their own rules. The articles do NOT state I accept sanction. To accept sanction a case has to have been brought. No case has yet been brought, all Armstrong has said is IF a case is brought against him he will not contest it. They have about a year to bring it and the only events they can bring into question are those less than 8 years ago. Again how much "real" damage would such a sanction do to him even if the case if brought forward?
> 
> I have no doubt at some point there will be some tell all book or something but in the end the only realistic chance Armstrong had of getting any penalty sailed when the Federal case was dropped.


Well said!!! Finally something logical.


----------



## badge118

It might be logical on my part but it is also damn frustrating. I think this case shows us we need to do two things.

First we need to have criminal anti-doping legislation in the US. Most of the CONI cases over the last couple years had nothing to do with positive tests, rather evidence was provided to CONI off of on going criminal investigations as sports doping is considered sporting fraud and a criminal offense in Italy. The only reason the USADA has a ghost of a chance at this point is not because of their work but because of 2 years worth of Federal subpoenas.

Second we need to fully support the biological passport program. A properly run biological passport program will catch out people using doping methods a heck of a lot easier than just testing for drugs. A new drug always comes out, either a bonafide doping product or one that masks it's chemical signature. While theoretically possible it is a heck of a lot harder to mask all of your physiological reactions to the doping product, especially over an extended period of time.


----------



## Samadhi

badge118 said:


> It might be logical on my part but it is also damn frustrating. I think this case shows us we need to do two things.
> 
> First we need to have criminal anti-doping legislation in the US.


I doubt that will help.

This is racing and one of the salient feature of racing - any kind of racing - is that people will stretch the rules to the point of breaking htme, and will continue to do so as long as they're not caught. There a mentality in racing that follows thinking along the lines of "If you have to cheat to win, cheat".

Making cheating in a race a crime, won't stop it, especially if a pile of money is involved. The only thing criminalizing doping will change is the level of sophistication in concealing it. 



> Second we need to fully support the biological passport program. A properly run biological passport program will catch out people using doping methods a heck of a lot easier than just testing for drugs. A new drug always comes out, either a bonafide doping product or one that masks it's chemical signature. While theoretically possible it is a heck of a lot harder to mask all of your physiological reactions to the doping product, especially over an extended period of time.


A far better idea, but one that only offers the possibility of punishment and does nothing directly about prevention.

What needs to be addressed is why people engage in doping to enhance performance and eliminate that cause.


----------



## badge118

Samadhi said:


> I doubt that will help.
> 
> This is racing and one of the salient feature of racing - any kind of racing - is that people will stretch the rules to the point of breaking htme, and will continue to do so as long as they're not caught. There a mentality in racing that follows thinking along the lines of "If you have to cheat to win, cheat".
> 
> Making cheating in a race a crime, won't stop it, especially if a pile of money is involved. The only thing criminalizing doping will change is the level of sophistication in concealing it.
> .


I think you are wrong on the last bit (more sophistication on concealing). That can't get much more sophisticated, its why 
he recent CONI cases have been based on wire taps and search warrants in criminal cases.

Second when you get down to the nitty gritty it is a fraud that is being committed. We wouldn't tolerate the excuses you provide if people were throwing races for cash similar to the current scandal in Italian soccer, people would be getting charged. It is never an excuse to say "when money is involved people will take the risk." Unless of course you think people on Wall Street should not be charged for insider trading.

As for eliminating the cause it would never happen. The cause is winning which = money. So the only way to eliminate doping would be to remove the profit factor. Since no on is going to be a pro racer for free the only way to do this is to put this on the tail end.


----------



## David Loving

What's interesting about this story is that Lance can move on, but the doping-gossipers can't.


----------



## Samadhi

badge118 said:


> I think you are wrong on the last bit (more sophistication on concealing). That can't get much more sophisticated, its why
> he recent CONI cases have been based on wire taps and search warrants in criminal cases.


Then it becomes a matter of not discussing team doping in any medium that can be monitored or to scramble communications.

And I think they can get a lot more sophiocticated in masking doping agents. The wonders of modern science, y'know?




> Second when you get down to the nitty gritty it is a fraud that is being committed. We wouldn't tolerate the excuses you provide if people were throwing races for cash similar to the current scandal in Italian soccer, people would be getting charged.


Of course it's fraud. Any kind of cheating is fraud. It happens all the time in all forms of racing and when you get right to it, the only people who really acre are those charged with punishing it, or those whose team is defeated by it. The spectators and the sponsors could care less. 





> It is never an excuse to say "when money is involved people will take the risk." Unless of course you think people on Wall Street should not be charged for insider trading.


It's not an excuse. It's a reason.



> As for eliminating the cause it would never happen.


Then we're beaten before we start and there's no point in continuing the charade. We might as well let them dope all they like and stop wasting time and money.




> The cause is winning which = money. So the only way to eliminate doping would be to remove the profit factor. Since no on is going to be a pro racer for free the only way to do this is to put this on the tail end.


Quite right and there's enough money involved that people are willing to risk their careers to get it. But if we take out the sponsorship money and make the teams run on prize money I'd wager you'd see change. Formula 1 operated like that for years prior to 1968 and worked quite well. The drivers didn't get paid very much and the cars weren't very sophisticated, but the racing was great.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I have been a police officer for over 14 years. I can tell you as fact that the suspects covering up a crime is not an excuse to get around statutes of limitations. The only cover ups that may be used are those which are perpetrated by authorities, say the DA or cops involved were in the take. If suspects engaging in cover ups was enough there would be little point of having such limitations because most criminals with half a brain cell try to conceal their crimes via some mechanism.
> 
> As for "investigation" it still doesn't matter. The point of the statute of limitations is to force the authority to either pull the trigger or give up. It is NOT the investigation that has to occur with in the limits but the actually "arrest". Using your metric then all the authorities would be able to keep people under perpetual investigation for an offense and that flies in the face of due process. On page 46 of the WADA code they even go so far as to clarify that the limitation does not preclude them from using a previous offense outside the 8 year time frame for the purposes of imposing additional penalties for 2nd and subsequent offenses. It is going to be a long road to hoe in order to get past it in this case. IF Pound hadn't been railing against Armstrong for years maybe but once the head of the anti-doping body makes it clear doping is suspected the clock starts ticking and you have to move. In the few cases where you get around SOL you use the rationale that the clock started ticking later because you did not suspect a crime at the time. This means I will grant you, that they can MAYBE go back further than number 7 but not by much because Pound's big mouth. That was always my issue with him. I get being an advocate but as an investigator my boss acting like that would drive me insane.
> 
> I get that people are pissed someone might get away with something. Guess what, it happens all the time. If it didn't I would be out of a job because laws and rules would actually have the deterrent factor we pretend it does.
> 
> As for the case dropped google "Lance Armstrong case dropped"


Again, wrong on all counts

I suggest you ask your lawyer friends about Tolling and SOL, it will be an interesting education on SOL.....but it has little to do with the Armstrong USADA case. For that you might want to do a search for WADA's comments on their victory in the Eddy Hellebuyck case. Howman is clear that they believe this victory can be applied to people like Armstrong. 

Each Fed is different, The UCI is clear when SOL comes into play at the start of an official investigation

I am not sure why you mention Pound, he has not worked at WADA for years. 

You are confused as to what was dropped. The Criminal investigation was dropped. This had zero effect on the Qui Tam case, USADA case, nor does it stop the case from being picked up by another jurisdiction.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! I'll do just that!
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, whatever LA and his lawyers think they can get the most mileage out of. Remember, a lawsuit need never go to court to accomplish it's purpose. He could sue just to legally harrass someone. If someone sues you, you have to answer the summons and that costs money. Just filing a lawsuit against someone can ruin them financially and that can be the ultimate purpose. Hell after all the crap people have put him thorugh, I wouldn't blame LA one bit if he decided it was time to get even if he got the chance to do so.
> 
> For the record, I'm about 99 & 44/100 sure he doped, but if he gets away with it, well, that's how things go sometimes. It seems to me like it could go that way. Same thing with OJ Simpson. Everyone knew he killed those people, but a jury of his peers found him not guilty. End of story. Justice, even if it seems a bit perverted, is served.
> 
> Personally, I think this whole Snipe Hunt is a big waste of time and money.


Lance would never sue USADA. It is part of the code that he signed that any disputes have to go to CAS. 

Are all doping sanctions a waste of money or just Lance?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> What's interesting about this story is that Lance can move on, but the doping-gossipers can't.


Move on? 

Do you really believe that just by giving an interview that the Feds will drop the Qui Tam case? USADA will drop their investigation? 

Johan was stopped at the airport and served. He talked to the Feds on Friday. Lance is not moving on.


----------



## badge118

@ Doctor
If the Qui Tam case you are referring to is the one brought by Landis I would not be sweating it. They seldom if ever succeed without the DOJ helping A LOT and with them closing the criminal case their assistance is questionable.

As for speaking with attorneys I have already had LONG discussions with attorneys regarding SOL, largely because a few years ago my state passed a law regarding SOL and sex crimes. The conversation started with why my State went the way they did and if there were ways to get around SOL. One of these attorneys is a former US Attorney. However to refresh my memory I did call my friend who is an ADA (well emailed him) He said that the only ones he is aware of are when first, an officer of the court (not the suspect) fraudulently presents facts to the court (as I noted in my prior post) and if you can show an on going course of conduct. This last one may or not apply to the LA case. The first issue is that the evidence the USADA can use from the Fed case is from the USPS days. That is right on the edge of the SOL atm. I do not think it a stretch to say that if the USADA had evidence of doping post USPS there would have already been action. After you manage to get the most recent offense proven how far back one could go would hinge on how far back you can prove he doped, if there is enough proximity with the acts to qualify as an on going course of conduct (committing an offense in 2001 and then the next in 2003 does not qualify as an on going course of conduct typically) etc.

Neither of these happen "all the time" though as you noted. The first for obvious reasons. So I fail to see how I am so "wrong" on all counts. I think in righteous indignation you are hoping a crap situation will miraculously become clean. Regretably that is for story books, not reality.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance would never sue USADA. It is part of the code that he signed that any disputes have to go to CAS.


Well, we'll see then, won't we?



> Are all doping sanctions a waste of money or just Lance?


Yes, sanctions are a waste of time and money. They don't truly change anything. Of course, that may not be the purpose in the first place. The only real interest may be finding people who are cheating and punishing them. Hell if noone was doping then all those fine people working for anti-doping agencies would be out of work. So, maybe it's not a waste of time and money after all. Maybe the real point is to keep all those people in jobs. It's just a prt of the plan. Pressure teams and riders until the dope, then you catch them at it and the, bring massive resources to bear, crush the offending riders, leaving teams and sponsors alone,and ruin their careers and reputation but all ok 'cause the pay is good and the checks don't bounce and you can sleep better at night for protecting a few people fro those evil, bad dopers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> @ Doctor
> If the Qui Tam case you are referring to is the one brought by Landis I would not be sweating it. They seldom if ever succeed without the DOJ helping A LOT and with them closing the criminal case their assistance is questionable.
> 
> As for speaking with attorneys I have already had LONG discussions with attorneys regarding SOL, largely because a few years ago my state passed a law regarding SOL and sex crimes. The conversation started with why my State went the way they did and if there were ways to get around SOL.  One of these attorneys is a former US Attorney. However to refresh my memory I did call my friend who is an ADA (well emailed him) He said that the only ones he is aware of are when first, an officer of the court (not the suspect) fraudulently presents facts to the court (as I noted in my prior post) and if you can show an on going course of conduct. This last one may or not apply to the LA case. The first issue is that the evidence the USADA can use from the Fed case is from the USPS days. That is right on the edge of the SOL atm. I do not think it a stretch to say that if the USADA had evidence of doping post USPS there would have already been action. After you manage to get the most recent offense proven how far back one could go would hinge on how far back you can prove he doped, if there is enough proximity with the acts to qualify as an on going course of conduct (committing an offense in 2001 and then the next in 2003 does not qualify as an on going course of conduct typically) etc.
> 
> Neither of these happen "all the time" though as you noted. The first for obvious reasons. So I fail to see how I am so "wrong" on all counts. I think in righteous indignation you are hoping a crap situation will miraculously become clean. Regretably that is for story books, not reality.


You are 100% on the Qui Tam case. While there are firms who specialize in them and will pursue them without the Government the chances are much higher if the Government "Joins" the case. If they join the case then Lance, and his friends, are done. The best they can do is try for a plea bargain. 

Qui Tam cases are kept secret so there is little public information on the case......but last year Johan, Lance, Weisel, and several Tailwind investors were given target letters from the Feds last year, a good indication that the Feds have joined the case. 

Thank you for the SOL info, but it does not apply to USADA as they have their own rules. Note that their investigation was not just focused on 10 years ago. They questioned riders who rode with Lance during his comeback. Many experts publicly questioned Armstrong's blood values in the 2009 Tour. Remember the transfusion kits that were dumped at the Tour in 2009? WADA met with French investigators to share information on this.

The Feds also did not show any SOL concerns. Tolling could be part of it but they also focused on more recent events. Charges were drawn up against Armstrong. They included Witness tampering (Mike, Floyd, Tyler, Jeff, and Stephanie) that was recent. Wire Fraud. The Feds and European traced millions of $$ transfers through shell companies to Ferrari. These transfers happened as late as the 2010 season.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Well, we'll see then, won't we?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sanctions are a waste of time and money. They don't truly change anything. Of course, that may not be the purpose in the first place. The only real interest may be finding people who are cheating and punishing them. Hell if noone was doping then all those fine people working for anti-doping agencies would be out of work. So, maybe it's not a waste of time and money after all. Maybe the real point is to keep all those people in jobs. It's just a prt of the plan. Pressure teams and riders until the dope, then you catch them at it and the, bring massive resources to bear, crush the offending riders, leaving teams and sponsors alone,and ruin their careers and reputation but all ok 'cause the pay is good and the checks don't bounce and you can sleep better at night for protecting a few people fro those evil, bad dopers.


Anyone who has been following the sport for more then a few years can see that the increase in testing and sanctions since WADA (2004) has made a dramatic change to the sport. Contrast this to the response to Festina where the sport (UCI) essentially ignored the issue. This only made the issue worse. It enabled Doctors like Ferrari, Fuentes, Checcini, Santuccione. 

Contrast the the UCI ignoring the issue with the French Fed launching Longitudinal testing. The result was French riders seldom seeing the podium......but because of their anti doping stance were able to continue to attract sponsorship, despite their limited results


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Anyone who has been following the sport for more then a few years can see that the increase in testing and sanctions since WADA (2004) has made a dramatic change to the sport. Contrast this to the response to Festina where the sport (UCI) essentially ignored the issue. This only made the issue worse. It enabled Doctors like Ferrari, Fuentes, Checcini, Santuccione.
> 
> Contrast the the UCI ignoring the issue with the French Fed launching Longitudinal testing. The result was French riders seldom seeing the podium......but because of their anti doping stance were able to continue to attract sponsorship, despite their limited results


Well having not been following the sport to to depth duration you have I can't address a single point you're making here.

Sorry.


----------



## Coolhand

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Contrast the the UCI ignoring the issue with the French Fed launching Longitudinal testing. The result was French riders seldom seeing the podium......but because of their anti doping stance were able to continue to attract sponsorship, despite their limited results


Seeing it missed that their most famous rider was a massive EPO doper supplied by her husband, and a decent amount of recent cases (and multiple issues with the labs, media leaks, the Landis situation) and am not sure the French system was much better at catching French dopers that providing excuses for a sub-par group of GC pretenders getting massively overpaid. French riders won stages even in the dopiest era (not to mention those 7 KOMs in a row from a known doper). Or the whispers about Volkler. Saying its better than the UCI isn't the same as saying its any good. The UCI is terrible _at everything_.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> Seeing it missed that their most famous rider was a massive EPO doper supplied by her husband, and a decent amount of recent cases (and multiple issues with the labs, media leaks, the Landis situation) and am not sure the French system was much better at catching French dopers that providing excuses for a sub-par group of GC pretenders getting massively overpaid. French riders won stages even in the dopiest era (not to mention those 7 KOMs in a row from a known doper). Or the whispers about Volkler. Saying its better than the UCI isn't the same as saying its any good. The UCI is terrible _at everything_.


The French Fed was certainly better then the UCI in the early 2000's, which is why most of the French riders that you refer to that won took out licenses in Monaco, Switzerland or moved out of France in order to avoid testing. 

Time has shown that most of the hype around the French labs was invented as a smokescreen by dopers and had little basis in fact.

The French system is far from perfect, and getting less so every day as it stops innovating. But it is still miles (kilometers?) above the Spanish and Italians


----------



## PaxRomana

Amazing that there is so little information coming out on this. 

Did Johan get served with a subpoena?
Where is he now?
Why is he not serving as DS at the ToC?
Has he testified?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

PaxRomana said:


> Amazing that there is so little information coming out on this.
> 
> Did Johan get served with a subpoena?


Yes


PaxRomana said:


> Where is he now?


Hiding


PaxRomana said:


> Why is he not serving as DS at the ToC?


See above


PaxRomana said:


> Has he testified?


Yes, last Friday


----------



## PaxRomana

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes
> 
> Hiding
> 
> See above
> 
> Yes, last Friday


Thanks, DF. Why is he hiding? From whom is he hiding? The media? He can just say "No comment" if asked, no?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

PaxRomana said:


> Thanks, DF. Why is he hiding? From whom is he hiding? The media? He can just say "No comment" if asked, no?


He was at the race for a few minute and was besieged by reporters. He cussed at a few of them then left, answering no questions. RSNT has basically said "No Comment" 

He had meetings scheduled with multiple sponsors and he did not show. Calls from Reporters and sponsors have been ignored. The rumors around the race range from him leaving and flying back to London to him being further detained by the Feds. The DS is the bus driver, Luc Meersman. Yes, the bus driver is in their #2 car. No matter how you look at it that is odd. 

It is odd that this is the 2nd biggest race of the year for them and not only has he disappeared but there has been no word for days. 

Thanks Johan for once again bringing chaos to the race and staining the sport yet again.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He was at the race for a few minute and was besieged by reporters. He cussed at a few of them then left, answering no questions. RSNT has basically said "No Comment"
> 
> He had meetings scheduled with multiple sponsors and he did not show. Calls from Reporters and sponsors have been ignored. The rumors around the race range from him leaving and flying back to London to him being further detained by the Feds. The DS is the bus driver, Luc Meersman. Yes, the bus driver is in their #2 car. No matter how you look at it that is odd.
> 
> It is odd that this is the 2nd biggest race of the year for them and not only has he disappeared but there has been no word for days.
> 
> Thanks Johan for once again bringing chaos to the race and staining the sport yet again.


Please site sources for this rant or it will be labeled as extremely prejudice rumor.
Thank you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Please site sources for this rant or* it will be labeled as extremely prejudice rumor.*
> .


Only by those who prefer to ignore the obvious


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Only by those who prefer to ignore the obvious


Sources please? You've asked other posters to cite theirs as basis for their opinions it is now your turn..... or you can just add to your stack of rumors.


----------



## PaxRomana

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He was at the race for a few minute and was besieged by reporters. He cussed at a few of them then left, answering no questions. RSNT has basically said "No Comment"
> 
> He had meetings scheduled with multiple sponsors and he did not show. Calls from Reporters and sponsors have been ignored. The rumors around the race range from him leaving and flying back to London to him being further detained by the Feds. The DS is the bus driver, Luc Meersman. Yes, the bus driver is in their #2 car. No matter how you look at it that is odd.
> 
> It is odd that this is the 2nd biggest race of the year for them and not only has he disappeared but there has been no word for days.
> 
> Thanks Johan for once again bringing chaos to the race and staining the sport yet again.


Thanks again. If Bruyneel is ignoring even the sponsors, that would be a huge development.


----------



## SicBith

SicBith said:


> Sources please? You've asked other posters to cite theirs as basis for their opinions it is now your turn..... or you can just add to your stack of rumors.


And once again DF fails


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> And once again DF fails


Your approval is so important to me:cryin:


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are 100% on the Qui Tam case. While there are firms who specialize in them and will pursue them without the Government the chances are much higher if the Government "Joins" the case. If they join the case then Lance, and his friends, are done. The best they can do is try for a plea bargain.
> 
> Qui Tam cases are kept secret so there is little public information on the case......but last year Johan, Lance, Weisel, and several Tailwind investors were given target letters from the Feds last year, a good indication that the Feds have joined the case.
> 
> Thank you for the SOL info, but it does not apply to USADA as they have their own rules. Note that their investigation was not just focused on 10 years ago. They questioned riders who rode with Lance during his comeback. Many experts publicly questioned Armstrong's blood values in the 2009 Tour. Remember the transfusion kits that were dumped at the Tour in 2009? WADA met with French investigators to share information on this.
> 
> The Feds also did not show any SOL concerns. Tolling could be part of it but they also focused on more recent events. Charges were drawn up against Armstrong. They included Witness tampering (Mike, Floyd, Tyler, Jeff, and Stephanie) that was recent. Wire Fraud. The Feds and European traced millions of $$ transfers through shell companies to Ferrari. These transfers happened as late as the 2010 season.


I understand WADA rules are different BUT and here is the big but they modeled it on tort law. They even went so far as to make the burden of proof higher than what civil cases use, preponderance of the evidence, but less than criminal, reasonable doubt. A few years ago there was a very interesting interview on NPR with Dick Pound where he went into detail on all of this.

So what they need to do is find the most recent violation that can be proven by more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Then they can start looking backwards from there and see if they can find evidence meeting the same burden and whether or not the time frame has enough proximity to allow them to draw them all in the same net.

If the 2009 case was strong enough do you honestly think we would even be having this conversation? I think not because we already would have had a USADA case brought. I look at Lance as kinda look at this case like say Mier Lansky. He was known for decades as a powerful underworld figure. In the 1970's he fled to Israel in an attempt to dodge a tax evasion charge. He was deported back to the US to stand trial. He was then acquited because the main witness was Vincent Teresa, an informant who lacked credibility. No one in their right mind would say that Mier Lansky was just an average grand father walking he dog in Miami Beach but in the end because of an initial culture of out right corruption followed by one of some apathy (commies more important than mobsters) it was just too late to see justice served.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I understand WADA rules are different BUT and here is the big but they modeled it on tort law. They even went so far as to make the burden of proof higher than what civil cases use, preponderance of the evidence, but less than criminal, reasonable doubt. A few years ago there was a very interesting interview on NPR with Dick Pound where he went into detail on all of this.
> 
> So what they need to do is find the most recent violation that can be proven by more than a preponderance of the evidence but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Then they can start looking backwards from there and see if they can find evidence meeting the same burden and whether or not the time frame has enough proximity to allow them to draw them all in the same net.
> 
> If the 2009 case was strong enough do you honestly think we would even be having this conversation? I think not because we already would have had a USADA case brought. I look at Lance as kinda look at this case like say Mier Lansky. He was known for decades as a powerful underworld figure. In the 1970's he fled to Israel in an attempt to dodge a tax evasion charge. He was deported back to the US to stand trial. He was then acquited because the main witness was Vincent Teresa, an informant who lacked credibility. No one in their right mind would say that Mier Lansky was just an average grand father walking he dog in Miami Beach but in the end because of an initial culture of out right corruption followed by one of some apathy (commies more important than mobsters) it was just too late to see justice served.


The USADA case will be a non-analytical positive. It will not be based on a single event but a long list of direct witness testimony along with physical and photographic evidence

CAS is based on AAA, fairly common method of resolving disputes world wide


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The USADA case will be a non-analytical positive. It will not be based on a single event but a long list of direct witness testimony along with physical and photographic evidence
> 
> CAS is based on AAA, fairly common method of resolving disputes world wide


Oh that is absolutely true (the non-analytical finding). The problem they will face is they need testimony that can be tied to LA as an individual that is within the statute of limitations as noted on page 46 of the WADA code. Once they get that they can then start admitting testimony of events that occurred outside the 8 year time frame. The only thing I have some doubts about is that they can get evidence for this more recent event. If they can pull that off LA will have issues. 

This is why I think they need to pass a federal law against sports doping. Sporting tribunals do not have subpoena power, the Gov't does and the power of the subpoena and grand jury is a tool that could prevent us from being on the knifes edge like we are now.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> O The only thing I have some doubts about is that they can get evidence for this more recent event. If they can pull that off LA will have issues.
> .


Why do you think Levi is not riding for Radioshack this year? 

Based on the investigation starting in late 2008 they can reach back to late 2000. Lance thinks that WADA only has jurisdiction over 2005 as the UCI did not sign the code until August 2004 (The last Fed to do so). I would tend to agree with Lance on this but Howeman appears confident that Hellebuyck case gives him precedent to reach further back. 

I would expect the sanction to go something like this. 



Floyd, Tyler and George all say they received drugs from Lance.
Floyd and George both say they watched Lance receive a transfusion on the bus. 
A look at the blood values the day after the transfusion would show a jump in Hct
Multiple riders have discussed the process of transfusions. How they were administered by Johan's assistant
Riders talk about the blood bags being delivered by a well dressed man in a suit

Then they would show a picture of this nice man in a suit and a cooler that was seen at the team hotel, even though he does not appear on the team roster










Now repeat this information over multiple years, multiple teammates, add in more pictures and more couriers and it begins to be clear why Lance would rather walk away then fight.....and lose.


----------



## badge118

You keep forgetting the SOL though. It is not enough, even in a civil proceeding that has more lax rules than WADA's, to say "we started an investigation in 2008. That does not stop the clock from ticking. You need to be able to prove that at least one violation occurred within the 8 years from the date of the case being filed, then you can work backwards. 

The Hellebuyck case worked this way. He was banned in 2004 for using EPO. In 2010 he acknowledged a course of conduct by admitting in an interview that he used EPO starting in 2001 up until he got caught. The 2004 season fell within the statute of limitations. As such they could go back to 2001 as they could prove an on going course of conduct by his own admission the last know incident occurring within the statute of limitations. 

So unless the USADA can show an incident of doping by Lance within the statute of limitations they do not have the "open door" for lack of a better term, to work backwards. The WADA case did not technically "break" the SOL, they simply used a legal standard that has been in place for decades. That is why I am saying they better move fast because it looks like their best evidence lies in the USPS seasons. If those seasons get outside the time frame we are likely looking at a Zabel/Riis like situtation where they tearfully admit to doing wrong outside the SOL and action can not be taken.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You keep forgetting the SOL though. It is not enough, even in a civil proceeding that has more lax rules than WADA's, to say "we started an investigation in 2008. That does not stop the clock from ticking. You need to be able to prove that at least one violation occurred within the 8 years from the date of the case being filed, then you can work backwards.
> 
> The Hellebuyck case worked this way. He was banned in 2004 for using EPO. In 2010 he acknowledged a course of conduct by admitting in an interview that he used EPO starting in 2001 up until he got caught. The 2004 season fell within the statute of limitations. As such they could go back to 2001 as they could prove an on going course of conduct by his own admission the last know incident occurring within the statute of limitations.
> 
> So unless the USADA can show an incident of doping by Lance within the statute of limitations they do not have the "open door" for lack of a better term, to work backwards. The WADA case did not technically "break" the SOL, they simply used a legal standard that has been in place for decades. That is why I am saying they better move fast because it looks like their best evidence lies in the USPS seasons. If those seasons get outside the time frame we are likely looking at a Zabel/Riis like situtation where they tearfully admit to doing wrong outside the SOL and action can not be taken.


The rules that matter are WADA and the UCI. The UCI is clear on the "Start of official investigation" wording. I do not necessarily agree with Howman's position but also I do not think that they will have any problem proving Armstrong's doping in the period of late 2001 until now. Outside that window they may have some problems and Armstrong may fight. They also may have issues going back farther then 2005. 

Armstrong may say that he is will not fight but he is assume that all he might lose is 2005. If it is more then that his financial exposure is huge and the fight might be worth it


----------



## badge118

Actually it is the WADA rules that are important in this case. The WADA rules are quite clear. If you go to page 46 of the WADA code you will see the refer to the date of the OFFENCE.



> article 17. No action may be commenced against an athlete or other person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the code unless such action is commenced within 8 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.


I say this and not the UCI rule (can't get it to download on my phone for some reason so I can't confirm your wording) would apply because in the Hellebuyck case they specifically say lex militor applies. This means that when 2 hard rules apply to the same suspect, the one most beneficial to the suspect is the one that must be applied. Clearly an 8 year SOL from the statute of limitations would be more beneficial. I when I get to a real PC I will download the UCI rules but ai find your interpretation suspect because it flies in the face of any fair definition of due process. This came up because the IAAF rule had a 6 and not 8 yr SOL.

Also here is the text of the actual USADA decision regarding Hellebuyck. They actually slammed the USADA on some of the charges for basically for filing some charges via the AAA panel and then trying to back door more without notice to the panel. For this some charges were dismissed with prejudice. 

On to the rationalization for the penalty against Eddy. It specifically states it has nothing to do with when an investigation is started. As a matter of fact they stated that under normal circumstances the case would not have been able to come forward at all due to the SOL. They stated that the reason was due to him lying to the USADA panel during the 2004 hearing. No before you get all giddy and say well LA has lied all along the decision makes it clear that it is because he lied before a USADA panel. They note that no athlete is compelled to testify and the fact that he took the stand to commit perjury in that hearing...



> The panel finds here that Hellebuyck came to this panel with unclean hands. He committed perjury in his 2004 hearings before the AAA when he testified that he had not used EPO. He did not have to testify at those hearings. Now, having admittes he committed multiple doping offenses during the relevant time period that he lied about the 2004 hearing, he cannot assert that some procedural or substantive rule designed for the purpose of ensuring adequete presentation of timely and reliable evidence should work to his benefit to avoid a determination that he committed the doping offenses.


The important part is their noting he did not have to testisfy. Now if LA had ever testified in a prior hearing before the AAA for his doping I would see this as a precedent making case. However his only personal statements to my knowledge have largely been in the court of public opinion. Since the statements were made outside the process, the precedent made by this case does not apply. Remember while it is a sporting tribunal they are still attorneys and these distinctions make all the difference to them.

Btw thanks for pushing me to do this research. Call me a masochist but I actually enjoy legal research.


----------



## froze

Of course he's not going to fight anymore because the legal costs to do so would bankrupt him! I don't blame him, he worked hard to earn the money he's made so go ahead and strip him of titles if that's what they want to do to him, but he's going to keep the rest of his money. And after all the investagations they still haven't found any shred of evidence to convict him, and yet they want to keep on investagating and dragging it through court.

And if the USADA was paid off not to test him then that makes the USADA look really bad as well, I don't think that happened.

I don't know if he's guilty or not, while I have an opinion it swings both ways, the one way is that the doping drugs can cause cancer and may have had something to do with his cancer and so Lance swore off doping; or the entire peloton dopes and so did he to level the playing field. I don't which to believe, but I agree with his course of action now.


----------



## badge118

Lance Armstrong's net worth is in the realm of $125 million. If he lost the USADA cases and had to pay back all the prize money he would still be pretty wealthy. What could have crushed him is getting nailed by the Federal case on defrauding the US Gov't. Even the Qui Tam case, if he loses, would likely leave him with a a net worth in the 7-8 figure range. Remember the bulk of his net worth comes from sponsorship deals. Everything from shoes to beer. Most of those likely do not have penalties in the contracts for conduct. Look at Tiger Woods. He gets involved in something very embarrassing to sponsors but not illegal under US law. The sponsors dropped their sponsorship. There was one that paid bonuses for winning but they popped their load to soon and already lost in court and had to pay him. Whether they could sue to get the money back is unlikely because LA did not testify in that case, the company lost due to technical arguments.

So if Armstrong lost only the sporting case the only possible ramification would be he has to sell some property, manage Mellow Johnny's effectively and invest well for retirement, the kids and spousal support.

I think the reason for this statement is because he wants the press to die down. He plays the martyr (I am tired of the persecution, let them hang me if they chose). Using the Hellebuyck case his not testifying in an AAA proceeding would limit the time frame that they can nail him on and due to the martyr card we are left with the current play. Lots of people think he doped and got away with it. Lots of people see him as a persecuted champion for cancer treatment. With taking this course he limits the damage both financial and PR wise from a successful case brought by the USADA. 

The only thing that has a chance of hurting him PR wise at the moment is the Qui Tam case. One big thing hurts thiscase, the plantiff is a guy who is himself now under federal investigation for fraud http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-04-27/reports-landis-under-federal-investigation/54580074/1. I find it hard to believe the DoJ will do a lot of work for a potential defendant in another DoJ case and extensive assistance from the DoJ is almost required to get one through. 

Just look at the sequence of events.

1. Fraud investigation starts
2. Qui tam whistle blower case brought by one of the people whose statements helped trigger #1.
3. Criminal fraud investigation closed
4. Plaintiff in qui tam case revealed to be under investigation for fraud.

This is also beside the fact that the qui tam suit is essentially the same as the criminal case just closed. The qui tam case that Landis brought is a case brought by a citizen when they feel the US gov't has been defrauded. It is identical in many respects as the closed cased, the only difference being that the initial complaint is brought by a citizen rather than a law enforcement official. So even if we forget the complications brought by the above sequence it is highly unlikely a case brought by a civilian would prevail when a contemporary case alleging the same by the gov't was closed.

If I was a US attorney I would like say at this point "give what we have to the USADA and let them handle LA." Why? Simple really. In the Landis case I have actual direct victims. I would rather let LA be dealt with via the sporting tribunal so that I can focus on making Landis look like a lying sack of crap for the benefit of victims, than have to dance a jig trying to make him look like a victim of lies in one case that another US Attorney closed and then a perpetrator of lies in another. Is it a cynical decision? Yep, but these are decisions that Prosecutors make all the time.

For those of us interested in the byzantine world of law the next few months will be fun. For everyone else I think it will be an exercise in frustration.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

While I appreciated the large volume of words they do not add much to the discussion. As I have said I think USADA has good case for the 2005 Tour and the comeback but have multiple challenges that would make it difficult to take anything prior to August 2004. Armstrong appears to agree, saying he will not fight over 2005. This sends a message to USADA, if they just take 2005 it will be cheap and easy. 

Armstrong is not worth $125 million, not even close. He is selling is jet and his ranch, spent over $3 million in legal fees, $10 million on his divorce, lost sponsorship and speaking fees that will never come back. Not good when he has a lifestyle that burns millions a year. Both the Triathlon and cycling comeback were driven by money. The penalty for the Qui Tam case could be north of $120 million. I am unsure how this is distributed, by ownership position or the level of participation in the fraud. Either way he will be out at least $15 million plus legal fees


----------



## badge118

One of but a few links
http://www.richbutbroke.com/54/Lance-Armstrong-Net-Worth

Just google Lance Armstrong net worth. Pretty damn easy.

Also as to you first bit. Since you will not deny the facts I point out regarding the cases all it really boils down to is "okay I can not refute the facts BUT I really want Armstrong to get nailed so I will allow my personal opinion to over whelm the facts before us."

1.you won't address that all the qui tam case really is is an identical case to the one dropped, difference being if successful the citizen who brought the qui tam case gets a bounty. If the criminal case was dropped the qui tam is likely not far behind especially since the petitioner is now under investigation himself.

2. The fact the Hellebuyck decision you keep mentioning is not precedent setting here because LA has never testified before the USADA/AAA, unlike Hellebuyck.

I could go on but you have made categorical statements without showing any sources or referencing details to support them. When confronted with references and details that contradict your unsupported statements you simply dismiss them out of had. Kinda smacks of arrogance to come off as authoritative as you do without being willing or possibly able to support your authoritative sounding posts with the facts that are alleged to back them up.

It really seems you read a couple articles that sounded bad for Armstrong and decided to take them as gospel. Believe me I wish the guy would get burned but the more I look past the spin of the USADA and WADA cats and look at the actual rules and decisions, it is unlikely. I welcome you to prove me wrong however, with facts, because I would like to think justice will actually be done. Right now the facts just don't support such a conclusion however.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> One of but a few links
> Lance Armstrong's Net Worth | RichButBroke
> 
> Just google Lance Armstrong net worth. Pretty damn easy.
> 
> Also as to you first bit. Since you will not deny the facts I point out regarding the cases all it really boils down to is "okay I can not refute the facts BUT I really want Armstrong to get nailed so I will allow my personal opinion to over whelm the facts before us."
> 
> 1.you won't address that all the qui tam case really is is an identical case to the one dropped, difference being if successful the citizen who brought the qui tam case gets a bounty. If the criminal case was dropped the qui tam is likely not far behind especially since the petitioner is now under investigation himself.
> 
> 2. The fact the Hellebuyck decision you keep mentioning is not precedent setting here because LA has never testified before the USADA/AAA, unlike Hellebuyck.
> 
> I could go on but you have made categorical statements without showing any sources or referencing details to support them. When confronted with references and details that contradict your unsupported statements you simply dismiss them out of had. Kinda smacks of arrogance to come off as authoritative as you do without being willing or possibly able to support your authoritative sounding posts with the facts that are alleged to back them up.
> 
> It really seems you read a couple articles that sounded bad for Armstrong and decided to take them as gospel. Believe me I wish the guy would get burned but the more I look past the spin of the USADA and WADA cats and look at the actual rules and decisions, it is unlikely. I welcome you to prove me wrong however, with facts, because I would like to think justice will actually be done. Right now the facts just don't support such a conclusion however.


You are making assumptions that are incorrect

No matter what a gossip site says Lance is not worth anywhere close to $100 million. If he was he would not be forced to sell his jet. 

The criminal case and the Qui Tam case are completely different. Prosecutors had draw up charges for witness tampering, mail fraud, and drug distribution before the investigation was suddenly suspended. The Qui Tam case is focused on Tailwind, and it's principles, defrauding the US Postal service. 

USADA was successful because Hellebuyck lied to an official investigation by the IAAF. USADA has indicated they feel they will be successful because Armstrong lied to officials in the 99 Cortisone positive, 2001 dumping of medical waste, 2001 Tour de Swiss positive and the 2005 investigation into the 99 EPO positives. All were official investigations and all potential tolling events. 

As I have written I think that anything farther back then 2005 would involve a serious legal battle. Howeman indicates he does not feel the same. We will know soon enough how far back USADA is willing to reach


----------



## Coolhand

Here is a better source for this story:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-not-wasting-any-more-time-fighting-doping-allegations



> Following his interview with Men's Journal, Lance Armstrong will also appear on a US talk show, hosted by the California lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom, saying he's "done" answering questions regarding his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs.
> 
> When the Gavin Newsom Show debuts on Friday (local time) Armstrong will appear in a pre-recorded interview where, according to Associated Press, the seven-time Tour de France winner says:
> 
> "This has been a (13)-year question... Blood, urine, hair, whatever they wanted to take. At some point, somebody's going to have to answer that question. I'm not wasting any more of my time."


Enjoy!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is quite comical that Lance thinks he can just say he is done and everything will go away.

Nice try, but it does not work that way. What's next? Clicking his heels three times and repeating "There is no place like home"?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Your approval is so important to me:cryin:


That response and others asking for people to insult you, show you do indeed care about the approval of your rants. Not only by me, but by almost everyone in this forum. This might also speak to why you posted a negative reputation report on my account.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> That response and others asking for people to insult you, show you do indeed care about the approval of your rants. Not only by me, but by almost everyone in this forum. This might also speak to why you posted a negative reputation report on my account.


Instead of trying to derail this thread and turn it into your obsession with me perhaps you can discuss the topic? 

Topic is: Lance the quitter. As soon as it looks like sanctions will be handed down he wants to go home and be left alone......too late for that.


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of trying to derail this thread and turn it into your obsession with me perhaps you can discuss the topic?
> 
> Topic is: Lance the quitter. As soon as it looks like sanctions will be handed down he wants to go home and be left alone......too late for that.



In your W.A.G.; How far from the end is this _whole _Lance investigation(s)?

Are they (Who ever is still investigating Lance) half way finished? Two-thirds finished?

Or are they just starting (A whole new ballgame)?


----------



## goloso

Samadhi said:


> It is an obsession and it is unhealthy. That said, it's DF's life to live as he sees fit.
> 
> What will be interesting is the reaction when LA walks away unscathed.
> 
> LA throwing the the towel, could be as much a ploy as anything else, to call the anti-doping agencies' bluff and stop all the dick-dancing that's been going on. Kind of like put up or shut up and if their case is weak or there's a misstep, it's Lance Armstrong sues the sh!t outta everyone.
> 
> And what usefull purpose will is serve anyway? Doping continues despite how many big names getting busted? IOW, what they're doing obviously hasn't worked and going after LA won't change anything, either.


Ugh, I've tried to stay out of this one but I just can’t seem to let this comment slide. It so perfectly sums up everything I think is wrong with the doping debate among cycling fans.

First there is an Ad Hominim attack against Dr. F. I don’t know the guy but he has been right way more than he has been wrong and is often several months ahead of the curve. You say he is "obsessed" with LA to an unhealthy extent. Would you consider him obsessed if he were a lawyer involved in doping investigations or a journalist who covers doping in sports?

This comment also personalizes the debate making it about Lance rather than his alleged crimes. How would the arguments of someone who is simply interested in seeing doping, bribery and intimidation in pro cycling punished regardless of who they were look any different? What justifies special treatment for LA?

I don't know what to make of the "another ploy" comment. Does it imply that LA's legal team is so far ahead of all these governing bodies that he is just playing them? Is that a realistic argument or just an off handed insult of sports anti-doping administration? While I am all for criticizing the UCI's (mis)handling of doping investigations, I believe most think the USADA and WADA do the best they can with limited recourses. 

As for what "useful purpose" these investigations serve, they show everyone that if they conspire to dope they will be discovered by testing or by being ratted out by a colleague who was discovered through testing. They will know that a case can be made against them even without positives and that even if they are out of racing, convictions can remove them from the record books and tarnish their false reputation that they continue to profit from. This alone won’t stop doping but it is an important tool in the fight.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of trying to derail this thread and turn it into your obsession with me perhaps you can discuss the topic?
> 
> Topic is: Lance the quitter. As soon as it looks like sanctions will be handed down he wants to go home and be left alone......too late for that.


Check the thread DF. As soon as I asked you to cite your sources so I/We could do some research on the validity of the Topic at hand you turned the spotlight upon yourself by not doing so. Badge118 has asked the same of you and once again you refuse to cite anything. Badge118 threw down his sources, if I were giving more than just my opinion I would cite those sources if asked to. It's not about you Lance.... I mean DF.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> In your W.A.G.; How far from the end is this _whole _Lance investigation(s)?
> 
> Are they (Who ever is still investigating Lance) half way finished? Two-thirds finished?
> 
> Or are they just starting (A whole new ballgame)?


Half time.


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Half time.



Ah; interesting.


Thanks for the response!


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> Ugh, I've tried to stay out of this one but I just can&#146;t seem to let this comment slide. It so perfectly sums up everything I think is wrong with the doping debate among cycling fans.
> 
> First there is an Ad Hominim attack against Dr. F. I don&#146;t know the guy but he has been right way more than he has been wrong and is often several months ahead of the curve. You say he is "obsessed" with LA to an unhealthy extent. Would you consider him obsessed if he were a lawyer involved in doping investigations or a journalist who covers doping in sports?
> 
> This comment also personalizes the debate making it about Lance rather than his alleged crimes. How would the arguments of someone who is simply interested in seeing doping, bribery and intimidation in pro cycling punished regardless of who they were look any different? What justifies special treatment for LA?
> 
> I don't know what to make of the "another ploy" comment. Does it imply that LA's legal team is so far ahead of all these governing bodies that he is just playing them? Is that a realistic argument or just an off handed insult of sports anti-doping administration? While I am all for criticizing the UCI's (mis)handling of doping investigations, I believe most think the USADA and WADA do the best they can with limited recourses.
> 
> As for what "useful purpose" these investigations serve, they show everyone that if they conspire to dope they will be discovered by testing or by being ratted out by a colleague who was discovered through testing. They will know that a case can be made against them even without positives and that even if they are out of racing, convictions can remove them from the record books and tarnish their false reputation that they continue to profit from. This alone won&#146;t stop doping but it is an important tool in the fight.


First they are not Ad Hominim attacks. Doc said what he thought was going on. He noted specific cases to back up these predictions. However when you look at these cases in detail as you should when they involve legal matters, serious questions came to light. It seemed that his interpretation was based almost entirely on sound bites from those who also wish to see LA punished. Seeing a doper punished is a noble cause. That said if people go into detail using the cases presented and point out the issue that the case is not strictly applicable, it is not Ad Hominim to ask the other party to cite equally applicable facts. That is all we did. We posted detailed facts with cites from original sources he claimed supported his contention. In response to such you have one of four options.

1. Remain silent.
2. Research the same original sources and see if something else is there in another part of the decision or rule to support your contention.
3. State simply that it is your personal but unsupported position that they will find a way.
4. Admit you were wrong.

To be confronted with the fact your source actually contradicts your contention rather than supports it is not an ad hominem attack. To be an ad hominem attack Doc would have had to have actually cited sources. How can one negate the truth of a statement that has yet to show the facts that make it a truth?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> First they are not Ad Hominim attacks. Doc said what he thought was going on. He noted specific cases to back up these predictions. However when you look at these cases in detail as you should when they involve legal matters, serious questions came to light. It seemed that his interpretation was based almost entirely on sound bites from those who also wish to see LA punished. Seeing a doper punished is a noble cause. That said if people go into detail using the cases presented and point out the issue that the case is not strictly applicable, it is not Ad Hominim to ask the other party to cite equally applicable facts. That is all we did. We posted detailed facts with cites from original sources he claimed supported his contention. In response to such you have one of four options.
> 
> 1. Remain silent.
> 2. Research the same original sources and see if something else is there in another part of the decision or rule to support your contention.
> 3. State simply that it is your personal but unsupported position that they will find a way.
> 4. Admit you were wrong.
> 
> To be confronted with the fact your source actually contradicts your contention rather than supports it is not an ad hominem attack. To be an ad hominem attack Doc would have had to have actually cited sources. How can one negate the truth of a statement that has yet to show the facts that make it a truth?


Calling me obsessed because I point out the obvious is indeed an Ad Hominim attack. You have had the class to engage in the discussion and add substantial input, even if most of it is incorrect. Unfortunately many others just toss rocks

While some of my information comes from people connected to the various cases the rules and regulations are readily available. Lance is serious trouble. As I have written many times he is facing years of legal entanglements that will cost him many millions $$, seriously damage his ability to earn in the future, and possibly land him in prison. 

Most would rather not hear this and chose to insult me.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most would rather not hear this and chose to insult me.


No, they get tired of hearing it, and choose to insult you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> No, they get tired of hearing it, and choose to insult you.


This is the doping forum. If they don't want to hear about doping then I suggest something tamer, like Politics Only


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Calling me obsessed because I point out the obvious is indeed an Ad Hominim attack. You have had the class to engage in the discussion and add substantial input, even if most of it is incorrect. Unfortunately many others just toss rocks
> 
> While some of my information comes from people connected to the various cases the rules and regulations are readily available. Lance is serious trouble. As I have written many times he is facing years of legal entanglements that will cost him many millions $$, seriously damage his ability to earn in the future, and possibly land him in prison.
> 
> Most would rather not hear this and chose to insult me.


Listen I want to see Lance nailed but there is a problem with the two things you point too. The Qui Tam case and the Hellebuyck precedent. I'll deal with the Hellebuyck case first. While it is not a criminal court an AAA arbitration still adheres to rules that are substantively similar to civil arbitrations. This means that simply saying "in case X they beat SOL so they can here" is simply not adequete. You need to look at the reasoning of the panel behind the decision. In that decision they noted three salient facts. 1. That if two supporting rules cover the same topic, in this case SOL the one most beneficial to the accused is applied. 2. That Hellebuyck lied under oath is a doping offense hearing and 3. He later confessed to not only committing perjury but also admitted to when he started doping. As numbers 2 and 3 are not present in the Armstrong case you can't really use the Hellebuyck case as a precedent. Precedents in sporting cases are really not that different than criminal when it comes to the weight. An example would be one I have dealt with multiple times. As a narcotics investigator I make extensive use of Confidential Informants. It is not enough for the defense to say "in case A the CI was compelled to testify so the CI must be compelled here." You have to point to the details in case A that are identical to substantially similar to the case at hand. Even a brief glance shows that not to be the case here because there is a big difference between lying in the court of public opinion and lying under oath. You have simply refused to address this fact.

Then with the Qui Tam case brought by Landis you do not address the fact that this case and the case dropped are essentially identical. The only real difference is that the qui tam case has an "average" citizen as the petitioner rather than a law enforcement official. Since the case being investigated at the discretion of the Gov't was dropped this seriously hurts the qui tam case before you look at the fact the qui tam petitioner is himself now under investigation for fraud.

I am not saying you are categorically wrong. My only issue is that your response to facts, with cites being posted in support, is to say "nope you are wrong." As I said before, if you have facts or cites that can refute mine I want to see them. Not as a dare or as some patronizing ploy, I honestly want to see them because if people break the rules or the law and benefit from deception I want to see justice done.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> First they are not Ad Hominim attacks. Doc said what he thought was going on. He noted specific cases to back up these predictions. However when you look at these cases in detail as you should when they involve legal matters, serious questions came to light. It seemed that his interpretation was based almost entirely on sound bites from those who also wish to see LA punished. Seeing a doper punished is a noble cause. That said if people go into detail using the cases presented and point out the issue that the case is not strictly applicable, it is not Ad Hominim to ask the other party to cite equally applicable facts. That is all we did. We posted detailed facts with cites from original sources he claimed supported his contention. In response to such you have one of four options.
> 
> 1. Remain silent.
> 2. Research the same original sources and see if something else is there in another part of the decision or rule to support your contention.
> 3. State simply that it is your personal but unsupported position that they will find a way.
> 4. Admit you were wrong.
> 
> To be confronted with the fact your source actually contradicts your contention rather than supports it is not an ad hominem attack. To be an ad hominem attack Doc would have had to have actually cited sources. How can one negate the truth of a statement that has yet to show the facts that make it a truth?


Look, I didn't post this to defend F's honor. I just felt that the post I responded to and others attempt to refute rational argument by questioning the author's intent. I'm afraid I completely disagree with your assessment of the argument, the nobility of doping investigations and your definition of the term ad hominem. Maybe we should just leave it at that.


----------



## badge118

An ad hominem attack is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. I did not do this. An example would be John F Kennedy covered up affairs so his entire presidency was a lie. It is essentially using a logical fallacy to refute an argument. This is the actual definition of the term. If you use a different definition, then you are not referring to ad hominem.

I instead did this. He stated that certain cases and rules supported his view. I then pulled up the full rule list as published by WADA and then pulled up the full decision by the AAA in the case he referenced. I also pulled up everything I could find on the qui tam case. I found

1. that the detailed basis of the Hellebuyck decision does not appear to fit the circumstances of the Armstrong case.
2. That this case clearly stated in the decision that the WADA SOL would apply, not the UCI due to the theory of lex mitior
3. That qui tam cases without DoJ support rarely if ever succeed and that the qui tam case is basically identical to the case the DoJ dropped, the main difference being the petitioner is a common citizen and not the State. 

Heck I am not even saying "you are wrong shut up". I am instead saying "based on all this it looks like your analysis is wrong. I really hope you can prove me wrong however because if guilty I want to see Armstrong punished."

This is about as far from the actual definition of ad hominem as you can get. That said I don't quite understand what you meant by the statement "nobility of doping investigations means." Could you please clarify that so I can adequetely respond.

Btw yes I am this anal retentive in real life. It has driven my wife nuts on more than one occasion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Listen I want to see Lance nailed but there is a problem with the two things you point too. The Qui Tam case and the Hellebuyck precedent. I'll deal with the Hellebuyck case first. While it is not a criminal court an AAA arbitration still adheres to rules that are substantively similar to civil arbitrations. This means that simply saying "in case X they beat SOL so they can here" is simply not adequete. You need to look at the reasoning of the panel behind the decision. In that decision they noted three salient facts. 1. That if two supporting rules cover the same topic, in this case SOL the one most beneficial to the accused is applied. 2. That Hellebuyck lied under oath is a doping offense hearing and 3. He later confessed to not only committing perjury but also admitted to when he started doping. As numbers 2 and 3 are not present in the Armstrong case you can't really use the Hellebuyck case as a precedent. Precedents in sporting cases are really not that different than criminal when it comes to the weight. An example would be one I have dealt with multiple times. As a narcotics investigator I make extensive use of Confidential Informants. It is not enough for the defense to say "in case A the CI was compelled to testify so the CI must be compelled here." You have to point to the details in case A that are identical to substantially similar to the case at hand. Even a brief glance shows that not to be the case here because there is a big difference between lying in the court of public opinion and lying under oath. You have simply refused to address this fact.
> 
> Then with the Qui Tam case brought by Landis you do not address the fact that this case and the case dropped are essentially identical. The only real difference is that the qui tam case has an "average" citizen as the petitioner rather than a law enforcement official. Since the case being investigated at the discretion of the Gov't was dropped this seriously hurts the qui tam case before you look at the fact the qui tam petitioner is himself now under investigation for fraud.
> 
> I am not saying you are categorically wrong. My only issue is that your response to facts, with cites being posted in support, is to say "nope you are wrong." As I said before, if you have facts or cites that can refute mine I want to see them. Not as a dare or as some patronizing ploy, I honestly want to see them because if people break the rules or the law and benefit from deception I want to see justice done.


I think you may have missed what I wrote. I agree with you on Hellebuck. As I have written multiple times, Howeman may be confident but I am not. There are also jurisdictional issues as the UCI only signed the WADA code in Aug 2004. It appears Armstrong sees this, hence the plea deal he offers in the interview. He is hoping they do not go farther back then 2005

The Qui Tam case and the criminal case are completely different. The Qui Tam is focused on Tailwind principles defrauding a government entity. The USPS contract had specific anti doping clauses in it. Tailwind mislead USPS into thinking Tailwind was compliant with the agreement.....they were not. 

The criminal case is focused on drug trafficking, witness intimidation, and wire fraud. Very different focus


----------



## badge118

Okay on the first point. I thought the criminal cases wire fraud issue was also based on the USPS issue though. I know it covered far more than Landis' qui tam claim, but I thought they shared this issue. While we had plenty of leaks of who and who did not testify, the exact elements of the wire fraud claim were not as publicized but the NY times reported...



> her crimes. No indictment has been announced, but people with knowledge of the investigation, who are not authorized to speak publicly about it, say Armstrong may be facing charges of fraud, money laundering, corruption, drug trafficking and wire fraud.


If it was just the fraud charge I would grant that it could be different but for that and money laundering to be tied with corruption seems to indicate it was looking at the USPS issue because corruption charges most typically only apply when speaking of government or quasi-government agencies.

On this I could be wrong but tbh due to the on again off agin nature of the leaks we got and the closed nature of the investigation we will likely not get an answer. All that said unless the feds also close the Landis fraud investigation I wonder how far the qui tam case will get.

Before I go let me apologize for mis-catagorizing your position on the Hellebuuck precedent.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is quite comical that Lance thinks he can just say he is done and everything will go away.
> 
> Nice try, but it does not work that way. What's next? Clicking his heels three times and repeating "There is no place like home"?


I didn't read it that way, I read it to mean that he was done having lawyers to fight the battles and thus done paying the very expensive legal fees. And in that course of action if they want to take away his victories then take them away. It doesn't mean all of his problems will go away, but rather he's willing to accept loses on his cycling career rather then to keep spending money for lawyers; meaning, losing honor is cheaper then losing money.

As far as his ability to make money based on his cycling career, he doesn't need to do that, he has enough money to make money in other investments


----------



## badge118

That is how I read it as well. He is essentially playing the martyr as he has for some time, he is simply using a different tactic. Rather than saying "persecution!" like it was a battle cry as attorneys charge into battle, he is saying "if you must persecute me then so be it."

Whether this is a calculated move to limit PR and financial damage and falling into the same trap Hellebuyck did when he was found to have committed perjury, or whether it is a sign of true mental exhaustion as he makes out who the heck knows.


----------



## orange_julius

badge118 said:


> Btw yes I am this anal retentive in real life. It has driven my wife nuts on more than one occasion.


For important matters it is important to be thorough in one's analysis, and for that I thank you for sharing yours. This thread has been very informative, and I will remember the key points for when I become a doping ring mafia boss running extortion, money laundering, etc. on the side ;-).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> I didn't read it that way, I read it to mean that he was done having lawyers to fight the battles and thus done paying the very expensive legal fees. And in that course of action if they want to take away his victories then take them away. It doesn't mean all of his problems will go away, but rather he's willing to accept loses on his cycling career rather then to keep spending money for lawyers; meaning, losing honor is cheaper then losing money.
> 
> As far as his ability to make money based on his cycling career, he doesn't need to do that, he has enough money to make money in other investments


What battles have his lawyers fought? They worked politically to get the criminal investigation dropped (For now) but this will be the first official sanction for Lance, everything else he fought by feeding ridiculous lies to the media, which they eagerly consumed. 

As soon as it gets real he folds. While it sounds like a good idea when it is spouted to a reporter the fact is ignoring the USADA case, Qui Tam, and resumed criminal case is not an option. They all come with serious profession, financial, and judicial consequences

Armstrong is giving up because he realizes he is in serious trouble.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> On this I could be wrong but tbh due to the on again off agin nature of the leaks we got and the closed nature of the investigation we will likely not get an answer. All that said unless the feds also close the Landis fraud investigation I wonder how far the qui tam case will get.
> .


What leaks? At the request of Armstrong the FBI conducted a complete investigation into supposed leaks and found no evidence of any. Any information on the Qui Tam case has come from the targets. 

I expect a plea deal in the Landis fraud case. It will likely be for a ridiculously minor misdemeanor and have little effect on the Qui Tam case


----------



## badge118

Leak was simply a turn of phrase and I was speaking regarding the grand jury not the qui tam. We know there were things the layman would call "leaks". As an example Geroge Hincapie being called before the grand jury (which he then denied via twitter) etc. All the FBI investigated was whether the Feds or members of the grand jury leaked info (which would actually be a crime). They did not investigate if people subpoenaed spoke with a promise of anonymity (shady imo but not illegal.)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Leak was simply a turn of phrase and I was speaking regarding the grand jury not the qui tam. We know there were things the layman would call "leaks". As an example Geroge Hincapie being called before the grand jury (which he then denied via twitter) etc. All the FBI investigated was whether the Feds or members of the grand jury leaked info (which would actually be a crime). They did not investigate if people subpoenaed spoke with a promise of anonymity (shady imo but not illegal.)


George never spoke to the Grand Jury, he volunteered spoke to investigators. The same is true about most of the witnesses.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> What battles have his lawyers fought? They worked politically to get the criminal investigation dropped (For now) but this will be the first official sanction for Lance, everything else he fought by feeding ridiculous lies to the media, which they eagerly consumed.
> 
> As soon as it gets real he folds. While it sounds like a good idea when it is spouted to a reporter the fact is ignoring the USADA case, Qui Tam, and resumed criminal case is not an option. They all come with serious profession, financial, and judicial consequences
> 
> Armstrong is giving up because he realizes he is in serious trouble.


You may be right about him being in serious trouble, though I don't believe myself that that's the problem considering they don't have the smoking gun. 

But spending millions of dollars in legal battles means his lawyers have indeed fault legal battles, so for you to say that is nonsensical...either that or Lance has been the recipient of the largest legal fraud in the history of fraud. But millions of dollars in legal cost means the battle has been real and they have been real for quite some time. Thus I believe the reason he is "folding" is due to huge expenditure of legal costs that if he's to have any money at all to live the rest of life on then he needs to call it quits, and if that means yank his victories then so be it. He has a certain level of lifestyle that he is accustomed to and wants to maintain that.


----------



## PaxRomana

FWIW, Johan has surfaced at the Giro.


----------



## Urb

froze said:


> Thus I believe the reason he is "folding" is due to huge expenditure of legal costs that if he's to have any money at all to live the rest of life on then he needs to call it quits, and if that means yank his victories then so be it.


And there is the nature of the discussion. Everyone might as well start thier post with IMO however some state thier opinon as if it's fact. That's the real debate going on.

I don't think Lance is in any trouble. It's a system and he's navigated it better than anyone else. Guilt? Don't think that matters now. IMO at this stage in his life he cares less about his past wins and more about his financial stability. Trouble would be reducing that to the point where his lifestyle and ability to support his family is jeopardized. Good luck with that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> You may be right about him being in serious trouble, though I don't believe myself that that's the problem considering they don't have the smoking gun.


They have multiple smoking guns, which is why USADA will sanction him


----------



## CoffeeBean2

This would seem to indicate badge118's take on the Qui Tam case is probably correct:

"Some experts believe the government might have a better chance of success in civil court, but Wayne Lamprey, a former federal prosecutor who is now a San Francisco-based lawyer specializing in qui tam suits, said the end of the criminal investigation "reduces significantly the likelihood that the government will intervene in and proceed with the civil case.'' Lamprey, who stressed he has no involvement with any aspect of the Armstrong case, added that "in general, in my experience,'' a decision to forgo criminal prosecution "reduces the government's interest and some of the momentum'' in a potential civil case, even though the standard of proof is not as difficult."

End of Lance Armstrong federal investigation raises questions - ESPN


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

CoffeeBean2 said:


> This would seem to indicate badge118's take on the Qui Tam case is probably correct:
> 
> "Some experts believe the government might have a better chance of success in civil court, but Wayne Lamprey, a former federal prosecutor who is now a San Francisco-based lawyer specializing in qui tam suits, said the end of the criminal investigation "reduces significantly the likelihood that the government will intervene in and proceed with the civil case.'' Lamprey, who stressed he has no involvement with any aspect of the Armstrong case, added that "in general, in my experience,'' a decision to forgo criminal prosecution "reduces the government's interest and some of the momentum'' in a potential civil case, even though the standard of proof is not as difficult."
> 
> End of Lance Armstrong federal investigation raises questions - ESPN


I agree that in most cases this would be true but in Lance's case multiple agencies and both prosecutors recommended filing charges. They believed they have a strong case but this was was ignored by a single Prosecutor who dropped it without their input. 

Time will tell but I think the Feds will pursue the civil fraud case


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Time will tell but I think the Feds will pursue the civil fraud case


And if this was the outcome and if the feds won the case in your opinion what would the penalty be?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> And if this was the outcome and if the feds won the case in your opinion what would the penalty be?


As I understand it the potential penalty is @ $120 Million, but the case has multiple defendants. Weisel, Bruyneel, Armstrong and others have all been notified they are targets.If the penalty is divided based on the percentage ownership then Armstrong's exposure is about $15 million. If it is divided based on the amount of participation in the fraud then he is in serious trouble


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> An ad hominem attack is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. I did not do this. An example would be John F Kennedy covered up affairs so his entire presidency was a lie. blah, blah, blah....


I asked 5 questions about doping in sport as it relates to LA and all you want do do is debate the definition of ad homenim?

Thanks for making my point again.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> George never spoke to the Grand Jury, he volunteered spoke to investigators. The same is true about most of the witnesses.


Then that would be a true leak. He denied saying anything on twitter so obviously would not have told the press otherwise. Investigators are not ones to openly talk about what witnesses tell them...= leak.


----------



## badge118

goloso said:


> Look, I didn't post this to defend F's honor. I just felt that the post I responded to and others attempt to refute rational argument by questioning the author's intent. I'm afraid I completely disagree with your assessment of the argument, the nobility of doping investigations and your definition of the term ad hominem. Maybe we should just leave it at that.










goloso said:


> I asked 5 questions about doping in sport as it relates to LA and all you want do do is debate the definition of ad homenim?
> 
> Thanks for making my point again.


Really? Look at the thing I put on top. That is what I responded to. You gave no actual facts to justify why you disagree so I ignored that. Sorry but statements without facts are less than useless. So I responded to your complete misunderstanding of the definition of a term. If you would care to produce facts that could substantiate a disagreement with my proposals I would be happy to read them.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They have multiple smoking guns, which is why USADA will sanction him


If they have multiple smoking guns then why couldn't the feds do anything? And besides 15 of the last 23 TDF winners have doped one way or another, yet their not going after them. And that's just the TDF winners, what about all the other Tours? What about all the Pro riders? I use to race in the Cat 3 level back in the early 80's and I knew guys at that level that were doping. We've all heard of high school athletes who have doped! This isn't going to go away because they put Lance in a dungeon on some remote island, they'll just develop better ways to conceal it. Doping has been going on for ages using all sorts of concoctions and numerous drugs, so numerous it's literally mind boggling; heck there's a picture of an early TDF race of the peloton smoking cigs because they thought smoking gave them an edge! Believe me, doping is not going away, they'll find some way to do it and not get caught.

You ought to consider the personality and history of Jeff Novitzky who's heading the investigation into Lance, this guy is a huge A-hole. Here's a little history concerning him and the baseball player Bonds: Judge in Bonds case skeptical of Novitzky - MLB - Yahoo! Sports Novitzky has behaved far more atrociously than any cyclist poking himself with a needle, and he has done it with the implicit and explicit encouragement of a media that should be bird-dogging his every move. He has walked all over the best parts of the Bill of Rights in a flagrantly illegal raid of a drug testing facility, and then very likely leaked the famous names harvested in that raid to certain eager reporters, which is also flagrantly illegal. This isn't just about cheating in sports. There are real stakes. Thanks to Novitzky, and thanks to the Ninth Circuit cannibalizing itself, and thanks in no small part to the worst instincts of the Obama Administration, we're now well on our way to an Information Age precedent governing plain-view searches that pretends there's no difference between a dime bag on the kitchen table and the easily sorted cells of a spreadsheet.


----------



## goloso

badge118 said:


> Really? Look at the thing I put on top. That is what I responded to. You gave no actual facts to justify why you disagree so I ignored that. Sorry but statements without facts are less than useless. So I responded to your complete misunderstanding of the definition of a term. If you would care to produce facts that could substantiate a disagreement with my proposals I would be happy to read them.


Of course you know I was referring to this post . 

Buh bye.


----------



## badge118

Actually know I didn't. I am very precise in what posts I respond to. When I responded to your post I was responding the the specific post I copied. If you are referring to other posts then you should copy the one you are actually referring to. Prevents a lot of confusion don't ya think?

Btw the link you provided takes me to a thread bout Y frame bikes.
That said I now know the post you are talking about. Why didn't I respond to the other points? I only repeat statements if I have additional facts to bring to the table. For answers to all your questions as to why I believe the way I do please reference my other posts. Thought I was pretty clear right down to citing the arbitration decisions that back them up.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They have multiple smoking guns, which is why USADA will sanction him


From what we know it is more like this.

Officer gets call for shots fired arrives on scene and sees smoke, smells gun powder and sees a guy standing on the sidewalk. The guy claims to know nothing. You know he knows something. Maybe the gun is behind the closed door he is standing in front of. The trick is proving it. For that we shall certainly see. One of the first things you learn with dealing with the law is there is a difference between what you know and what you can prove. It is probably the most frustrating part of enforcing any law or rule tbh.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Then that would be a true leak. He denied saying anything on twitter so obviously would not have told the press otherwise. Investigators are not ones to openly talk about what witnesses tell them...= leak.


He denied talking to 60 Minutes, he did not deny talking to the Feds


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> If they have multiple smoking guns then why couldn't the feds do anything? And besides 15 of the last 23 TDF winners have doped one way or another, yet their not going after them. And that's just the TDF winners, what about all the other Tours? What about all the Pro riders? I use to race in the Cat 3 level back in the early 80's and I knew guys at that level that were doping. We've all heard of high school athletes who have doped! This isn't going to go away because they put Lance in a dungeon on some remote island, they'll just develop better ways to conceal it. Doping has been going on for ages using all sorts of concoctions and numerous drugs, so numerous it's literally mind boggling; heck there's a picture of an early TDF race of the peloton smoking cigs because they thought smoking gave them an edge! Believe me, doping is not going away, they'll find some way to do it and not get caught.
> 
> You ought to consider the personality and history of Jeff Novitzky who's heading the investigation into Lance, this guy is a huge A-hole. Here's a little history concerning him and the baseball player Bonds: Judge in Bonds case skeptical of Novitzky - MLB - Yahoo! Sports Novitzky has behaved far more atrociously than any cyclist poking himself with a needle, and he has done it with the implicit and explicit encouragement of a media that should be bird-dogging his every move. He has walked all over the best parts of the Bill of Rights in a flagrantly illegal raid of a drug testing facility, and then very likely leaked the famous names harvested in that raid to certain eager reporters, which is also flagrantly illegal. This isn't just about cheating in sports. There are real stakes. Thanks to Novitzky, and thanks to the Ninth Circuit cannibalizing itself, and thanks in no small part to the worst instincts of the Obama Administration, we're now well on our way to an Information Age precedent governing plain-view searches that pretends there's no difference between a dime bag on the kitchen table and the easily sorted cells of a spreadsheet.


There is much incorrect in your post

If you have followed the case you would know that the multiple agencies and both prosecutors recommended charges, In fact charges had been drawn up.



> within the agencies involved in the investigation, the FBI, the FDA, the US Postal Service, there is surprise, even shock and anger about the US Attorney’s decision,” he said on today’s NPR sports news. “Those agencies reportedly only got about a half hour notice that the decision was going to be announced. And this was after there had been indications that prosecutors were preparing to indict Armstrong and others on federal crimes, including mail fraud, drug distribution, wire fraud, witness tampering.





> Those indictments were said to be coming soon, maybe even next month. One source said there were absolutely no weaknesses in the case


 US Attorney

If you followed the case you would also know that Novitzky had little input and did not "Lead the investigation" Doug Miller was the guy in charge and there were investigators from multiple federal agencies, including the FBI, DEA, and USPS. 

Regardless you will find there are few that have anything bad to say about Novitzky. Most of the negative press originates from one "Reporter" Jonathan Littman, the hack who wrote your link, is a huge Bonds fan who has been obsessed with smearing Novitzky. 

Do you really think that Lance is being singled out? Really? How many of his contemporaries have been sanctioned? Basso, Ullrich, Zulle, Landis, Hamilton, Pantani, Rumsas, Vino, etc, etc. It is hard to find any of the riders who stood on the podium who have not been sanctioned. 

The better question is why should Lance get a pass? The evidence against Basso, Valverde, Ulrich, Scarponi and others is less then it is on Lance. Why does he get a free pass to dope?


----------



## Fireform

froze said:


> If they have multiple smoking guns then why couldn't the feds do anything? And besides 15 of the last 23 TDF winners have doped one way or another, yet their not going after them. And that's just the TDF winners, what about all the other Tours? What about all the Pro riders? I use to race in the Cat 3 level back in the early 80's and I knew guys at that level that were doping. We've all heard of high school athletes who have doped! This isn't going to go away because they put Lance in a dungeon on some remote island, they'll just develop better ways to conceal it. Doping has been going on for ages using all sorts of concoctions and numerous drugs, so numerous it's literally mind boggling; heck there's a picture of an early TDF race of the peloton smoking cigs because they thought smoking gave them an edge! Believe me, doping is not going away, they'll find some way to do it and not get caught.
> 
> You ought to consider the personality and history of Jeff Novitzky who's heading the investigation into Lance, this guy is a huge A-hole. Here's a little history concerning him and the baseball player Bonds: Judge in Bonds case skeptical of Novitzky - MLB - Yahoo! Sports Novitzky has behaved far more atrociously than any cyclist poking himself with a needle, and he has done it with the implicit and explicit encouragement of a media that should be bird-dogging his every move. He has walked all over the best parts of the Bill of Rights in a flagrantly illegal raid of a drug testing facility, and then very likely leaked the famous names harvested in that raid to certain eager reporters, which is also flagrantly illegal. This isn't just about cheating in sports. There are real stakes. Thanks to Novitzky, and thanks to the Ninth Circuit cannibalizing itself, and thanks in no small part to the worst instincts of the Obama Administration, we're now well on our way to an Information Age precedent governing plain-view searches that pretends there's no difference between a dime bag on the kitchen table and the easily sorted cells of a spreadsheet.


So many of the replies here follow this tack, and I have to just shake my head. The fact that something illegal is common is reason to prosecute more often and more zealously. 

Seriously, read this again and substitute "murder" or "tax evasion" or "fraud" or "pedophilia" for doping--the logic is the same. Why prosecute for anything? Being famous doesn't exempt Lance from the law.


----------



## badge118

You are correct. The problem is though one has to be VERY careful what cases you chose to pursue with such vigor. Each case where you prosecute and fail does more damage than 5 suicessful prosecutions. Just look at John Gotti. He got huge amounts of press and became a near legend in some neighborhoods of New York. Each failed prosecution simply allowed a Robin Hood like legend to rise around him. The conviction, outside of legal circles, is now largely forgotten.


----------



## Fireform

Part of the damage is already done--innocent people don't say they won't fight the charges. It comes across as a plea for leniency, and he will never live it down. 

And that's a good thing.


----------



## robdamanii

Fireform said:


> So many of the replies here follow this tack, and I have to just shake my head. The fact that something illegal is common is reason to prosecute more often and more zealously.
> 
> Seriously, read this again and substitute "murder" or "tax evasion" or "fraud" or "pedophilia" for doping--the logic is the same. Why prosecute for anything? Being famous doesn't exempt Lance from the law.


Except doping isn't illegal, so your substitution holds no water.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

robdamanii said:


> Except doping isn't illegal, so your substitution holds no water.


Armstrong is saying he will not fight a USADA sanction. I expect he would fight a criminal case


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You are correct. The problem is though one has to be VERY careful what cases you chose to pursue with such vigor. Each case where you prosecute and fail does more damage than 5 suicessful prosecutions. Just look at John Gotti. He got huge amounts of press and became a near legend in some neighborhoods of New York. Each failed prosecution simply allowed a Robin Hood like legend to rise around him. The conviction, outside of legal circles, is now largely forgotten.


True. 

While prosecutors and investigators are confident they had an airtight case for multiple criminal charges Birotte has to weigh in the the political costs of going after a very public, well funded, myth. Fabinani and his partner Chris Lehane ignored the investigators and focused farther up the food chain......it helps that Lehane and the head of the Justice department's criminal division, Lanny Breuer, worked side by side for 7 years. Helps to have friends in high places.

I am confident that after the USADA case, Tyler's book, and the Qui Tam case are public there will be obvious evidence of criminal activity. I doubt it will be able to be ignored


----------



## badge118

Exactly. The way he is handling things a sporting ban will have little effect PR wise. Those who see him as persecuted will likely not change their minds and returning prize money won't hurt him too bad. A criminal case however would not only have potential jail time but fines and costs in a Federal case of that nature could be be crushing.


----------



## badge118

Fireform said:


> Part of the damage is already done--innocent people don't say they won't fight the charges. It comes across as a plea for leniency, and he will never live it down.
> 
> And that's a good thing.


He only said he would not fight USADA charges. He did so in a very calculated manner to make him look like a martyr. He loses a small amount of money (compared to his net worth) and those who see him as a persecuted hero for cancer will continue doing so. This refusal to fight is not an admission of guilt in the least. It is more like a large corporation that settles a law suit even if they are actually in the right. It is simply a cost benefit analysis of litigation and PR damage costs vs cost of a penalty.

I guarantee you he will fight a criminal case. Now I think he doped, remember that, but his comments regarding the USADA case don't mean what you think.


----------



## froze

Fireform said:


> So many of the replies here follow this tack, and I have to just shake my head. The fact that something illegal is common is reason to prosecute more often and more zealously.
> 
> Seriously, read this again and substitute "murder" or "tax evasion" or "fraud" or "pedophilia" for doping--the logic is the same. Why prosecute for anything? Being famous doesn't exempt Lance from the law.


There is so much wrong in your abilities to read, and so many here take that tack, I just shake my head. Please reread my post and show me where I said that what is commonly illegal should not be prosecuted. 

Now let's rephrase my statements to match what you think I said, just for little fun. I think all sports dopers ought not be punished because they all do it, and thus common, and thus should be allowed. Based on that last sentence your second paragraph is just darn right STUPID!!! When was the last time Lance or Bonds or any other suppose performance drug taker went out and killed someone, or evaded their taxes, or were pedophiles? I really don't rank performance enhancement drug takers anywhere near that of a pedophile or murderer. Caffeine has been noted to be a performance enhancement drug, maybe someone who had a cup of coffee should be thrown in the klink too! My last sentence makes as much sense as your last paragraph.

Now having had my fun let's move on. I do not personally believe that performance enhancement drugs should be allowed. The problem is at what expense are taxpayers willing to stop the usage of such drugs? And on what level? on all sports levels? Football players admit to taking stuff to get bigger yet no federal agency goes after them. If you going to ban it in one sport harshly then you need to do it for all sports, not just pick and choose one or two or three different sports, but ALL sports. Sorry, but the prospect of such a thing would be a huge expense on the federal budget which in turn effects taxpayers. Now if they can get a private industry to do the checking and their paid by the fees collected to do the testing and fines collected on the guilty then great, go at it, but I'm not for spending taxpayers money on such trivial BS when they could be using that money and resources to actually track down murderers, pedophiles, fraud, tax evaders, drug dealers, etc. If the feds want to go after sports illegal drugs then go after the doctors and coaches and the dealers that sell this crap instead of wasting money and resources on the user. They, the Feds, know who prescribes this junk, Chris Carmichael knows too, as well as a slew of others, and no one goes after them.


----------



## badge118

The only issue Froze is that sports doping is a form of fraud to many people. It directly effects sports which are regulated by the Federal Govt, some of which congress has gone so far as to give anti-trust exemptions to. Additionally the trafficking in sports doping products is a violation of federal law.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> The only issue Froze is that sports doping is a form of fraud to many people. It directly effects sports which are regulated by the Federal Govt, some of which congress has gone so far as to give anti-trust exemptions to. Additionally the trafficking in sports doping products is a violation of federal law.


Agreed. Trafficking is certainly against the law, as is harassing a witness to a crime in order to try to get them to change their testimony or to not talk at all. Hiring someone to transport dope is also against the law. Money laundering and tax evasion are also against the law.....but all of those charges are for another time. The next year should introduce able evidence into the public domain that shows evidence of these crimes. It will be hard to ignore. 

For now it is USADA's turn. It is their job to sanction dopers in the sport.


----------



## froze

badge118 said:


> The only issue Froze is that sports doping is a form of fraud to many people. It directly effects sports which are regulated by the Federal Govt, some of which congress has gone so far as to give anti-trust exemptions to. Additionally the trafficking in sports doping products is a violation of federal law.


I understand it's a form of fraud but that wasn't my argument. My argument was the expense involved in testing and arresting, and why not go after the root of the problem. You can cut weeds down all you want and they just keep coming back until you pull the root out. And this form of fraud needs to take a back seat to more serious crimes.

The feds know who the doctors are, and they know real well who Dr Michele Ferrari, he's been talked about by Chris Carmichael, Lance Armstrong and a slew of other cycling people...he is very well known doping doctor in the industry as well as to the general public. All I'm suggesting is that the governments need to focus their arresting efforts on this crap on the doctors who are treating these athletes primarily. 

And to sit there behind your computer screens wanting the feds to spend gobbs and gobbs of taxpayer money to chase down athletes who do this stuff is a huge waste of money and resources for the taxpayer. If they want to privatize the testing and fining fine.

I feel like a scratched record.


----------



## Fireform

I think the ones losing gobs and gobs of money would be Armstrong and his cohorts. I think blood doping is a criminal offense in France, where no small number of Lance's syringe adventures took place, and in Italy as well. He made piles of money selling a bogus drug-free image, and that is fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense just about anywhere.


----------



## badge118

It is a crime in most Western European countries. They also do not just go after the athletes. Here is how drug investigations work. You get a user, you then either flip him or instead of using your probable cause to arrest him you use it to get a wire. Via that you then get the actual evidence you need to arrest the dealer. You can know Ferrari is a doping doctor and it is worth a handful of crap if you can't prove it. Then you bust the users and the dealers at once. 

In sport that would mean a lot more than it does for the crack heads and tweekers I arrest. They have little to lose. However in sport first you have athletes getting criminal charges then the same evidence is used to end their sporting careers. You also have the Docs or other suppliers getting nailed. French cycling didn't get cleaned up and Italian cycling is not getting cleaned up finally due to sporting sanctions. It's happening because of Sporting bodies and gov't agencies working in tandem.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is much incorrect in your post
> 
> If you have followed the case you would know that the multiple agencies and both prosecutors recommended charges, In fact charges had been drawn up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Attorney
> 
> If you followed the case you would also know that Novitzky had little input and did not "Lead the investigation" Doug Miller was the guy in charge and there were investigators from multiple federal agencies, including the FBI, DEA, and USPS.
> 
> Regardless you will find there are few that have anything bad to say about Novitzky. Most of the negative press originates from one "Reporter" Jonathan Littman, the hack who wrote your link, is a huge Bonds fan who has been obsessed with smearing Novitzky.
> 
> Do you really think that Lance is being singled out? Really? How many of his contemporaries have been sanctioned? Basso, Ullrich, Zulle, Landis, Hamilton, Pantani, Rumsas, Vino, etc, etc. It is hard to find any of the riders who stood on the podium who have not been sanctioned.
> 
> The better question is why should Lance get a pass? The evidence against Basso, Valverde, Ulrich, Scarponi and others is less then it is on Lance. Why does he get a free pass to dope?


All those guys were sanctioned at or close to the time of their violations. The violations they seem to be going after in Lance's case all happened previous to 2005. I know you have spoke about inquiries into 2009. I do remember seeing something about his values in the Giro compared to the ToF, and of course the taking a shower while asking the tester to wait in the living room to confirm he was a indeed a tester cluster, but it seems most of the investigation has been from the USPS days. 
I feel the sport is just wasting money which could be used to develop tests/methods which will identify the types of doping which are going on now. In my business I've always strive to budget money for items which will have a positive impact on my business now and in the future. I don't see myself paying my CPA to go over the books from 2005.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> All those guys were sanctioned at or close to the time of their violations. The violations they seem to be going after in Lance's case all happened previous to 2005. I know you have spoke about inquiries into 2009. I do remember seeing something about his values in the Giro compared to the ToF, and of course the taking a shower while asking the tester to wait in the living room to confirm he was a indeed a tester cluster, but it seems most of the investigation has been from the USPS days.
> I feel the sport is just wasting money which could be used to develop tests/methods which will identify the types of doping which are going on now. In my business I've always strive to budget money for items which will have a positive impact on my business now and in the future. I don't see myself paying my CPA to go over the books from 2005.


Jan Ullrich just lost his 2005 Tour podium a few months ago. The dumping of transfusion kits are from 2009. 

You appear to disagree with WADA, the UCI, and the IOC on SOL. What is OK? 5 years? what happens when there is an aggressive cover-up like Lance and the UCI? Does this apply to retro testing where the costs are minimal? Most the costs of a sanction are not in the filing of the sanction itself but in defending it in court. How does SOL have any effect on this? The costs would be the same regardless of when they file. 

It sends a clear message to dopers, eventually you will get caught.


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> My argument was the expense involved in testing and arresting, and why not go after the root of the problem. You can cut weeds down all you want and they just keep coming back until you pull the root out.


Quite right. This problem with sports doping will continue, unabated, until someone gets to the root of the problem. Until then, the best they can do is punish people they catch.

And nothing really changes. That's status quo - the utter lack of change.


----------



## froze

Samadhi said:


> Quite right. This problem with sports doping will continue, unabated, until someone gets to the root of the problem. Until then, the best they can do is punish people they catch.
> 
> And nothing really changes. That's status quo - the utter lack of change.


So why are the prosecutors doing the same thing they do with drug users, get them to turn in their source for a deal? Or are the sports figures extremely scared of their providers? The supply chain is no were near as complicated as illegal street drugs, your talking from doctor or supplier to coach or player directly. Most if not all coaches know their players are doing this stuff because they encourage it, either by supplying it or they turn blind eye to it and act like they don't know. And the coaches and players know where the drugs come from. You go after those guys and the doping will decrease significantly, once you reduce the suppliers and or make them scared enough they will stop supplying it because all of those people are important business people who really don't want to go to jail for years, it would ruin their standard of living.

I disagree the best the prosecutors can do is to catch the players, they know exactly who the suppliers are, they need to concentrate their efforts on prosecuting those people first and foremost, and let the sport do pre and post testing, and let the sport decide on the consequences - not some federal moron who may want nothing more the glory, and therefore skew the investigation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

There is a lot of incorrect information here. 

The prosecutors do not go after the athletes. IN the BALCO case each athlete was told the same thing, you are not a target but if you lie you become a target. Bonds and Jones chose to lie and this set back a very important case by 6 months.

Armstrong was named by Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis as a source of the drugs. He harassed witnesses in an attempt to change their testimony. Paid $100''s of thousands to a dealer and hired people to transport drugs in the US. The Feds went after him, and others, because they are at the center of an organized program.

In Italy CONI has started to go after doctors. Armstrong's Doping doctor, Michele Ferrari, is banned for life. If a Pro works with him they risk a ban as well. Di Lucca and Ricco's doping doctor, Carlo Santuccione, is also banned for life

It is incorrect that say that nothing changes. The sport has seen huge change in the last 15years. Teams used to have team financed and organized doping programs. The entire sport was a rolling science experiment. There has been a huge improvement since WADA took control of testing.


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> So why are the prosecutors doing the same thing they do with drug users, get them to turn in their source for a deal?


Because it's their job, that's why. Police face the same problem with drug trafficing and use. They are geared towards apprehension and punishment and NOT prevention. They've been busting pot users and dealers for longer than I can remember. That hasn't stopped pot use or trafficing, has it?



> Or are the sports figures extremely scared of their providers?


The providers are no more the problem than the users. Those parties are symptomatic of a larger problem.





> The supply chain is no were near as complicated as illegal street drugs, your talking from doctor or supplier to coach or player directly.


I dunno about your town, but where I'm from drugs are actually pretty easy to get. The supply chain is actually very simple.





> Most if not all coaches know their players are doing this stuff because they encourage it, either by supplying it or they turn blind eye to it and act like they don't know. And the coaches and players know where the drugs come from. You go after those guys and the doping will decrease significantly, once you reduce the suppliers and or make them scared enough they will stop supplying it because all of those people are important business people who really don't want to go to jail for years, it would ruin their standard of living.


Back in the day in Texas, possession of less than a joint's worth of pot could land you in state prison for LIFE. I was in Texas back then and pot, despite the insane penalties assigned to it, was realatively easy to get. Good stuff outta Mexico & Columbia, too.

Drugs continue to be a problem in the US because noone takes the time to figure out precisely why it happens - the root cause of the problem. Until that happens drugs will continue to be a problem. 

Busting users and suppliers of doping agents won't stop their use. It hasn't yet. People are willing to take the risk of being caught because the rewards outweigh the risk. Now if you're content to let that scenario remain status quo then you're on dream street, but don't be complaining about the continuing use of doping agents.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> .
> 
> Armstrong was named by Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis as a source of the drugs. He harassed witnesses in an attempt to change their testimony. Paid $100''s of thousands to a dealer and hired people to transport drugs in the US. The Feds went after him, and others, because they are at the center of an organized program.
> 
> In Italy CONI has started to go after doctors. Armstrong's Doping doctor, Michele Ferrari, is banned for life. If a Pro works with him they risk a ban as well. Di Lucca and Ricco's doping doctor, Carlo Santuccione, is also banned for life
> 
> It is incorrect that say that nothing changes. The sport has seen huge change in the last 15years. Teams used to have team financed and organized doping programs. The entire sport was a rolling science experiment. There has been a huge improvement since WADA took control of testing.


So what web site proves that Lance paid $100's of thousands to a dealer, and that Lance hired transporters? And if the feds are so sure then why did they close their case? If Lance had done those things then they should strip him of his titles and give them to the runner ups and throw his ass in jail. But obviously they only had hearsay testimony, they didn't have the smoking gun. And for Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis to say he gave them the drugs...they should have avoided the drugs and reported him right away, so they participated in Lance's little scheme why would they squeal like pigs? 

Funny thing about all of this is that Landis claimed that the entire US Postal Team doped...probably not surprising since I think all or at the very least most pro cyclists dopes, but regardless what I think not one member of the team ever tested positive. 

Personally I think it's all about sour grapes, Hamilton, Hincapie and Landis had to play supporting roles for Armstrong, they never got the glory and were not allowed to win, and in that they were not paid anywhere near as well as Armstrong. Just an observational opinion. I use to race Cat 3, and at that level racing you have the "golden boys", and those "golden boys" were the ones to finish first, the rest had to stay back after supporting the "golden boy".

How far can we go with weird stuff about Armstrong? Oh, there is one thing that reaches into the realm of the outer limits. And that is Armstrong gave himself cancer...on purpose! Because of the drugs he needed to take to make himself a better rider and he was willing to accept the risk. And the suspicion of this is really prevalent considering he was healed in one day. Here is the moron that started that whole thing: Chael Sonnen Caught in a Lie - YouTube Personally I think that's ludicrious to even think about that.

I'm in no way saying that Lance was clean, nor am I saying he was dirty, but there's a good possibility he was. Cycling is probably one of the dirtiest sports out there in terms of roids/payoffs/politics etc maybe only second to boxing. Anyone who doesn't know this about cycling has no clue what world class cycling is all about.


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> How far can we go with weird stuff about Armstrong? Oh, there is one thing that reaches into the realm of the outer limits. And that is Armstrong gave himself cancer...on purpose! .


He have himself cancer ........ on purpose? Like he walked out of a meeting and decided he'd contract testicular cancer.

People are saying that? Seriously?


----------



## froze

Samadhi said:


> He have himself cancer ........ on purpose? Like he walked out of a meeting and decided he'd contract testicular cancer.
> 
> People are saying that? Seriously?


 Did you see the site I gave? That guy said that in passing and now there are people that believe it. People will believe anything, like GE has installed mics in all their appliances that are internet connectable so the government can watch us better and that's why the billions of dollars was forgiven. hogwash. It's the same crap that the government is listening to all of our cell phone conversations, how is that possible with millions of conversations going on every minute of every day? A computer may be scanning cell calls and listening for key phrases, like: "lets kill Obama", then that call may be routed to a human to figure out if it's a threat, but they can't possibly listen to all of our conversations without a massive work force that would be impossible to field.


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> Did you see the site I gave? That guy said that in passing and now there are people that believe it.


I haven't had time check out the video, but just the same, it's a ludicrous thing to say, not to mention offense in the extreme.

I have cancer and to suggest that someone would give themselves the disease, ON PURPOSE, make me wanna puke.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is incorrect that say that nothing changes.


Doping continues, doesn't it?

Nothing in that regard has changed.


----------



## Big-foot

froze said:


> But obviously they only had hearsay testimony, they didn't have the smoking gun. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You hold a common misconception on the meaning of the term "hearsay," especially in the legal sense.
> 
> To give an example: If someone had told Hincapie or Leipheimer or Landis or Hamilton that they had seen Lance doping, and then if Hincapie or Leipheimer or Landis or Hamilton testified of having heard that to a grand jury or other legal investigative or enforcement agency, THAT would be *hearsay* testimony.
> 
> However if Hincapie, Leipheimer, Landis or Hamilton told that same grand jury or other legal investigative or enforcement agency of having personally witnessed Lance doping, then THAT is *eye-witness testimony*.
> 
> There is a huge difference between the two. Heresay testimony carries virtually no weight. Eye witness testimony can lead to guilty verdicts


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> So what web site proves that Lance paid $100's of thousands to a dealer, and that Lance hired transporters? And if the feds are so sure then why did they close their case? If Lance had done those things then they should strip him of his titles and give them to the runner ups and throw his ass in jail. But obviously they only had hearsay testimony, they didn't have the smoking gun. And for Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis to say he gave them the drugs...they should have avoided the drugs and reported him right away, so they participated in Lance's little scheme why would they squeal like pigs?
> 
> Funny thing about all of this is that Landis claimed that the entire US Postal Team doped...probably not surprising since I think all or at the very least most pro cyclists dopes, but regardless what I think not one member of the team ever tested positive.
> 
> Personally I think it's all about sour grapes, Hamilton, Hincapie and Landis had to play supporting roles for Armstrong, they never got the glory and were not allowed to win, and in that they were not paid anywhere near as well as Armstrong. Just an observational opinion. I use to race Cat 3, and at that level racing you have the "golden boys", and those "golden boys" were the ones to finish first, the rest had to stay back after supporting the "golden boy".
> 
> How far can we go with weird stuff about Armstrong? Oh, there is one thing that reaches into the realm of the outer limits. And that is Armstrong gave himself cancer...on purpose! Because of the drugs he needed to take to make himself a better rider and he was willing to accept the risk. And the suspicion of this is really prevalent considering he was healed in one day. Here is the moron that started that whole thing: Chael Sonnen Caught in a Lie - YouTube Personally I think that's ludicrious to even think about that.
> 
> I'm in no way saying that Lance was clean, nor am I saying he was dirty, but there's a good possibility he was. Cycling is probably one of the dirtiest sports out there in terms of roids/payoffs/politics etc maybe only second to boxing. Anyone who doesn't know this about cycling has no clue what world class cycling is all about.


Landis did not say the entire team was doping. He said it was a select group. 

I doubt that any rational person thinks that Lance gave himself cancer but several people, including Lance's own doctor, thought that doping accelerated it's spread


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Jan Ullrich just lost his 2005 Tour podium a few months ago. The dumping of transfusion kits are from 2009.
> 
> You appear to disagree with WADA, the UCI, and the IOC on SOL. What is OK? 5 years? what happens when there is an aggressive cover-up like Lance and the UCI? Does this apply to retro testing where the costs are minimal? Most the costs of a sanction are not in the filing of the sanction itself but in defending it in court. How does SOL have any effect on this? The costs would be the same regardless of when they file.
> 
> It sends a clear message to dopers, eventually you will get caught.



Jan was thrown out of the ToF and dealt with at the time he was found to be part of Puerto. It's awesome they wasted the money to take away his 2005 podium in 2012. Win for us!
I should have made clear my opinion on this does not take SOL into consideration. I am of the opinion the going after violations from 7 yrs ago is not worth the cost, whatever they may be, just to confirm what 90% of the cycling world already believes happened.
Now in my opinion violations from 2009 and to the present should be looked at, but also the cost associated should be balanced against benefits gained when it comes to cyclists who have retired. Those pros who are currently competeing in my opinion should be looked at more closly than those who have retired and have no hope of returning. 
I'm sure you disagree with my opinion. Case in point Conti. Because he is currently riding, or will be riding his suspension carries more weight with me rather than spending more money chasing a has been like Ullrich around. Same holds true of Basso. In my opinion money spent to improve testing and knowledge of new doping methods is a bigger deterent than using it to chase around cases from 2005 and earlier.
Again this is my opinion. If any of this were indeed argument I would state my sources accordingly and argue to those points.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Jan was thrown out of the ToF and dealt with at the time he was found to be part of Puerto. It's awesome they wasted the money to take away his 2005 podium in 2012. Win for us!
> I should have made clear my opinion on this does not take SOL into consideration. I am of the opinion the going after violations from 7 yrs ago is not worth the cost, whatever they may be, just to confirm what 90% of the cycling world already believes happened.
> Now in my opinion violations from 2009 and to the present should be looked at, but also the cost associated should be balanced against benefits gained when it comes to cyclists who have retired. Those pros who are currently competeing in my opinion should be looked at more closly than those who have retired and have no hope of returning.
> I'm sure you disagree with my opinion. Case in point Conti. Because he is currently riding, or will be riding his suspension carries more weight with me rather than spending more money chasing a has been like Ullrich around. Same holds true of Basso. In my opinion money spent to improve testing and knowledge of new doping methods is a bigger deterent than using it to chase around cases from 2005 and earlier.
> Again this is my opinion. If any of this were indeed argument I would state my sources accordingly and argue to those points.


Jan was not dealt with at the time, his case drifted for years. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I wish this would all go away as well. Lance is one of the last major riders from that era to escape a sanction. I am glad he is choosing to give up rather then fight a losing battle, it will save WADA millions and still send the message that no matter how big a myth a rider builds they are not too big to fail. 

If you ask any Pro what the key deterrent to doping and they will almost always tell you the fear of getting caught and publicly humiliated. Sanctioning Lance will not cost much $$ if he does not fight it and save them $$ in the long run as riders see that even the big guys will get nailed eventually


----------



## badge118

Well i wouldn't say the Jan case drifted. The German case ended in a settlement that led, for technical purposes, a not guilty verdict in 2008 after a two year investigation. The swiss federation finally dropped their case in 2010, stating as the excuse that Jan no longer had a swiss license so they lacked jurisdiction. The real reason for both was probably the fact that the Spanish Judge had ruled up to that time that the Operation Puerto evidence could not be released to other parties for action. The UCI appealed the Swiss decision to CAS. This resulted in the recent ban, starting in 2011 but taking away all results from 2005. It wasn't floating around or in limbo it was just constantly in various legal proceedings that took forever, in part because of the debacle that was OP.

The only other thing I take issue with is your constant mention of Hincapie. Over the last couple days I tore through everything I can find. The statement that Hincapie spoke to the grand jury came from the advertisements and the like for the 60 minute interview of Hamilton etc. In these spots it sounded like Hincapie had spoken to 60 minutes and told them he and LA both used dope together. George made a statement saying he had never spoken to them. Now of course this does not mean he did not use and did not give testimony BUT all we can draw from the Hincapie stuff is 1. George lied in his press release and tweet and 60 minutes didn't try to correct it. 2. He did testify before the grand jury and this was leaked by a 3rd party, and he was carefully hedging his statement to not hurt his own contract prospects with High Road and then BMC. 3. He didn't testify to anyone and the entire thing was fabricated by a 3rd party. 

Since no charge is incoming atm we will not get a satisfactory answer anytime soon. Since the claim that George said anything incriminating about himself and Lance is at least in part questionable I think it's better to stick with the evidence that is not in question (Landis, Hamilton, Andrieu etc.) Adding George in just muddies things up a bit.


----------



## Chris-X

*Hincapie DID NOT*



badge118 said:


> Well i wouldn't say the Jan case drifted. The German case ended in a settlement that led, for technical purposes, a not guilty verdict in 2008 after a two year investigation. The swiss federation finally dropped their case in 2010, stating as the excuse that Jan no longer had a swiss license so they lacked jurisdiction. The real reason for both was probably the fact that the Spanish Judge had ruled up to that time that the Operation Puerto evidence could not be released to other parties for action. The UCI appealed the Swiss decision to CAS. This resulted in the recent ban, starting in 2011 but taking away all results from 2005. It wasn't floating around or in limbo it was just constantly in various legal proceedings that took forever, in part because of the debacle that was OP.
> 
> The only other thing I take issue with is your constant mention of Hincapie. Over the last couple days I tore through everything I can find. The statement that Hincapie spoke to the grand jury came from the advertisements and the like for the 60 minute interview of Hamilton etc. In these spots it sounded like Hincapie had spoken to 60 minutes and told them he and LA both used dope together. George made a statement saying he had never spoken to them. Now of course this does not mean he did not use and did not give testimony BUT all we can draw from the Hincapie stuff is 1. George lied in his press release and tweet and 60 minutes didn't try to correct it. 2. He did testify before the grand jury and this was leaked by a 3rd party, and he was carefully hedging his statement to not hurt his own contract prospects with High Road and then BMC. 3. He didn't testify to anyone and the entire thing was fabricated by a 3rd party.
> 
> Since no charge is incoming atm we will not get a satisfactory answer anytime soon. Since the claim that George said anything incriminating about himself and Lance is at least in part questionable I think it's better to stick with the evidence that is not in question (Landis, Hamilton, Andrieu etc.) Adding George in just muddies things up a bit.


deny that he spoke to federal investigators. Even Hincapie does not question the substance of what 60 Minutes reported.

Report: George Hincapie tells feds he saw Lance Armstrong use performance-enhancing substances - ESPN

_Later, Hincapie released a statement through his attorney: "I can confirm to you that I never spoke with '60 Minutes.' *I have no idea where they got their information.* As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the '60 Minutes' story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."_​
Ex-teammate: I saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO - CBS News

Ex-teammate: I saw Lance Armstrong inject EPO - CBS News

_One of those riders is Armstrong's former teammate George Hincapie, who Armstrong once said was like a brother to him. Hincapie has never been tainted by scandal. He rode next to Armstrong in all seven Tour de France victories. 


*But now we're told that Hincapie, for the first time, has told federal investigators* that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the blood booster EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, during their preparation for races. 


Through his attorney, Hincapie declined to be interviewed, citing the ongoing investigation._​

Your Hincapie assertions are red herrings.


----------



## Chris-X

froze said:


> So what web site proves that Lance paid $100's of thousands to a dealer, and that Lance hired transporters? And if the feds are so sure then why did they close their case? If Lance had done those things then they should strip him of his titles and give them to the runner ups and throw his ass in jail. But obviously they only had hearsay testimony, they didn't have the smoking gun. And for Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis to say he gave them the drugs...they should have avoided the drugs and reported him right away, so they participated in Lance's little scheme why would they squeal like pigs?
> 
> Funny thing about all of this is that Landis claimed that the entire US Postal Team doped...probably not surprising since I think all or at the very least most pro cyclists dopes, but regardless what I think not one member of the team ever tested positive.
> 
> Personally I think it's all about sour grapes, Hamilton, Hincapie and Landis had to play supporting roles for Armstrong, they never got the glory and were not allowed to win, and in that they were not paid anywhere near as well as Armstrong. Just an observational opinion. I use to race Cat 3, and at that level racing you have the "golden boys", and those "golden boys" were the ones to finish first, the rest had to stay back after supporting the "golden boy".
> 
> How far can we go with weird stuff about Armstrong? Oh, there is one thing that reaches into the realm of the outer limits. And that is Armstrong gave himself cancer...on purpose! Because of the drugs he needed to take to make himself a better rider and he was willing to accept the risk. And the suspicion of this is really prevalent considering he was healed in one day. Here is the moron that started that whole thing: Chael Sonnen Caught in a Lie - YouTube Personally I think that's ludicrious to even think about that.
> 
> I'm in no way saying that Lance was clean, nor am I saying he was dirty, but there's a good possibility he was. Cycling is probably one of the dirtiest sports out there in terms of roids/payoffs/politics etc maybe only second to boxing. Anyone who doesn't know this about cycling has no clue what world class cycling is all about.


Do people who smoke, intentionally give themselves cancer? 

What caused Armstrong's cancer? Who knows? Taking Hgh, cortisone, steroids, epo, and whatever the hell else he was taking sure didn't help him if he had tumors already growing.

AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES - 01.24.11 - SI Vault

_After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis. (Ferrari, again, declined to talk to SI for this story.)_​


----------



## badge118

Not denying something is not an admission and imo if you have enough evidence floating around to prove your case without entering something that has the potential of undermining your point, then you use the rest of the stuff not the one questionable issue. I know logic. Tis rare on these forums.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Not denying something is not an admission and imo if you have enough evidence floating around to prove your case without entering something that has the potential of undermining your point, then you use the rest of the stuff not the one questionable issue. I know logic. Tis rare on these forums.


This is what 60 Minutes reported;

_But now we're told that Hincapie, for the first time, has told federal investigators that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the blood booster EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, during their preparation for races. _

No one has challenged it, least of all, Hincapie himself. What HIncapie did offer is known as a "non denial, denial."

Non-denial denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The issue is not questionable.

The only way it undermines anything is when spoken to the true believers in mythology..

Non-denial denials evince a consciousness of guilt, on the part of the person offering up the statement.

See again, non-denial denial.



_Later, Hincapie released a statement through his attorney: "I can confirm to you that I never spoke with '60 Minutes.' I have no idea where they got their information. As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the '60 Minutes' story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."_


The issue isn't whether Hincapie spoke with 60 Minutes. 

It's not where they got their information.

It's not what Hincapie wants to talk about.

It's not whether he can or cannot comment on the story.

It's not whether Hincapie made a public admission or not.


The only issue is whether the information is true or not true. Hincapie never addressed that and he had the opportunity to address it. What he did do is offer smoke and mirrors when confronted with a DIRECT question. He answered indirectly and irrelevantly. 



Use your logic! You're right! It's rare on this forum.

Good reminder for all of us.

Michael Jackson - Man In The Mirror - YouTube


----------



## Tight Nipples

Chris-X said:


> Take a look at the Lance Armstrong facebook page and be amazed at how many Kool Aid drinkers he has following him. It's really mind blowing.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/lancearmstrong#!/lancearmstrong


I was in the LBS and met a Kool-Aid drinker yesterday, spouting all the usual "most tested athlete," "it's all about the jealousy," "It's a French conspiracy," "He has the highest V02 max ever tested," and some of the other BS that the 1-nutter's PR machine has spewed over the years. Despite showing evidence to the contrary on several points the Kool-Aid slurper pretty much just covered his ears and cried "No no no!"


----------



## jlandry

Is this the longest thread in the RBR Doping Forums history... without getting locked? : )


----------



## Samadhi

Tight Nipples said:


> I was in the LBS and met a Kool-Aid drinker yesterday, spouting all the usual "most tested athlete," "it's all about the jealousy," "It's a French conspiracy," "He has the highest V02 max ever tested," and some of the other BS that the 1-nutter's PR machine has spewed over the years. Despite showing evidence to the contrary on several points the Kool-Aid slurper pretty much just covered his ears and cried "No no no!"


Kudos to you, man, you sure put that dastardly Kool-Aidster in his/her/its place.

You have every right to be proud.

Well done!


----------



## Chris-X

*the Truth*



Samadhi said:


> Kudos to you, man, you sure put that dastardly Kool-Aidster in his/her/its place.
> 
> You have every right to be proud.
> 
> Well done!


Dastardly? Nah. But isn't it always good to know what's real and true and what's not?

Nothing to do with pride or anything like that. 

It's more important to have "reasonable" goals when setting out on any improvement program. You wouldn't agree?

Now if Armstrong was honest and told the truth about how he "achieves" these things he's always bragging about, there wouldn't be a problem.

This is why Armstrong is a hypocrite and someone like Jose Canseco is a lot more honorable.

Jeez, if we can't be honest about simple things like riding bikes, we're going to have difficulty about things that really do matter.

PS,

Back to the Mens Journal article that started this thread. 

Armstrong is a very sick individual as demonstrated in a story he told at the end of the article. I wasn't able to see this part of the story online and saw the article on the mag rack. 

Anyway, he's giving up hunting down his accusers but he will have no trouble pulling the trigger on any of them that cross his path. The guy is a complete sociopath.

The final paragraphs of the article should send chills down the spines of normal people.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> This is what 60 Minutes reported;
> 
> _But now we're told that Hincapie, for the first time, has told federal investigators that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the blood booster EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, during their preparation for races. _
> 
> No one has challenged it, least of all, Hincapie himself. What HIncapie did offer is known as a "non denial, denial."
> 
> Non-denial denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The issue is not questionable.
> 
> The only way it undermines anything is when spoken to the true believers in mythology..
> 
> Non-denial denials evince a consciousness of guilt, on the part of the person offering up the statement.
> 
> See again, non-denial denial.
> 
> 
> 
> _Later, Hincapie released a statement through his attorney: "I can confirm to you that I never spoke with '60 Minutes.' I have no idea where they got their information. As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the '60 Minutes' story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."_
> 
> 
> The issue isn't whether Hincapie spoke with 60 Minutes.
> 
> It's not where they got their information.
> 
> It's not what Hincapie wants to talk about.
> 
> It's not whether he can or cannot comment on the story.
> 
> It's not whether Hincapie made a public admission or not.
> 
> 
> The only issue is whether the information is true or not true. Hincapie never addressed that and he had the opportunity to address it. What he did do is offer smoke and mirrors when confronted with a DIRECT question. He answered indirectly and irrelevantly.
> 
> 
> 
> Use your logic! You're right! It's rare on this forum.
> 
> Good reminder for all of us.
> 
> Michael Jackson - Man In The Mirror - YouTube


Those are all good deductions. Deductions are not facts however. If we want to have a discussion that does not allow for people to weasel around vague denials likely written with an attorney looking over ones shoulders we should stick to facts because there are a lot of them. The minute you start focusing on deductions as much as direct facts you actually start feeding into the persecution complex bull crap because you take on the appearance of someone with an axe to grind.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Those are all good deductions. Deductions are not facts however. If we want to have a discussion that does not allow for people to weasel around vague denials likely written with an attorney looking over ones shoulders we should stick to facts because there are a lot of them. The minute you start focusing on deductions as much as direct facts you actually start feeding into the persecution complex bull crap because you take on the appearance of someone with an axe to grind.


60 Minutes presented what they've learned and combined with all the deductions and facts which have surfaced over the years the case against ALL of these guys is damning. 

If you wish to litigate it here that's your prerogative. IMHO Armstrong is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and those who argue against that, well, I don't believe they are very logical.

You do realize that juries are allowed to make inferences based on evidence presented so I would say that I really don't agree with the way that it appears that you want these things judged and I probably don't agree with what you think it means to "prove" something.

BTW, I didn't deduce anything from Hincapie's statements. I pointed out the fact that he didn't deny the substance of what 60 Minutes reported. He had the opportunity to deny what was reported. This is a fact. If Hincapie did not do what 60 Minutes reported he did, he is out of his mind for not denying the allegations and attacking 60 Minutes These are the kinds of inferences juries are allowed to make and are encouraged to make by prosecutors..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Tight Nipples said:


> I was in the LBS and met a Kool-Aid drinker yesterday, spouting all the usual "most tested athlete," "it's all about the jealousy," "It's a French conspiracy," "He has the highest V02 max ever tested," and some of the other BS that the 1-nutter's PR machine has spewed over the years. Despite showing evidence to the contrary on several points the Kool-Aid slurper pretty much just covered his ears and cried "No no no!"


outside of his endless harassment of friends, teammates, and staff that dared tell the truth the media machine that created this myth has to be one of his most disturbing legacies. 

Otherwise rational people behave like starstruck groupies, defending an absurd myth with increasingly irrational fables.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> 60 Minutes presented what they've learned and combined with all the deductions and facts which have surfaced over the years the case against ALL of these guys is damning.
> 
> If you wish to litigate it here that's your prerogative. IMHO Armstrong is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt and those who argue against that, well, I don't believe they are very logical.
> 
> You do realize that juries are allowed to make inferences based on evidence presented so I would say that I really don't agree with the way that it appears that you want these things judged and I probably don't agree with what you think it means to "prove" something.
> 
> BTW, I didn't deduce anything from Hincapie's statements. I pointed out the fact that he didn't deny the substance of what 60 Minutes reported. He had the opportunity to deny what was reported. This is a fact. If Hincapie did not do what 60 Minutes reported he did, he is out of his mind for not denying the allegations and attacking 60 Minutes These are the kinds of inferences juries are allowed to make and are encouraged to make by prosecutors..


Sorry I have been involved in law suits and many court cases (occupational hazard) the fact he does not deny the substance means nothing really. Attorney's will often tell their clients to say NOTHING at all. If a client insists on talking they will often advise their client to be as narrow as humanly possible. Why? Because while at the time he may not have testified or spoken to investigators, the next week he might find a subpoena on his door step and as illustrated by the general tone of some of the posts in this thread that distinction would be missed and people would be calling him a liar in the court of public opinion.

Again I am not saying that he did not testify but we also can not take these facts and say he definitely did either.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> Sorry I have been involved in law suits and many court cases (occupational hazard) the fact he does not deny the substance means nothing really. Attorney's will often tell their clients to say NOTHING at all. If a client insists on talking they will often advise their client to be as narrow as humanly possible. Why? *Because while at the time he may not have testified or spoken to investigators, the next week he might find a subpoena on his door step and as illustrated by the general tone of some of the posts in this thread that distinction would be missed and people would be calling him a liar in the court of public opinion*..


'This might happen and then, he may be asked a question in the interim, and then uninformed people may say this, and because of a tone which some may detect he may be called a liar.' Really? Let's get this straight.

60 Minutes reported this:

"But now we're told that Hincapie, for the first time, has told federal investigators that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the blood booster EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, during their preparation for races." 

There is no ambiguity whatsoever. This stands. Normally when a news organization is running a story they speak to the players for comment. This is to protect everyone involved. A Hincapie response such as, 'that is absolutely false, I never spoke to investigators or implicated myself or Armstrong," would give the reporters pause. This was a very damaging report to both Hincapie and Armstrong and a threat of a lawsuit by Hincapie for libel, might stop the reporting about him in its tracks. Hincapie did not challenge what 60 Minutes reported, and IF IT DID NOT HAPPEN, HINCAPIE WOULD HAVE LET 60 MINUTES KNOW THAT THEIR REPORT COULD HAVE VERY DIRE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO THEM. LIKE HE WOULD OWN THEM. If it did not happen Hincapie's attorneys would have advised Hincapie to issue the strongest possible public denial. There is absolutely no reason they would not have done this.

Why didn't his atty's advise Hincapie to do this? Because the report was 100% true. 




badge118 said:


> Again I am not saying that he did not testify but we also can not take these facts and say he definitely did either.


No one is saying he testified except people who are confused. He spoke to investigators and did not testify in front of the GJ. 60 Minutes reported 

"But now we're told that Hincapie, for the first time, has *told federal investigators *that he and Armstrong supplied each other with the blood booster EPO and discussed having used testosterone, another banned substance, during their preparation for races." 

It happened and it will always be on the record as happening. George gave a bs answer, a non-denial, denial, in which he let the report stand. The tone you speak of is nonsense and unless you can point to something specific, it is your vague impression.


----------



## froze

ChrisX I have a problem with all that 60 Minutes stuff, why didn't the tests before and after the race show presence of drugs? And Lance even went a step further then the required test and voluntarily had his blood frozen to be saved for a future time if they develope better technology to find drugs. My understanding is they tested his frozen blood and still found nothing. So all of that 60 minute stuff is just confusing in light of all the testing. No one can hide that stuff from tests. About the only way to hide it is to pay off the testers, but then that would eventually come back on them.

For more on EPO read this: Q&A on EPO - World Anti-Doping Agency


----------



## Dwayne Barry

froze said:


> No one can hide that stuff from tests. About the only way to hide it is to pay off the testers, but then that would eventually come back on them.


How long have you been following this sport? The EPO test is easy to "beat", actually you generally don't have to beat the test since EPO is detectable for a short period of time and OOC testing use to be and probably relatively speaking is still quite sparse. Let's say you get caught out and a tester shows up when you injected the day before. Well why not just use one of your "free passes", IOW don't be where you said you were going to be in the detection window. If you're only OOC tested a few times a year what are the chances a tester will actually show up while your doping is detectable. But what if they do catch you at home and test you? Well why not sprinkle some protease into your urine as you're giving the sample, to destroy the EPO protein? Or why not just play it safe and inject a little bit every night (i.e. microdosing rather than taking a large dose that's going to be detectable for a couple of days), knowing you have at least an 8 hour window for it to clear your system in the off-chance a tester shows up. Or inject when you know you have a window where it would be nearly impossible for a tester to catch up with you? Like the night before you're getting on an early morning flight to fly to some remote island to train for a few days?

People also seem to forget or realize how lax the testing environment was up until a few years ago, which is why techniques like the protease destruction of EPO worked. It's why there was a whole rash of testosterone and EPO positives when Gripper came in and they actually started doing more frequent, random OOC testing.

Before Gripper and the tightening up of the testing, doping was like speeding. Sure you might get caught but unless you did something stupid the chances were pretty slim.

Then, of course, if you didn't want to take your chance with EPO you could simply blood dope and rely on other non-detectable hormones than EPO to restore your blood levels following a withdrawal. I can't remember from Tyler Hamilton's doping schedule in winter/spring before is LBL win if he was using EPO too, but he was using a bunch of hormones in conjunction with the blood doping procedures. Which begs the question of why didn't he test positive?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> My understanding is they tested his frozen blood and still found nothing.


No, they tested his stored samples and found EPO

Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## Coolhand

You may want to provide a better citation than to some random bike blog, I am sure the Boulder Report probably covered that (I assume you are talking about the 1999 sample retesting/media leak thing right?)


----------



## asgelle

Coolhand said:


> You may want to provide a better citation than to some random bike blog, I am sure the Boulder Report probably covered that (I assume you are talking about the 1999 sample retesting/media leak thing right?)


You don't find a direct quote from Michael Ashenden informative?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No, they tested his stored samples and found EPO
> 
> Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


This doesn't get talked about much these days but should have been the nail the coffin given how the whole thing shook out and the results.

I mean the only real argument against them is it wasn't an official test so the positive riders couldn't be sanctioned, which isn't an argument against the riders doping just an argument about "due process" as it doesn't explain how the exogenous EPO got there.


----------



## Chris-X

froze said:


> ChrisX I have a problem with all that 60 Minutes stuff, why didn't the tests before and after the race show presence of drugs? And Lance even went a step further then the required test and voluntarily had his blood frozen to be saved for a future time if they develope better technology to find drugs. My understanding is they tested his frozen blood and still found nothing. So all of that 60 minute stuff is just confusing in light of all the testing. No one can hide that stuff from tests. About the only way to hide it is to pay off the testers, but then that would eventually come back on them.
> 
> For more on EPO read this: Q&A on EPO - World Anti-Doping Agency



George had a problem with that 60 Minutes stuff too! It exposed him and a) he couldn't go after 60 Minutes, and b) he had a deal with the Feds to tell the truth which is why he couldn't deny it and make himself a target along with Armstrong.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> You may want to provide a better citation than to some random bike blog, I am sure the Boulder Report probably covered that (I assume you are talking about the 1999 sample retesting/media leak thing right?)


Click the link. The source is Micheal Ashenden, inventor of the EPO test and former head of the UCI Biopassport. 

What leak? lEquipe got the anonymous results via the French version of the freedom of information act as LNDD is Federally funded. They would have remained anonymous but Armstrong foolishly allowed the UCI to release his testing form (With the tracking numbers) to show he did not have a TUE......yeah, that backfired.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> This doesn't get talked about much these days but should have been the nail the coffin given how the whole thing shook out and the results.
> 
> I mean the only real argument against them is it wasn't an official test so the positive riders couldn't be sanctioned, which isn't an argument against the riders doping just an argument about "due process" as it doesn't explain how the exogenous EPO got there.


Scarponi, Basso, Ullrich, and Valverde did not have positive tests, but the rules are different for Wonderboy.......for now, USADA will fix that soon.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Click the link. The source is Micheal Ashenden, inventor of the EPO test and former head of the UCI Biopassport.
> 
> What leak? lEquipe got the anonymous results via the French version of the freedom of information act as LNDD is Federally funded. They would have remained anonymous but Armstrong foolishly allowed the UCI to release his testing form (With the tracking numbers) to show he did not have a TUE......yeah, that backfired.


Exactly the whole way it played out rules out "sabotage" and the pattern of the positives wasn't consistent within any sort of degradation of the EPO leading to false positives which IIRC wouldn't have led to false positives it would have simply led to an inability to isolate the EPO protein in the first place.

Let's not forget too, the other known riders, because all of the prologue riders tested were positive and it's known who is tested daily, ended up either caught or admitted to doping later, which might incline someone to believe they were doping in '99 at the Tour too and the retroactive testing detected it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Scarponi, Basso, Ullrich, and Valverde did not have positive tests, but the rules are different for Wonderboy.......for now, USADA will fix that soon.


You've got more faith than me, if I had to bet, I'd still lay money on the whole thing to just quietly go away. In so many respects Armstrong is too big to fail. Lots of folks in lots of high places with a vested interest in not seeing him go down.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Jan was not dealt with at the time, his case drifted for years.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with you. I wish this would all go away as well. Lance is one of the last major riders from that era to escape a sanction. I am glad he is choosing to give up rather then fight a losing battle, it will save WADA millions and still send the message that no matter how big a myth a rider builds they are not too big to fail.
> 
> If you ask any Pro what the key deterrent to doping and they will almost always tell you the fear of getting caught and publicly humiliated. Sanctioning Lance will not cost much $$ if he does not fight it and save them $$ in the long run as riders see that even the big guys will get nailed eventually


Yes his case drifted even though he really didn't compete again. I wonder how much that case cost the testing powers that be. Maybe they could have used that money to develop the EPO Cera test earlier, without the riders knowledge to catch, sanction, and publicly humiliate riders which are current and have more earning potential to lose IMO than a LA who, as you know due to being cornered (finally) gives a non admission... admission to doping. Not really humiliating to say heck I'm sick of this sh** just sanction me already.....whatever....
Now if some of these rumors you have been hearing and passing along as truth to the forum do indeed turn out to be true LA will lose some cash, but not all of it as I would hope his $ advisers have protected him from these such issues should they come up. (he knew they might IMO) 
You mentioned LA not fighting would save WADA millions, how many millions did they spend to get to this point? Take those millions already spent and develop methods to test for blood transfusions, in secret if possible. Now that would rock the doping world as it seems transfusions are the grand tour GCs preferred method of in competition doping. That would put the fear of being caught and humiliated on the forefront of riders minds. IMO


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Yes his case drifted even though he really didn't compete again. I wonder how much that case cost the testing powers that be. Maybe they could have used that money to develop the EPO Cera test earlier, without the riders knowledge to catch, sanction, and publicly humiliate riders which are current and have more earning potential to lose IMO than a LA who, as you know due to being cornered (finally) gives a non admission... admission to doping. Not really humiliating to say heck I'm sick of this sh** just sanction me already.....whatever....
> Now if some of these rumors you have been hearing and passing along as truth to the forum do indeed turn out to be true LA will lose some cash, but not all of it as I would hope his $ advisers have protected him from these such issues should they come up. (he knew they might IMO)
> You mentioned LA not fighting would save WADA millions, how many millions did they spend to get to this point? Take those millions already spent and develop methods to test for blood transfusions, in secret if possible. Now that would rock the doping world as it seems transfusions are the grand tour GCs preferred method of in competition doping. That would put the fear of being caught and humiliated on the forefront of riders minds. IMO


So only poor dopers should be pursued as it saves WADA $$$? Really?

You are confused on Ullrich, he was pursued by the UCI, not WADA so there was zero impact on the CERA test. Not that it would anyway as the CERA test is was very cheap to develop. The Manufacture just said "Look for this molecule" 

Once Floyd opened the doors USADA and the Feds were shocked how many people wanted to come forward and give testimony. Fighting appeals is expansive, not too expensive to take depositions. 

Should USADA ignore all this evidence just because Armstrong is rich or because he tricked a lot of gullible fans into believing the myth?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So only poor dopers should be pursued as it saves WADA $$$? Really?
> 
> You are confused on Ullrich, he was pursued by the UCI, not WADA so there was zero impact on the CERA test. Not that it would anyway as the CERA test is was very cheap to develop. The Manufacture just said "Look for this molecule"
> 
> Once Floyd opened the doors USADA and the Feds were shocked how many people wanted to come forward and give testimony. Fighting appeals is expansive, not too expensive to take depositions.
> 
> Should USADA ignore all this evidence just because Armstrong is rich or because he tricked a lot of gullible fans into believing the myth?


I don't believe I ever said "only poor dopers should be pursued" I said let's focus on those currently competing and thus having the most to lose in terms of making money off of cycling. (those current pro riders which are afraid of being caught and humiliated you mentioned)
If whatever monies recently spent by whatever governing agencies (UCI, Swiss Fed, German Fed, Spaish Fed) to go after Ullrich's 2005 podium were used by those bodies to work with testing agencies and enforcement agencies in development and enforcement of tests, cycling would be better off now and in the future IMO. IMO I don't believe anyone really cares about Ullrich's podium in 2005. What did he get again, I honestly don't know.
I do recall a number of stories which came out after Ricco what caught citing the manufacture of Cera assisted in developing a test for it. That is the kind of support we need from drug manufactures. It also frees up $ to develop new test for transfusions and masking methods, and to increase the testing of athletes. I don't believe I'm to confused about the Ullirch case and the bigger picture.
Unless you can cite sources for the swarm of people coming forward to testify to the USADA and Fed I will take that statement as rumor as I can only think of 4 which came out.
I never said the USADA should ignore evidence concerning LA. I stated IMO chasing LA and something which will never be repeated (I'm referring to the doping environment in cycling during the 90s thru mid 2000s not LA's 7 wins) is using resources which could be focused on today and the future of cycling. If I were racing professionally the fact that LA doped and could be caught now would not concern me as much as my training, racing, and how I can increase my professional and financial success. If I was being tested more frequently and with testing methods I did not know about I would certainly not risk all the effort I put out to get where I'm at.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> I don't believe I ever said "only poor dopers should be pursued" I said let's focus on those currently competing and thus having the most to lose in terms of making money off of cycling. (those current pro riders which are afraid of being caught and humiliated you mentioned)
> If whatever monies recently spent by whatever governing agencies (UCI, Swiss Fed, German Fed, Spaish Fed) to go after Ullrich's 2005 podium were used by those bodies to work with testing agencies and enforcement agencies in development and enforcement of tests, cycling would be better off now and in the future IMO. IMO I don't believe anyone really cares about Ullrich's podium in 2005. What did he get again, I honestly don't know.
> I do recall a number of stories which came out after Ricco what caught citing the manufacture of Cera assisted in developing a test for it. That is the kind of support we need from drug manufactures. It also frees up $ to develop new test for transfusions and masking methods, and to increase the testing of athletes. I don't believe I'm to confused about the Ullirch case and the bigger picture.
> Unless you can cite sources for the swarm of people coming forward to testify to the USADA and Fed I will take that statement as rumor as I can only think of 4 which came out.
> I never said the USADA should ignore evidence concerning LA. I stated IMO chasing LA and something which will never be repeated (I'm referring to the doping environment in cycling during the 90s thru mid 2000s not LA's 7 wins) is using resources which could be focused on today and the future of cycling. If I were racing professionally the fact that LA doped and could be caught now would not concern me as much as my training, racing, and how I can increase my professional and financial success. If I was being tested more frequently and with testing methods I did not know about I would certainly not risk all the effort I put out to get where I'm at.


Ask any Pro the #1 reason why they do not dope and the most likely answer is the public shame from getting caught. Retroactive testing and sanctions for "Untouchable" riders like Lance is a huge deterrence. 

I know of at least 15 riders, friends, and staff that testified. You will find out who they are when USADA files and the Qui Tam case proceeds. I did not read about them in a article, they told me or I heard about it through mutual friends. The fact is if you were a Pro in Europe in the 90's/00's or a staff member the chances are high you talked.....and only a few talked reluctantly. 

As Lance is a current Professional in a WADA sanctioned sport it appears we can agree that going after him makes sense.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> You've got more faith than me, if I had to bet, I'd still lay money on the whole thing to just quietly go away. In so many respects Armstrong is too big to fail. Lots of folks in lots of high places with a vested interest in not seeing him go down.


He certainly tried to stop USADA but did not find Howeman or Tygart as politically motivated as Biortte. The result is his multiple "I give up" interviews. 

The next step is the smear fest. Howement, Tygart, their families, friends. They are now targets


----------



## Coolhand

asgelle said:


> You don't find a direct quote from Michael Ashenden informative?


Not from some dude's blog, no. Prefer better sources- he had to give more than one interview right? Maybe cyclingnews?


----------



## asgelle

Coolhand said:


> Not from some dude's blog, no. Prefer better sources- he had to give more than one interview right? Maybe cyclingnews?


Cyclingnews, now that's funny.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Coolhand said:


> Not from some dude's blog, no. Prefer better sources- he had to give more than one interview right? Maybe cyclingnews?


I guess it is always easier to attack the messenger then discuss the message. 

It is seldom that any cycling media explores a topic as in depth and detailed as NYV did with Ashenden. The words are that of an expert, the vehicle of delivery matters little


----------



## asgelle

Coolhand said:


> Not from some dude's blog, no.


The fact that you don't know who Andy Shen is doesn't mean he's not respected. Cycling Fans Root for Dopers to Get Caught - NYTimes.com
Or is the N.Y. Times just a bunch of dudes with some paper and ink?


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ask any Pro the #1 reason why they do not dope and the most likely answer is the public shame from getting caught.


yeah? I've got a couple dozen pro riders right down the hall I can talk too and several share a big house a couple doors down the street from me. I'll go ask them right now ....

:mad2:


----------



## asgelle

Samadhi said:


> yeah? I've got a couple dozen pro riders right down the hall I can talk too and several share a big house a couple doors down the street from me. I'll go ask them right now ....


Hard to tell, but it sounds like you may be being facetious. But given how close you are to Boulder, home to many professional riders, it shouldn't be hard to meet them to talk to, if not ride with. Nevertheless, if that should be too hard, many of them will be in Denver in a few weeks for a little race they're having.


----------



## Samadhi

asgelle said:


> Hard to tell, but it sounds like you may be being facetious. But given how close you are to Boulder, home to many professional riders, it shouldn't be hard to meet them to talk to, if not ride with.


You don't know much about Boulder, do you?

It's not like there's pro's hanging out on Pearl Street looking for mere mortals, such as myself, to talk to about doping. The chances of getting to talk to a pro rider in B-Town about anything is only slightly better than going on a ride with one. The chances of getting the talk is just about zero.

Just meeting a pro is nigh unto impossible. One reason is they're like serial killers - they look just like everyone else, so how do you pick one out of a crowd? Meeting a pro in Boulder is even more impossible if you're not from Boulder and Boulderoids don't come to Denver to hang out or ride. We call it Planet Boulder for a reason. It's quite different and separate from the rest of Colorado.



> Nevertheless, if that should be too hard, many of them will be in Denver in a few weeks for a little race they're having.


I'm sure, and I'll bet they'll have all sorts of free time to chat with complete strangers about their feelings on doping, too.


----------



## asgelle

Samadhi said:


> Just meeting a pro is nigh unto impossible. One reason is they're like serial killers - they look just like everyone else, so how do you pick one out of a crowd?


I don't live in Colorado but I haven't had much trouble meeting and talking with several Pro's.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> yeah? I've got a couple dozen pro riders right down the hall I can talk too and several share a big house a couple doors down the street from me. I'll go ask them right now ....
> 
> :mad2:


If you make it to Denver you should ask JV how many of his riders and staff talked to the Feds. Lots

You are welcome to pretend this is just a couple of disgruntled liars....but in the end you will just be as surprised as Johan was when he was stopped coming off the plane


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Jeff Spencer
Alan Lim
Matt White
JV, 
VDV
Hincapie
Andreu (both)
Stephanie
Mike Anderson
Tony Cruz
Levi
Floyd
Tyler
Bobby
Chann
Johnny Weltz
Mike Anderson

and many more. Nice of the Feds to share their evidence with USDA, saved them a bunch of money. As Lance already says he will not fight this my be the cheapest sanction ever


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you make it to Denver


Make it to Denver? Denver? Let's see, the next time I'm going to be in Denver with be ....... wait a minute ....... I AM IN DENVER!!! Wow that's a relief. I thought for a minute maybe, there, I had died and gone to Minnesota




> you should ask JV how many of his riders and staff talked to the Feds. Lots


Why should I care about that, Falsetti? I don't care who's talked to the feds about anything. And it's not like I would be a great imposition, either. My office is right across the street from the federal courts.



> You are welcome to pretend this is just a couple of disgruntled liars....


Hmmmm.... where do you get this martyr complex, Falsetti? Have I ever even hinted at you being a liar? If show fits, by all means wear it, but I don't think you're lying. Obsessed and perhaps deranged, but no, I don't think you're a liar.


----------



## Samadhi

asgelle said:


> I don't live in Colorado but I haven't had much trouble meeting and talking with several Pro's.


Well, come on out and introduce me to a few. Bring your bike. I'll take you on a couple killer rides while you're in town. I know one that goes right by real dinosaur tracks. How many rides like that have YOU got?

Bring Falsetti with you. We'll introduce him to some nice ladies on East Colfax. THAT ought to mellow him out a bit  he doesn't have to bring his bike. I don't think he has one anyway


----------



## Chris-X

*Nice catch!*



asgelle said:


> The fact that you don't know who Andy Shen is doesn't mean he's not respected. Cycling Fans Root for Dopers to Get Caught - NYTimes.com
> Or is the N.Y. Times just a bunch of dudes with some paper and ink?


Missed this one.

I believe this may be Festinagirl



Bianchigirl said:


> Walsh is enormously credible - and a highly respected, award winning sporting journalist whose been writing on the Tour for many years - his book 'Inside the Tour de France' is one of the best written about the race.
> 
> The only people who question Walsh's credibility are those who have either no idea of his career or who slavishly follow the Disco PR line.


She is no longer with us on RBR.



_Among the most knowledgeable and entertaining of these feeds are the ones written by the obsessive, recovering fan who use the Twitter handle Cycling Fans Anonymous, an English woman who calls herself *Festina Girl*, and the bike racers and cartoonists Andy Shen and Dan Schmalz who write as NY Velocity. _


----------



## goloso

Samadhi said:


> Make it to Denver? Denver? Let's see, the next time I'm going to be in Denver with be ....... wait a minute ....... I AM IN DENVER!!! Wow that's a relief. I thought for a minute maybe, there, I had died and gone to Minnesota
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I care about that, Falsetti? I don't care who's talked to the feds about anything. And it's not like I would be a great imposition, either. My office is right across the street from the federal courts.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.... where do you get this martyr complex, Falsetti? Have I ever even hinted at you being a liar? If show fits, by all means wear it, but I don't think you're lying. Obsessed and perhaps deranged, but no, I don't think you're a liar.


~~~~~


----------



## Samadhi

goloso said:


> ~~~~~


Nahhhhh .....

But THAT is not a Corgi!


----------



## froze

Dwayne Barry said:


> The EPO test is easy to "beat", actually you generally don't have to beat the test since EPO is detectable for a short period of time and OOC testing use to be and probably relatively speaking is still quite sparse. People also seem to forget or realize how lax the testing environment was up until a few years ago, which is why techniques like the protease destruction of EPO worked. It's why there was a whole rash of testosterone and EPO positives when Gripper came in and they actually started doing more frequent, random OOC testing.
> 
> Then, of course, if you didn't want to take your chance with EPO you could simply blood dope and rely on other non-detectable hormones than EPO to restore your blood levels following a withdrawal. I can't remember from Tyler Hamilton's doping schedule in winter/spring before is LBL win if he was using EPO too, but he was using a bunch of hormones in conjunction with the blood doping procedures. Which begs the question of why didn't he test positive?


This infor goes against the web site I posted, see it again: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Science-Medicine/Science-topics/Q-A-EPO/

That site makes it clear it's easy to detect and users can't hide it. I don't pro race nor do I do drugs to make my bike riding experience better, so I don't know how these guys are able to hide it if they can. Maybe UCI ought to make it mandatory that all racers get tested before every race instead of random. 

How long does EPO stay in the system? Can they take the stuff in their spring training camps and be getting a benefit from it all racing season without taking it again? My understanding was they have to use it frequently throughout the season, which if this the case then being tested before every race would but a damper on that practice...at least until another drug comes along that current testing can't detect.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

froze said:


> This infor goes against the web site I posted, see it again: Q&A on EPO - World Anti-Doping Agency
> 
> That site makes it clear it's easy to detect and users can't hide it. I don't pro race nor do I do drugs to make my bike riding experience better, so I don't know how these guys are able to hide it if they can. Maybe UCI ought to make it mandatory that all racers get tested before every race instead of random.
> 
> How long does EPO stay in the system? Can they take the stuff in their spring training camps and be getting a benefit from it all racing season without taking it again? My understanding was they have to use it frequently throughout the season, which if this the case then being tested before every race would but a damper on that practice...at least until another drug comes along that current testing can't detect.


Well of course the folks trying to discourage doping are going to say take it you're going to get caught, and that is certainly much more likely to be true today than it was when Armstrong was racing. Effective OOC testing came on board after Armstrong retired the first time, and there wasn't even an EPO test for the first half of Armstrong's career. Testing in race isn't an effective way to deter doping because what idiot takes detectable drugs when there is at least a somewhat likely chance they will be tested, especially if they perform well. It is also my understanding that the EPO test has improved over the years. Regardless a full on therapeutic dose of EPO is only detectable for a couple of days, this is what allows for microdosing, taking small amounts that would clear your system within the window when you can be pretty sure you won't be tested.

This also doesn't address the issue that blood doping wasn't detectable at all during Armstrong's reign and still seems like a gray area.

I think the testing now, along with the biopassport has put a damping on the doping. I'd also like to believe the culture of professional cycling has changed as it seems pretty clear there was a culture where doping was expected and encouraged prior to effective testing putting the brakes on it.

In short, the argument that if Armstrong was doping he would have been caught is belied by the evidence that clearly points to ineffective dope testing at the time. Today's effective testing, which again largely centers around OOC testing and the biopassport, was simply not in place prior to his first retirement. We know of boat loads of riders who were doping full-stop then and never tested positive. They either got caught because of the police (Operation Puerto; Basso, Valverde, Ullrich) or were caught later as the testing became effective (e.g. Hamilton and host of other riders failing for testosterone and EPO in OOC tests, or were taking EPO variants that they thought were undetectable but actually were; .e.g. Ricco, Rebellin (I think)).

I've said it many times, it would be trivial for Armstrong to offer some pretty substantial evidence to show he wasn't doping throughout the years. Since hemotocrit readings have been routine for most of it (to keep EPO doping in check when there was no EPO test) Armstrong should let everyone see his HCT values. I suspect there would be quite an odd pattern where they are relatively low in the off-season and get awful close to the 50% limit around Tour time and stay high during the race, rather than dropping as is normal (which oddly happened during the Giro Armstrong rode after his return, but then not during the Tour where he performed O.K.). I'd also bet there would have been a shift from when riders switched from purely relying on EPO to blood doping.

Could even compare values from pre and post comeback when there were two entirely different testing environments, or from pre-EPO test and post when it appears that most top riders got on board with blood doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

During much of Armstrong's 7 Tours he was seldom tested out of competition, and the few times he was he received advanced notice of it. 

Mike Anderson, his former personal mechanic, accompanied him everywhere for 2 years. He said Armstrong was never tested OOC during any of the Ferrari directed Pre Tour training camps, in fact the only time he recalls an OOC was in Texas when Armstrong hid from the testers and pretend he had left the ranch. (This was prior to ADAMS). 

Even Armstrong admitted his Hct fluxuated from 38 to 47. In the early 2000's LEquipe reported his Hct was 49, in the 3rd week of the Tour. Even during his comeback he had values in the 3rd week of the Tour that were 15% higher then his off season baseline. 

The UCI saw all of this and did nothing. They did nothing when 6 of his samples tested positive for EPO, they did nothing when he tested positive for EPO at the Tour of Switzerland, they did nothing when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999.


----------



## PDex

Samadhi said:


> You don't know much about Boulder, do you?
> 
> It's not like there's pro's hanging out on Pearl Street looking for mere mortals, such as myself, to talk to about doping. The chances of getting to talk to a pro rider in B-Town about anything is only slightly better than going on a ride with one. The chances of getting the talk is just about zero.
> 
> Just meeting a pro is nigh unto impossible.


You would be surprised. It is quite easy.


----------



## Coolhand

PDex said:


> You would be surprised. It is quite easy.


Agreed.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Mike Anderson, his former personal mechanic, accompanied him everywhere for 2 years. He said Armstrong was never tested OOC during any of the Ferrari directed Pre Tour training camps, in fact the only time he recalls an OOC was in Texas when Armstrong hid from the testers and pretend he had left the ranch. (This was prior to ADAMS).
> 
> Even Armstrong admitted his Hct fluxuated from 38 to 47. In the early 2000's LEquipe reported his Hct was 49, in the 3rd week of the Tour. Even during his comeback he had values in the 3rd week of the Tour that were 15% higher then his off season baseline.
> 
> The UCI saw all of this and did nothing. They did nothing when 6 of his samples tested positive for EPO, they did nothing when he tested positive for EPO at the Tour of Switzerland, they did nothing when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999.


This is exactly the problem. UCI has had a long habit of turning their back on tests, then they pick and choose whom their going to crucify, how is that selection made? Because an American team and star rider wins too many TDF's and is taking away from their former European hero and French darling Merckx?? Funny, (now Baron) Merckx even admitted to doing drugs, was tested positive 3 times, yet no one is wanting to yank his wins and records. Even in Cycling, UK, dated 21 June 1969, p14 said this: "if on the one hand they have recognised the skill and competence of the doctors in charge of the controls in the Giro, they also took into account the fact that Eddy Merckx had never been found guilty of this before. In other words, they judged the affair sentimentally, with their hearts, instead of considering all the dry facts. If this were not Merckx, would all these artifices have been resorted to? No, without any shadow of doubt, no." I think that point is still valid today.

But the UCI has also found a lot of cyclists over years that tested positive; here's a list of riders, not sure if it's complete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling This proves what I was saying, most, if not all pros dope. Maybe what needs to be done instead of slap on the hand is a rider is banned from racing forever if their caught the first time instead of a race ban of one race, or 3 or 6 months, maybe a lifetime ban would stop this sort of crap? Then add in the element of a mandatory test with controls to prevent urine swapping before every race for all riders instead of a random test would add to the risk of getting caught and losing a career.

You would think that with all the people listed on that Wikipedia site that the UCI would know there is a problem, and a problem that's a lot wider then those that have been caught, and do everything they can to stop it. I would think!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> This is exactly the problem. UCI has had a long habit of turning their back on tests, then they pick and choose whom their going to crucify, how is that selection made? Because an American team and star rider wins too many TDF's and is taking away from their former European hero and French darling Merckx?? Funny, (now Baron) Merckx even admitted to doing drugs, was tested positive 3 times, yet no one is wanting to yank his wins and records. Even in Cycling, UK, dated 21 June 1969, p14 said this: "if on the one hand they have recognised the skill and competence of the doctors in charge of the controls in the Giro, they also took into account the fact that Eddy Merckx had never been found guilty of this before. In other words, they judged the affair sentimentally, with their hearts, instead of considering all the dry facts. If this were not Merckx, would all these artifices have been resorted to? No, without any shadow of doubt, no." I think that point is still valid today.
> 
> But the UCI has also found a lot of cyclists over years that tested positive; here's a list of riders, not sure if it's complete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling This proves what I was saying, most, if not all pros dope. Maybe what needs to be done instead of slap on the hand is a rider is banned from racing forever if their caught the first time instead of a race ban of one race, or 3 or 6 months, maybe a lifetime ban would stop this sort of crap? Then add in the element of a mandatory test with controls to prevent urine swapping before every race for all riders instead of a random test would add to the risk of getting caught and losing a career.
> 
> You would think that with all the people listed on that Wikipedia site that the UCI would know there is a problem, and a problem that's a lot wider then those that have been caught, and do everything they can to stop it. I would think!


I am not really sure what your point is.....you lost me after you said Merckx was French, he is not even a Wallon, he is Flemish. 

It does appear that we agree that Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not really sure what your point is.....you lost me after you said Merckx was French, he is not even a Wallon, he is Flemish.
> 
> It does appear that we agree that Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI


I thought his point was clear if you read the post. They are being biased, a witch hunt, make an example of Lance all the while names like Merx gets off.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> I thought his point was clear if you read the post. They are being biased, a witch hunt, make an example of Lance all the while names like Merx gets off.


Really? Why don't you bring Coppi into it as well? 

Almost all of Armstrong's key contemporaries have had some form of sanction. The UCI had a bias toward propping the Armstrong myth, hardly a witch hunt


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Really? Why don't you bring Coppi into it as well?
> 
> Almost all of Armstrong's key contemporaries have had some form of sanction. The UCI had a bias toward propping the Armstrong myth, hardly a witch hunt


Witch hunt, poor choice of words on my part.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not really sure what your point is.....you lost me after you said Merckx was French, he is not even a Wallon, he is Flemish.
> 
> It does appear that we agree that Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI


I can barely read his silliness but I think he was saying Merckx was a darling of the French, which isn't true either.

But as I said, I can barely get through the LA apologia without my eyes glazing over.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am not really sure what your point is.....you lost me after you said Merckx was French, he is not even a Wallon, he is Flemish.
> 
> It does appear that we agree that Armstrong received special treatment from the UCI


I didn't mean to say he was French nor did I, I said he was their darling, and that the French loved him, for some reason, maybe because he did some racing for Peugeot, maybe because he spoke french too; but then I read that they later didn't like him probably due to him dropping the Peugeot race team to earn more money and thus they called him a spoiled child after that. But I also think that the UCI gave Merckx special treatment. Not sure why some riders get the special treatments and some don't, but I guess that's the life of a pro cyclist.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> I didn't mean to say he was French nor did I, I said he was their darling, and that the French loved him, for some reason, maybe because he did some racing for Peugeot, maybe because he spoke french too; but then I read that they later didn't like him probably due to him dropping the Peugeot race team to earn more money and thus they called him a spoiled child after that. But I also think that the UCI gave Merckx special treatment. Not sure why some riders get the special treatments and some don't, but I guess that's the life of a pro cyclist.


Merckx was not a favorite of the French. They felt that his domination of the sport made it too predictable and boring. These days they heckle him whenever he comes out with one of his stupid doping quotes, which seem to happen with increasing regularity.


----------



## orange_julius

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Merckx was not a favorite of the French. They felt that his domination of the sport made it too predictable and boring. These days they heckle him whenever he comes out with one of his stupid doping quotes, which seem to happen with increasing regularity.


And in fact Merckx himself decided to skip the Tour one of his prime years, due to deafening chorus of detractors who said he was too dominant.

Of course, let's not forget he was punched in the gut by a French fan in an edition of the TdF which could have seen him take a sixth win.

The Merckx rants about doping is funny and sad. One should read l'Equipe or even Le Soir to better appreciate the irony in that "former convicted doper complains anti-doping measures are too harsh."

Finally, as has been pointed out by many here, Merckx the senior introduced Dottore Ferrari to you-know-who.

Do all these not suggest that going after big-name dopers is a crucial effort against doping?


----------



## Chris-X

orange_julius said:


> And in fact Merckx himself decided to skip the Tour one of his prime years, due to deafening chorus of detractors who said he was too dominant.
> 
> Of course, let's not forget he was punched in the gut by a French fan in an edition of the TdF which could have seen him take a sixth win.
> 
> The Merckx rants about doping is funny and sad. One should read l'Equipe or even Le Soir to better appreciate the irony in that "former convicted doper complains anti-doping measures are too harsh."
> 
> Finally, as has been pointed out by many here, Merckx the senior introduced Dottore Ferrari to you-know-who.
> 
> Do all these not suggest that going after big-name dopers is a crucial effort against doping?


Why do you love cancer and hate excellence?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Good post.


----------



## badge118

orange_julius said:


> And in fact Merckx himself decided to skip the Tour one of his prime years, due to deafening chorus of detractors who said he was too dominant.
> 
> Of course, let's not forget he was punched in the gut by a French fan in an edition of the TdF which could have seen him take a sixth win.
> 
> The Merckx rants about doping is funny and sad. One should read l'Equipe or even Le Soir to better appreciate the irony in that "former convicted doper complains anti-doping measures are too harsh."
> 
> Finally, as has been pointed out by many here, Merckx the senior introduced Dottore Ferrari to you-know-who.
> 
> Do all these not suggest that going after big-name dopers is a crucial effort against doping?


Of course it is crucial. The problem is not that LA is big it is rather the time frame. The longer someone gets away with something, regardless of the reasons, the harder it becomes to get them. Pursuing an investigation that is well publicized that results in either no charges or a victory of sorts, usually does more damage to the cause than just acknowledging that sometimes the good guys lose. Maybe my career for almost 15 years now being about exactly all of this, gives me a different perspective? /shrug.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Of course it is crucial. The problem is not that LA is big it is rather the time frame. The longer someone gets away with something, regardless of the reasons, the harder it becomes to get them. Pursuing an investigation that is well publicized that results in either no charges or a victory of sorts, usually does more damage to the cause than just acknowledging that sometimes the good guys lose. Maybe my career for almost 15 years now being about exactly all of this, gives me a different perspective? /shrug.


I agree with you, however given the multiple interviews Armstrong has given recently where he clearly indicates he will not fight the USADA case it appears that some sanction is coming soon and it has a high possibility of success

There is a lot more to this mess. Armstrong knows he has to be very careful with his public statements or the status of the criminal case could change rapidly.


----------



## Chris-X

*So what?*



badge118 said:


> Of course it is crucial. The problem is not that LA is big it is rather the time frame. The longer someone gets away with something, regardless of the reasons, the harder it becomes to get them. Pursuing an investigation that is well publicized that results in either no charges or a victory of sorts, usually does more damage to the cause than just acknowledging that sometimes the good guys lose. Maybe my career for almost 15 years now being about exactly all of this, gives me a different perspective? /shrug.


It seems like you're wishing for this problem to be insurmountable as you're continually selling it.

Of course it's a problem that LA has gotten away with it for so long. Go back over his Tour reign and there's always a new excuse/attack to deal with the emerging truth. The guy has been fighting like crazy against French conspiracies, haters, effing trolls, 'I almost died, you think, I would put this stuff in my body?' All kinds of ridiculous crap from '99 up till the present. It takes the truth a long time to catch up with a lie. Even though it was clear as day back in 2000 that the guy is a cheat, the PR machine was still gaining tons of momentum and there were only a couple of people like Falsetti, who were spade calling the fraud. You see how many names he gets called now? How do you think it was back in 2000-2001? So after all these years now the guy just has an unhealthy obsession? Back in 2000 you question the myth and you're obviously wrong, as well as being French, a hater, a troll, someone with an axe to grind. Now after it's obvious he was right, and called spades for more than a decade, he's obsessed. Never mind that the guy knows all these people and knew and competed against them since they were teenagers.

What's doing the most damage is people who know he's guilty but legitimizing backing down.

Your logic is that he should continue to get away with it because he's already gotten away with it. It feeds into all this other silliness like Jawge/mark mcgwire, spouting this stupidity 'about not wanting to talk about the past, I want to talk about the future.' Of course he doesn't want to talk about his fraudulent past.

Then there's all this other crap about focusing on the current riders, owners, doctors and management, and Armstrong of course is the beneficiary of this. No! The most effective deterrent is to hold the "greatest fraud in sports history" accountable. Then these guys riding now understand that if someone as powerful as Armstrong isn't protected, no one will be. The people who are clean and honest will feel there is some kind of justice and the sport is a real competition and no longer a laughingstock.


----------



## The Weasel

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As I have said for over a year. Wonderboy, and his buddies, will be stuck in a mess of legal trouble for years.


Amazing powers there Nostradomus! This has been going on for years and you predicted a year ago that there would be more? Remarkable!

Do you think food prices will go up this year?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

He was a hallubba lotta fun to watch race the bike, but I've got to admit after all those years of being a Lance fan... and knowing all his esteemed predecessors and contemporaries were no better...what a d*ck.

Both personally and professionally. Bahhhh. Eff him. 

Aren't there any nice, honest, champion dopers with integrity out there anymore? wink-wink...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The Weasel said:


> Amazing powers there Nostradomus! This has been going on for years and you predicted a year ago that there would be more? Remarkable!
> 
> Do you think food prices will go up this year?


From the start I have said this will take a while. Any faster and the story would about a "Rush to judgement"

You do know that Johan was stopped by the Feds when he came into the country for ToC? They served him with a subpoena, told him he could not leave the States until he talked to them for a while. He spent the entire race hiding from the media. 

USADA, Qui Tam, SCA, Times of London, Criminal case. Lance may not be happy but his lawyers love the billable hours.


----------



## The Weasel

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You do know that Johan was stopped by the Feds when he came into the country for ToC?


Yes, we know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxWpU2IIzXI


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> From the start I have said this will take a while.


Rocket science, that.

You're brilliant, Falsetti, brilliant I tell you!:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It appears some are having trouble with the death of the myth. 

It is not my fault Armstrong, and his co-conspirators, are in trouble.


----------



## orange_julius

Doctor Falsetti said:


> From the start I have said this will take a while. Any faster and the story would about a "Rush to judgement"
> 
> You do know that Johan was stopped by the Feds when he came into the country for ToC? They served him with a subpoena, told him he could not leave the States until he talked to them for a while. He spent the entire race hiding from the media.
> 
> USADA, Qui Tam, SCA, Times of London, Criminal case. Lance may not be happy but his lawyers love the billable hours.


Bruyneel is reported to have been in attendance at A. Schleck's crowning for the 2010 Tour de France title. This was on May 29. Does this mean that the "talking" between Bruyneel and the Feds already happened? Is it public knowledge that the Feds forbade him leaving the US in order to facilitate this? 

Bruyneel Wanted To "motivate" Frank Schleck | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears some are having trouble with the death of the myth.


Who says he's a myth?

Do you even know the meaning of that word?

It seems that some folks have enormous wood to see that "myth" die.



> It is not my fault Armstrong, and his co-conspirators, are in trouble.


Geez, Falsetti, has anyone blamed you for anything LA has allegedly done? :mad2:

Talk about martyr complex .....

Are you doing all this LA-hating so you can try to get people to feel sorry because you're being persecuted for your views?

BTW, what kind of bike do you ride?


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> *Who says he's a myth?*
> 
> Do you even know the meaning of that word?
> 
> It seems that some folks have enormous wood to see that "myth" die.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, Falsetti, has anyone blamed you for anything LA has allegedly done? :mad2:
> 
> Talk about martyr complex .....
> 
> Are you doing all this LA-hating so you can try to get people to feel sorry because you're being persecuted for your views?
> 
> *BTW, what kind of bike do you ride*?


Why do the defenders of LA always ask this question? It's widely known that _they_ are the dilettantes of the sport.

Who says he's a myth?

Force Majeure - Lance Armstrong | Road Biking | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> Why do the defenders of LA always ask this question?


Of falsetti? I've noticed that. Maybe they really want to know what sort of bike he rides. I do!



> It's widely known that _they_ are the dilettantes of the sport.


Do they eat babies, too?



> Who says he's a myth?
> 
> Force Majeure - Lance Armstrong | Road Biking | OutsideOnline.com


I'd take anything Outside magazine printed to the bank. Thanx!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

As usual if they don't like the news they try to attack the messenger then whine when the messenger responds 

Yes, I ride. A lot. Close to 10,000 miles a year. Have been in and around the sport for decades. Have a wide selection of bikes, Ti , Carbon, and my new 29er. 

As for the word Myth you will find many definitions. 



> A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.





> an unfounded or false notion





> a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence


There was an active media campaign to built the Lance myth with absurd claims eagerly consumed by a clueless public. Now that the myth has been shown to be a big lie many of the dupes are getting angry.

I suggest pointing your anger at those who invented the fable, not asking if I ride a bike.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> Of falsetti? I've noticed that. Maybe they really want to know what sort of bike he rides. I do!
> 
> 
> 
> Do they eat babies, too?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take anything Outside magazine printed to the bank. Thanx!


Who cares what kind of bike anyone rides? Your hero's first book said it didn't matter.


Your second question? Indication the myth is defunct?

Outside magazine is the only media that promoted Armstrong mythology? I didn't know they had the power to make him wealthy enough so he could afford a private jet.

In Lance Armstrong's seventh and final triumph in the Tour - 12.26.05 - SI Vault

The peloton will not miss Lance Armstrong. Race fans will. :thumbsup:

The o/p notes that Armstrong is on the cover of Men's Journal where he announced he gave up. He's shirtless for the fans!:ihih:


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual if they don't like the news they try to attack the messenger then whine when the messenger responds


I'm indifferent to the news, actually. As to the messanger, he seems obsessed and not in any positive way. So it's not an attack on the messenger, except to say that his percieved obsession, tends to cloud the issue and cast doubt on his reason and motivation.



> Yes, I ride. A lot. Close to 10,000 miles a year. Have been in and around the sport for decades. Have a wide selection of bikes, Ti , Carbon, and my new 29er.
> <snip>
> I suggest pointing your anger at those who invented the fable, not asking if I ride a bike


Anger? I'm not angry. Not with you or even with those wasting their time obsessing over LA's Crimes Against Humanity. It isn't really all that important, y'know? It's one guy who may or may not have cheated in a race or races. Racing (of any kind) and cheating go together like peanut butter and jelly. It happens all the time and has been happening since the second race in history. It comes with the territory and will continue long after LA, you, and I are all gone from this world. The color of the sky will change before cheating in races stops. And this is bicycle racing for crying out loud! It may be important to us, but not to the rest of the world. In the Big Scheme of Things it isn't very important at all, so why so much fuss over LA. What happens to him won't change a thing.

Now if you were obsessing over ways to ensure that cheating stops and never happens again, THAT would be worth taking seriously. As it stands you're just swating at flies.

AND ..... thanx for the bike info. Sounds like a decent stable. and 10k/year? That's like 30 miles a day - awesome! Actually, though, I was more interested in the makes of bikes you own?


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual if they don't like the news they try to attack the messenger then whine when the messenger responds
> 
> Yes, I ride. A lot. Close to 10,000 miles a year. Have been in and around the sport for decades. Have a wide selection of bikes, Ti , Carbon, and my new 29er.
> 
> As for the word Myth you will find many definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an active media campaign to built the Lance myth with absurd claims eagerly consumed by a clueless public. Now that the myth has been shown to be a big lie many of the dupes are getting angry.
> 
> I suggest pointing your anger at those who invented the fable, not asking if I ride a bike.


I understand the anger from small children. Why are mature adults angry? Please help me understand.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> I'm indifferent to the news, actually. As to the messanger, he seems obsessed and not in any positive way. So it's not an attack on the messenger, except to say that his percieved obsession, tends to cloud the issue and cast doubt on his reason and motivation.


This is a doping forum. It is where people come to discuss doping in the sport of cycling. Are you next going to the wheel forum to call the guy who talks about wheels obsessed? 

Instead of labeling posters obsessed perhaps try discussing the topic for a change? 

Here is a nice interview with Howeman, the head of WADA. 
Howman: Sophisticated Cheat Is Most Dangerous Enemy | Cyclingnews.com



> the sophisticated cheat is the most dangerous enemy in the fight against doping





> The sophisticated cheat isn't just the athlete then, it's the complete entourage as well. The doctors, the chemists, the couriers and muted bystanders who see but never speak.


He should have added the PR people who push the myths. 

FYI, Howman does not ride a bike.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is a doping forum. It is where people come to discuss doping in the sport of cycling. Are you next going to the wheel forum to call the guy who talks about wheels obsessed?
> 
> Instead of labeling posters obsessed perhaps try discussing the topic for a change?


Okay, we can do that ....

Obsessing of single instances of individuals doping is not going to stop anything.

It seems all we're really discussing is punishing dopers, but not trying to prevent doping

If the history of the sport teaches us anything it's that punishing dopers doesn't stop doping

To continue to insist on punishing dopers, or hounding suspected dopers without actually trying to get to the actual root of the problem qualifies as insanity if the intention of this whole mess is to stop doping because what's being done doesn't really accomplish that end nor does it seem to be able to.

So what is it you really want Doc, do you want to see an end to cheating in bike racing, or do you want to destroy people?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Okay, we can do that ....
> 
> Obsessing of single instances of individuals doping is not going to stop anything.
> 
> It seems all we're really discussing is punishing dopers, but not trying to prevent doping
> 
> If the history of the sport teaches us anything it's that punishing dopers doesn't stop doping
> 
> To continue to insist on punishing dopers, or hounding suspected dopers without actually trying to get to the actual root of the problem qualifies as insanity if the intention of this whole mess is to stop doping because what's being done doesn't really accomplish that end nor does it seem to be able to.
> 
> So what is it you really want Doc, do you want to see an end to cheating in bike racing, or do you want to destroy people?



It appears your obsession with me has enabled you to ignore the multiple posts I have made on this topic and ignore the article I just linked

As I have written many times getting doctors like Ferrari, Fuentes, Marti, out of the sport is key. Directors like Brunyeel, Martinelli, Salvio, and Saiz do huge damage to the sport. If you read the article I just linked and the quotes I highlighted you would know that Howman agrees with me. It is far more then just the athlete, going after the enablers is key. Cross agency sharing of knowledge, like what Howman is doing with Interpol, is key to success. These are all topics I have written about many, many times. Perhaps your obsession with Armstrong has allowed you to ignore these posts? 

You are welcome to pretend that this is all about just one guy but it isn't.


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears your obsession with me has enabled you to ignore the multiple posts I have made on this topic and ignore the article I just linked
> 
> As I have written many times getting doctors like Ferrari, Fuentes, Marti, out of the sport is key. Directors like Brunyeel, Martinelli, Salvio, and Saiz do huge damage to the sport. If you read the article I just linked and the quotes I highlighted you would know that Howman agrees with me. It is far more then just the athlete, going after the enablers is key. Cross agency sharing of knowledge, like what Howman is doing with Interpol, is key to success. These are all topics I have written about many, many times. Perhaps your obsession with Armstrong has allowed you to ignore these posts?.


No, but I don't take them seriiously because they are symptoms of a problem and not the problem itself. Removing trainers or directors will only make room for other corrupt individuals to take their places. Removing doping athletes will only make room for more dopers.

Now, if you're content to simply root out cheaters and those who supply them, then you are content to punish and that only. Punishing cheating in any form of racing has never, and I do mean never, stopped cheating. All it really does is give those charged with apprehending cheaters justification for the budgets they have to operate with. If there were no cheaters these people would have no jobs. So, there is no real incentive to get to the bottom of it, because noone wants to loose their jobs.

And that's the hypocricy inherent in this whole mess. I think these anti-doping ganecies are quite content to leave the status quo as is. If positive, fundamental change came to the support, everyone in these agencies would be on the streats so the status quo serves them well. They actually want people to cheat so they can keep their jobs. Who gets screwed doesn't matter as long as they keep getting their paycyheck. In fact, having people to screw is part of the game plan.

So, getting all indignant and mentally erect over people like LA is actually absurd, because it's all a part of the plan.


----------



## Fireform

So there's no such thing as deterrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the whole penal system--after all, people still go right on stealing and murdering.


----------



## The Weasel

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong is not worth $125 million, not even close.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> No matter what a gossip site says Lance is not worth anywhere close to $100 million.


Do I hear $75 million?
So now you are an expert on the finances of Lance too?

Why don't you play The Price is Right and say he's not worth anywhere close to $1, so you can later say you were right on that too.


----------



## Chris-X

The Weasel said:


> Do I hear $75 million?
> So now you are an expert on the finances of Lance too?
> 
> Why don't you play The Price is Right and say he's not worth anywhere close to $1, so you can later say you were right on that too.


You're the Weasel?

Hmm, no kidding...


----------



## Samadhi

Fireform said:


> So there's no such thing as deterrence? Maybe we should just get rid of the whole penal system--after all, people still go right on stealing and murdering.


Well if you're content to go on punishing people for what they do, then by all means keep the penal system in place. because that's what it's for. If you're not interested in stopping crime then the US penal system is perfect, because all it does punish crime after the fact. It doesn't prevent crime. It doesn't stop crime. All it's intended to do is punish criminals by warehousing them.

I'm in favor of finding sensible, lasting solutions. I would prefer finding out what causes crime and do something about that, rather than wait for a crime to be committed before anything is done about it (which generally means too late).

The same is to be said for doping in sports at all levels. What we're doing isn't stopping anything and if we're interested in stopping it why do we support a system that has clearly failed to stop anything?

My feeling is we really don't want it stopped. Punishing people is a lot more entertaining. It's also much easier. We don't need, nor do we want real justice. All we want is to see people punished. It doesn't even matter if they're actually guilty of anything - we'll punish them anyway and if we aren't satisfied with the punishment we'll simply mete out some more.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> , because it's all a part of the plan.


Ahh yes, the plan. You figured it out. Don't say it too loud because once they know you know then you become a target. 

Lance always said it was a big French conspiracy. Does this plan also include Nazi Frogmen and space aliens?


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ahh yes, the plan. You figured it out. Don't say it too loud because once they know you know then you become a target.
> 
> Lance always said it was a big French conspiracy. Does this plan also include Nazi Frogmen and space aliens?


I believe this is the reason why doping threads get locked. The inevitable condescending remarks and the character attack.

However it is entertaining to follow.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Urb said:


> I believe this is the reason why doping threads get locked. The inevitable condescending remarks and the character attack.
> 
> However it is entertaining to follow.


I agree. All the "Obsessed" "Hater" "Why don't you go ride your bike" stuff gets old after a while.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

orange_julius said:


> Bruyneel is reported to have been in attendance at A. Schleck's crowning for the 2010 Tour de France title. This was on May 29. Does this mean that the "talking" between Bruyneel and the Feds already happened? Is it public knowledge that the Feds forbade him leaving the US in order to facilitate this?
> 
> Bruyneel Wanted To "motivate" Frank Schleck | Cyclingnews.com


Yes, it already happened.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears your obsession with me has enabled you to ignore the multiple posts I have made on this topic and ignore the article I just linked
> 
> As I have written many times getting doctors like Ferrari, Fuentes, Marti, out of the sport is key. Directors like Brunyeel, Martinelli, Salvio, and Saiz do huge damage to the sport. If you read the article I just linked and the quotes I highlighted you would know that Howman agrees with me. It is far more then just the athlete, going after the enablers is key. Cross agency sharing of knowledge, like what Howman is doing with Interpol, is key to success. These are all topics I have written about many, many times. Perhaps your obsession with Armstrong has allowed you to ignore these posts?
> 
> You are welcome to pretend that this is all about just one guy but it isn't.


I agree with you Doc, in fact I said the same stuff before as well. If you get the docs and the trainers out and eventually the other docs and trainers will decide it's not worth it to keep doping up their players. Just going after the rider will not make other riders stop, this has been proven over the years. Of course the big reason of this failure to get riders to stop is the slap on the wrist they get when they do the dope; if you ban a offending rider for life on the first positive drug screen then maybe the rest of the riders will get the idea and after a year of two of watching big riders fall to the wayside the risk will be too great to continue doping. But I don't see the UCI ever doing that. They need to go after the source, with the threat that if convicted they will be banned for life by having their medical license to practice revoked, or banned from coaching for life. The punishment has to be very severe to spread fear into the sport. Personally I think UCI gets a lot of payoffs, and I think because the UCI is dirty that the UCI cannot make these people stop, so the UCI just slaps wrists around to look like their taking action.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

froze said:


> I agree with you Doc, in fact I said the same stuff before as well. If you get the docs and the trainers out and eventually the other docs and trainers will decide it's not worth it to keep doping up their players. Just going after the rider will not make other riders stop, this has been proven over the years. Of course the big reason of this failure to get riders to stop is the slap on the wrist they get when they do the dope; if you ban a offending rider for life on the first positive drug screen then maybe the rest of the riders will get the idea and after a year of two of watching big riders fall to the wayside the risk will be too great to continue doping. But I don't see the UCI ever doing that. They need to go after the source, with the threat that if convicted they will be banned for life by having their medical license to practice revoked, or banned from coaching for life. The punishment has to be very severe to spread fear into the sport. Personally I think UCI gets a lot of payoffs, and I think because the UCI is dirty that the UCI cannot make these people stop, so the UCI just slaps wrists around to look like their taking action.


I do not believe in lifetime bans for a 1st offense. When a 21 year old rider is told "Take the shot or you do not start tomorrow" by their DS' or team doctor they often make the wrong choice (I know several who did)

Some doctors are already banned for life. Ferrari and Santuccione are both banned for life by CONI. Any riders who use them risk a sanction. Fuentes is again facing jail time in Spain. 

At the same time doctors with dirty past's are welcome with no problems. Rabobank ran a team doping program for years. When the management thought it was too risky they stopped the program......which made the Doctor who ran the program upset so he left in the middle of the season. His name was Geert Leinders. He works for Team Sky now 

Gilbert and Lotto had huge success last year, now nothing. This year OPQS had huge success. Was it because they hired Lotto's doctor, Jose Ibarguren? Why would any team hire Ibarguren? Riders who have tested positive on teams that employed him: Rumsas, Aitor Gonzalez, Ricco, Piepoli, Mayo, Landaluze, He was named as a doping doc by Voet way back in the 90's. Also named in the Mantua investigation......how does a guy like that remain employed? 

Liqugas hired the intire medical team from Fassa. They ran a team doping program while they were there....yet they are still employed

I could go on but you get the idea. There are plenty of clean riders and teams in the sport....and plenty of teams and riders doing the same old ****


----------



## froze

The lifetime ban thing is my opinion, that's all. But I believe riders and docs and coaches need to have that fear hanging over their necks that if their caught doing or dealing their banned for life. This sort of threat hanging over them would put an end to this crap fast. I know that sounds rough, but riders aren't not taking UCI seriously enough, thus UCI needs to make it serious. 

And the threat of "take the shot or you don't start" would also stop, because a team captain or coach is not going to risk their riders getting banned forever because of that take a shot or don't start nonsense. 

But keep in mind, none of this will work if it's random, because then your right, they may take the chance and get the shot so they can start knowing that they may not get checked. UCI needs to make it a manatory check before the start of all races by all riders, then playing the game of beating the random odds of getting checked would be eliminated.

Just an opinion of course.


----------



## atpjunkie

*what is so mythical?*



Samadhi said:


> Who says he's a myth?
> 
> Do you even know the meaning of that word?
> 
> It seems that some folks have enormous wood to see that "myth" die.
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, Falsetti, has anyone blamed you for anything LA has allegedly done? :mad2:
> 
> Talk about martyr complex .....
> 
> Are you doing all this LA-hating so you can try to get people to feel sorry because you're being persecuted for your views?
> 
> BTW, what kind of bike do you ride?


he doped
all the guys he beat doped (Ullrich, Pantani, Basso ...) 
like doped batters breaking home run records off doped pitchers
level playing field

yawn


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> The lifetime ban thing is my opinion, that's all. But I believe riders and docs and coaches need to have that fear hanging over their necks that if their caught doing or dealing their banned for life. This sort of threat hanging over them would put an end to this crap fast.


I doubt it.

In other areas, doing what you suggest and looking for similar results, has not worked. 

Let's look at a real crime, Marijuana sales. In the past penalties for dealing Marijana used to be pretty stiff. Back in the 60s and 70s, Texas, for instance would imprison you for life. While it did succeed in putting people in prison for life, it did little or nothing to stop people from dealing. Too much money involved to ignore. The same laws applied to simple position. In Texas, if you got caught with a couple seeds in your pocket, you could kiss your life goodby. Just the same, the law did little to curb use just like it did little to deter distribution.

Texas, like many other states, would eventualy decriminalize Marijuana possession, because the old laws weren't working and the drain on resources wasn't justified.

Trying to stop use, by punishing it or by interdicting supply won't work. It would be foolish to waste time and money to even consider it. That is provided that the whole purpose is to stop doping. If you want it stopped, other measures must be taken.



> And the threat of "take the shot or you don't start" would also stop, because a team captain or coach is not going to risk their riders getting banned forever because of that take a shot or don't start nonsense.


They probably don't care about the riders one way or the other. What they care about is wins. It doesn't matter who gets the win, and by all appearances it doesn't really matter how. If a rider won't take one for the team, then there are plenty of others waiting in the wings for their chance who will.



> UCI needs to make it a manatory check before the start of all races by all riders, then playing the game of beating the random odds of getting checked would be eliminated.


That would serve to remove doping riders from the peleton, but that's all.

Does the UCI have the resources to do something like that - people, money, etc?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> he doped
> all the guys he beat doped (Ullrich, Pantani, Basso ...)
> like doped batters breaking home run records off doped pitchers
> *level playing field*
> 
> yawn


Did they all pay off the UCI?
Did they all get advance notice of surprise testing?
Did they all have multiple testosterone ratio positives ignored by their Fed?
Were they all allowed to give a back dated TUE when they tested positive for Cortisone?
Did the all respond in the same way to Oxygen vector doping? 
Did they all get a positive for EPO ignore by the UCI?
Did they all have their elevated Hcg levels ignored?
Did they all have access to Hemassit?
Did they all have a private jet to fly their drugs around on?
Did they all have a clueless media who unquestionably parroted their every lie?
Did they all harass friends, staff, teammates who told the truth?
Did they all have exclusive access to Ferrari?

The level playing field never existed

Yawn


----------



## Chris-X

atpjunkie said:


> he doped
> all the guys he beat doped (Ullrich, Pantani, Basso ...)
> like doped batters breaking home run records off doped pitchers
> level playing field
> 
> yawn


The problem is that most of the current players don't feel that way. Kimmage informed you of that sentiment when upon Armstrong's return, he noted, "the cancer is back."



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did they all pay off the UCI?
> Did they all get advance notice of surprise testing?
> Did they all have multiple testosterone ratio positives ignored by their Fed?
> Were they all allowed to give a back dated TUE when they tested positive for Cortisone?
> Did the all respond in the same way to Oxygen vector doping?
> Did they all get a positive for EPO ignore by the UCI?
> Did they all have their elevated Hcg levels ignored?
> Did they all have access to Hemassit?
> Did they all have a private jet to fly their drugs around on?
> Did they all have a clueless media who unquestionably parroted their every lie?
> Did they all harass friends, staff, teammates who told the truth?
> Did they all have exclusive access to Ferrari?
> 
> The level playing field never existed
> 
> Yawn


I was conversing with a very prominent figure currently in Professional Cycling. He sent me a note which read;

"Intellectually gifted people tend to be much more disturbed by injustice."

So Dr. Falsetti, I just want to thank you for doing the right thing here.


----------



## covenant

Chris-X said:


> I was conversing with a very prominent figure currently in Professional Cycling. He sent me a note which read;
> 
> "Intellectually gifted people tend to be much more disturbed by injustice."
> 
> So Dr. Falsetti, I just want to thank you for doing the right thing here.











:thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X

*I've no problem with mockery.*



covenant said:


> :thumbsup:


But the fact is that the most important people impacted by the fraud completely rebut the argument that there is somehow a level playing field.

Even GWB in his State of the Union in 2003 recognized the awful fallout on society from PED's.

You tout yourself as "The Gimlet Eye?" Why? A lot of self regard there for you to be critiquing what matters to others.

And btw, my post includes what matters to others who are directly affected by the fraud that is Lance Armstrong.


----------



## goloso

covenant said:


> :thumbsup:


.....


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

covenant said:


> :


Is that Wonderboy and College?


----------



## robdamanii

How in god's name is this thread still going on? Nothing new has been said in 8 pages...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

robdamanii said:


> How in god's name is this thread still going on? Nothing new has been said in 8 pages...


Yet you still thought it was worth contributing thanks:thumbsup:

I guess you missed the part about Johan being stopped by the Feds as soon as he entered the US, getting served, then hiding out the entire ToC


----------



## froze

Samadhi said:


> I doubt it.
> 
> In other areas, doing what you suggest and looking for similar results, has not worked.
> 
> Let's look at a real crime, Marijuana sales. That would serve to remove doping riders from the peleton, but that's all.
> 
> Does the UCI have the resources to do something like that - people, money, etc?


Marijuana is a bit different from sports doping. Marijuana effected a much larger population user base then cycling dopers. Marijuana they jailed people, jailing drained taxpayer revenues, banning cycing dopers does not...it may drain the resources of UCI with legal costs but UCI could fine the player and the team the amount of the legal cost incurred, but it won't drain taxpayers money. With your type of example would lead one to think we should legalize all forms of drugs; while it would stop the drain of resources in the legal end of it, in countries where they did that it's draining the resources of their welfare and medical systems; your just trading one drain for another. I'm not disagreeing with legalizing marijuana, but I am disagreeing with how the UCI should go about preventing dopers. But again, it's just my useless opinion.


----------



## Samadhi

froze said:


> Marijuana is a bit different from sports doping.


Quite right, but I was using it as an example of the futility of punishment as a method of prevention. People don't repond to respond to punishment in a positive way, because they are either aware of the potential and don't care, or they think they won't get caught.

There are those who will always do the right thing and compete fairly within the rules, but there are still those who feel that the rules don't apply to them or that any penalties for being caught breaking the rules are past acting.

But, if we insist on punishing dopers, why not go all the way?

For one offense: 

Rider:
is banned for the season.
is required to return all prize monies.
forced to wear an all-black jersey for 3 seasons (no sponsors).
must pay fines

Team:
is banned for the season.
must return all prize monies.
must pay fines

Sponsors:
banned from involvement on any level for the season
must pay fines

And that's a first offense scenario.

You can't really focus soley on the riders. Teams that know about their riders doping are complicit. If they don't know, they should know and be acting on it and are therefore still complicit. Sponsors are the same as the teams - they either know and don't care or are ignorant but shouldn't be caring.

Take it a step further. Any event where doping is found to occur is immediately cancelled and faces being removed from the calendar the following season.

Let's get mideval! Any rider, team or sponsor involved in doping must offer relatives to be held hostage against good behavior and fair play.

End with such harsh and draconian measures, people will still break doping rules. Why? Because it will still be worth the risk to try.

Personally, I think the teams and sponsors are as much to blame as the riders, if not more so.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> Quite right, but I was using it as an example of the futility of punishment as a method of prevention. People don't repond to respond to punishment in a positive way, because they are either aware of the potential and don't care, or they think they won't get caught.
> 
> There are those who will always do the right thing and compete fairly within the rules, but there are still those who feel that the rules don't apply to them or that any penalties for being caught breaking the rules are past acting.
> 
> But, if we insist on punishing dopers, why not go all the way?
> 
> For one offense:
> 
> Rider:
> is banned for the season.
> is required to return all prize monies.
> forced to wear an all-black jersey for 3 seasons (no sponsors).
> must pay fines
> 
> Team:
> is banned for the season.
> must return all prize monies.
> must pay fines
> 
> Sponsors:
> banned from involvement on any level for the season
> must pay fines
> 
> And that's a first offense scenario.
> 
> You can't really focus soley on the riders. Teams that know about their riders doping are complicit. If they don't know, they should know and be acting on it and are therefore still complicit. Sponsors are the same as the teams - they either know and don't care or are ignorant but shouldn't be caring.
> 
> Take it a step further. Any event where doping is found to occur is immediately cancelled and faces being removed from the calendar the following season.
> 
> Let's get mideval! Any rider, team or sponsor involved in doping must offer relatives to be held hostage against good behavior and fair play.
> 
> End with such harsh and draconian measures, people will still break doping rules. Why? Because it will still be worth the risk to try.
> 
> Personally, I think the teams and sponsors are as much to blame as the riders, if not more so.


"To the mind that is still, the universe surrenders." ~Lao Tzu

The universe isn't surrendering to your mind anytime soon?


----------



## froze

Samadhi said:


> But, if we insist on punishing dopers, why not go all the way?
> 
> For one offense:
> 
> Rider:
> is banned for the season.
> is required to return all prize monies.
> forced to wear an all-black jersey for 3 seasons (no sponsors).
> must pay fines
> 
> Team:
> is banned for the season.
> must return all prize monies.
> must pay fines
> 
> Sponsors:
> banned from involvement on any level for the season
> must pay fines
> 
> And that's a first offense scenario.
> 
> Sponsors are the same as the teams - they either know and don't care or are ignorant but shouldn't be caring.
> 
> Take it a step further. Any event where doping is found to occur is immediately cancelled and faces being removed from the calendar the following season.
> 
> End with such harsh and draconian measures, people will still break doping rules. Why? Because it will still be worth the risk to try.
> 
> Personally, I think the teams and sponsors are as much to blame as the riders, if not more so.


Good compromise from my position, I agree with the first offensive punishment you outlined except for the sponsor. But then I would take it a step further for the second offense and give a lifetime ban to the repeat offender rider, and another season for the team. 

I wouldn't be for banning the sponsor for one season or for life because the sponsor may or may not know that their team is doping and without positively knowing you can't ban Shimano (for example) from ever being a race team sponsor...unless you have positive proof that they knew and did nothing about it then be it Shimano or whoever can just say goodbye to racing! The second offense for the team would also include a larger fine and pre race drug screen for ALL events (which I think they should be doing regardless). 

And of course there will be the very few that will think they can get away with it, but that's true with the population in general, people steal from their work, cheat on their taxes, etc and think they can get away with it, they do for awhile. But with performance doping you can turn the screws much tighter then the general population illegal behavior, because you have a controlled environment and you can dictate the rules and the punishment, rules like mandatory pre/post race drug screen for riders, then harsh penalties for testing positive.

I know the entire team, including the coach, knows the team is doping or at least who is and who isn't. But there will be some that will argue that the coach may not know, I seriously doubt that, but if a team member or other evidence comes out that the coach ok'd it then the coach should be fined and banned for the season on the first offense and banned from coaching for life on the second offense.

There, I'm now a bit looser on my punishments. Personally I believe because of the small controlled group as cycling is that if the punishment is severe enough that you could get at least 99% of the riders to stop doping with a mandatory pre/post race drug screen for all riders, and the other 1% who think they won't get caught are just village idiots and shouldn't be racing anyways.


----------



## NextTime

It would be impossible for him to have missed it given how many times you've repeated it.


----------



## Chris-X

NextTime said:


> It would be impossible for him to have missed it given how many times you've repeated it.


Just illustrated the need for repetition as he apparently _did_ miss it.

Carry on....

oohhh,, I love these ads btw.:thumbsup:

http://secure.frs.com/freetrial/frs-fans2/armstrong?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1


----------



## physasst

*This is pretty funny....*

Really....who cares? Most people don't know who WADA is or USADA. I barely follow pro cycling, and to be honest, could care less if someone (regardless of who that is) doped 10 years ago. 

Personally, they just legalize the doping and let any athlete that wants to, dope in whatever manner they see fit. The amount of energy and resources spent on this strikes me as comical......

The only thing the majority of people will remember is that Lance was an inspiration and cancer survivor who beat the odds and became a cycling champion. Heck, I would bet most Americans don't even know what races he won.....other than he won a bunch...

This whole sideshow circus will never take away from that, because the majority of Americans either: 

A. won't believe it and will think Lance is being made a martyr...

B. won't even read or hear about it....

C. won't care one bit.....(probably the largest majority-you can count me in this group)

And if anyone thinks otherwise, you are seriously deluding yourselves.


----------



## Chris-X

physasst said:


> Really....who cares? Most people don't know who WADA is or USADA. I barely follow pro cycling, and to be honest, could care less if someone (regardless of who that is) doped 10 years ago.
> 
> Personally, they just legalize the doping and let any athlete that wants to, dope in whatever manner they see fit. The amount of energy and resources spent on this strikes me as comical......
> 
> The only thing the majority of people will remember is that Lance was an inspiration and cancer survivor who beat the odds and became a cycling champion. Heck, I would bet most Americans don't even know what races he won.....other than he won a bunch...
> 
> This whole sideshow circus will never take away from that, because the majority of Americans either:
> 
> *A. won't believe it and will think Lance is being made a martyr...*
> 
> B. won't even read or hear about it....
> 
> C. won't care one bit.....(probably the largest majority-you can count me in this group)
> 
> And if anyone thinks otherwise, you are seriously deluding yourselves.


Are you saying the USADA is going to kill Lance?


----------



## Subterfuge

Chris-X said:


> Are you saying the USADA is going to kill Lance?


LOL!!! If that happens, do you think that a new religion will spawn out of his martyrdom? A radical group demanding that all men wear bright colored spandex or else face public flogging?


----------



## froze

Chris-X said:


> Are you saying the USADA is going to kill Lance?


Well if the USADA doesn't kill him, all the hot air on this forum sure will.


----------



## Chris-X

froze said:


> Well if the USADA doesn't kill him, all the hot air on this forum sure will.


He still won't be a martyr. He'll just be lying in the grave he dug for himself.


----------



## OES

Plus eleventy.



physasst said:


> Really....who cares? Most people don't know who WADA is or USADA. I barely follow pro cycling, and to be honest, could care less if someone (regardless of who that is) doped 10 years ago.
> 
> Personally, they just legalize the doping and let any athlete that wants to, dope in whatever manner they see fit. The amount of energy and resources spent on this strikes me as comical......
> 
> The only thing the majority of people will remember is that Lance was an inspiration and cancer survivor who beat the odds and became a cycling champion. Heck, I would bet most Americans don't even know what races he won.....other than he won a bunch...
> 
> This whole sideshow circus will never take away from that, because the majority of Americans either:
> 
> A. won't believe it and will think Lance is being made a martyr...
> 
> B. won't even read or hear about it....
> 
> C. won't care one bit.....(probably the largest majority-you can count me in this group)
> 
> And if anyone thinks otherwise, you are seriously deluding yourselves.


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*



orangeclymer said:


> true words.............some fuggstick with a woody for LA...rrr:


Enjoy the posting vacation.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> He still won't be a martyr. He'll just be lying in the grave he dug for himself.


Yeah NO ONE out there will say people went after him because of a vendetta and that the system his unjust because NO ONE has said that about anyone else either.

Gosh you're silly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Yeah NO ONE out there will say people went after him because of a vendetta and that the system his unjust because NO ONE has said that about anyone else either.
> 
> Gosh you're silly.


Certainly there will be a few groupies who will cling to the persecution myth but after USADA strips him of his wins, the Qui Tam case, and Tyler's book the majority of the public will see him as a fraud.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Certainly there will be a few groupies who will cling to the persecution myth but after USADA strips him of his wins, the Qui Tam case, and Tyler's book the majority of the public will see him as a fraud.


A majority of the public has not read Tyler's book, nor know of hte Qui Tam case (I don't), and most don't even know what the USADA is. Nobody cares. I remember watching an interview with Hines Ward after one of his injuries and they were talking about how they would spin his blood down and give it back to him to help him recover from the injury faster. Again, nobody cares about cycling or doping, and nobody wants to waste money on this.


----------



## Chris-X

*This explains A LOT!*



badge118 said:


> Yeah NO ONE out there will say people went after him because of a vendetta and that the system his unjust because NO ONE has said that about anyone else either.
> 
> Gosh you're silly.


I'm silly? Your standard is unanimous agreement by EVERYONE? As a police officer, you don't run into any unreasonable people? So you're saying that even though you're convinced LA is a fraud, he has to be left alone because people buy into his propaganda?



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Certainly there will be a few groupies who will cling to the persecution myth but after USADA strips him of his wins, the Qui Tam case, and Tyler's book the majority of the public will see him as a fraud.


Unfortunately many don't like a sober analysis which vanquishes Santa Claus. Who knew they would be middle aged people and not children.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> A majority of the public has not read Tyler's book, nor know of hte Qui Tam case (I don't), and most don't even know what the USADA is. Nobody cares. I remember watching an interview with Hines Ward after one of his injuries and they were talking about how they would spin his blood down and give it back to him to help him recover from the injury faster. Again, nobody cares about cycling or doping, and nobody wants to waste money on this.


Tyler's book comes out next year so it is not a surprise that nobody has read it. His appearance on 60 Minutes was one of their best rated episodes of the year without a football lead in

Which is why it was the lead story on CNN, ABC, and CBS? If nobody cares you would not see every major media outlet in America all over this story with very negative coverage

Lance Armstrong faces fresh doping charges from USADA - The Washington Post

Cycling Doctor Luis García del Moral, Who Worked for Lance Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service Team, Under a Microscope - WSJ.com

Lance Armstrong Barred From Ironman France Amid Doping Allegations - ABC News

Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com

USADA's mandate is to pursue doping in sport. Should they ignore all doping or just Lance's


----------



## Fireform

88 rex said:


> A majority of the public has not read Tyler's book, nor know of hte Qui Tam case (I don't), and most don't even know what the USADA is. Nobody cares. I remember watching an interview with Hines Ward after one of his injuries and they were talking about how they would spin his blood down and give it back to him to help him recover from the injury faster. Again, nobody cares about cycling or doping, and nobody wants to waste money on this.


If nobody cares, why are you posting about it?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tyler's book comes out next year so it is not a surprise that nobody has read it. His appearance on 60 Minutes was one of their best rated episodes of the year without a football lead in
> 
> Which is why it was the lead story on CNN, ABC, and CBS? If nobody cares you would not see every major media outlet in America all over this story with very negative coverage
> 
> Lance Armstrong faces fresh doping charges from USADA - The Washington Post
> 
> Cycling Doctor Luis García del Moral, Who Worked for Lance Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service Team, Under a Microscope - WSJ.com
> 
> Lance Armstrong Barred From Ironman France Amid Doping Allegations - ABC News
> 
> Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com
> 
> USADA's mandate is to pursue doping in sport. Should they ignore all doping or just Lance's


I agree with part of that last article: Armstrong brought this on himself. 

If only he stayed retired...
If only he avoided triathlons...

Had things unfolded in a different manner, we would see this saga for what it truly is: OLD NEWS. 


I've noticed something among the cyclists in my area. Those who are really excited about Lance "going down" are angry, bitter people. These are the same guys who never really achieved anything. They are happy when they see someone pulled over by a cop on the freeway. 

So take away a tour victory and who gets it? _Who cares, as long as it isn't Lance. Nobody is THAT good!__ I just want him to get the punishment he deserves!_ 

It's a mindset I'll never understand. 


The shadenfreude lurks behind a stalking horse of what is _good for the sport_.

Yeah right. 

Don't get me wrong. I agree that Lance is to blame. He could have not doped! He could have taken a different path after 2005. He could have done a number of things which would have avoided this ridiculousness. Yes, Lance is the a-hole! But this ordeal is bad for cycling. It's bad for the sport. Full stop.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Had things unfolded in a different manner, we would see this saga for what it truly is: OLD NEWS.


Blood doping in 2010 is Old News? If you read the USADA letter you will see a list of targets that go beyond Armstrong. They are all still in the sport, doping riders, TODAY. Hardly Old News

The UCI tried the "Ignore it" tactic. it just made it worse. We would not have this issue today if the UCI had not ignored the problem for a decade. 

If you read these threads you will indeed see angry people who often resort to insults.... usually from those who are angry that the myth they invested so heavily in is exposed to be a fraud. 

The bitter anger directed at anyone who questions Armstrong gets a bit silly


----------



## trailrunner68

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tyler's book comes out next year so it is not a surprise that nobody has read it.


Why would he wait until next year? He and his coauthor should be busting their asses to get it out while Armstrong is still relevant.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

While some like to pretend that that nobody cares this is a big story and it will only get worse for lance

http://www.netbase.com/sentiment/lance-armstrong-and-doping-wsj-sentiment-tracker-by-netbase/

Only 31% supported lance and only 13% were "Over it" 

Not exactly the numbers you would expect for the "Hero for millions"


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Blood doping in 2010 is Old News? If you read the USADA letter you will see a list of targets that go beyond Armstrong. They are all still in the sport, doping riders, TODAY. Hardly Old News
> 
> The UCI tried the "Ignore it" tactic. it just made it worse. We would not have this issue today if the UCI had not ignored the problem for a decade.


I'm calling this OLD NEWS for the same reason John Kerry's affair was old news. Or Whitney Huston's cocaine use. 

Remember when that gaybird got on youtube and said, "Leave Britney alone!"? Most people are ready to leave Lance alone. 



> If you read these threads you will indeed see angry people who often resort to insults.... usually from those who are angry that the myth they invested so heavily in is exposed to be a fraud.
> 
> The bitter anger directed at anyone who questions Armstrong gets a bit silly


The bitter/anger thing could have been left out of my post. It's not really relevant to what I want to talk about on these boards. I'm wasn't talking about other posters; I was talking about what I've seen in local cyclists. Some guys I ride with are really upset about Lance, as if it will have any impact on their lives. 

They hide their anger behind what is good for the sport. I think the ongoing saga will be hurtful to the sport. 

If the argument is that these charges will scare riders straight, I ask this: If cyclists have not already been scared straight by the federal investigation, allegations, and everything else leveled against Lance, what will scare them straight?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I'm calling this OLD NEWS for the same reason John Kerry's affair was old news. Or Whitney Huston's cocaine use.
> 
> Remember when that gaybird got on youtube and said, "Leave Britney alone!"? Most people are ready to leave Lance alone.
> 
> The bitter/anger thing could have been left out of my post. It's not really relevant to what I want to talk about on these boards. I'm wasn't talking about other posters; I was talking about what I've seen in local cyclists. Some guys I ride with are really upset about Lance, as if it will have any impact on their lives.
> 
> They hide their anger behind what is good for the sport. I think the ongoing saga will be hurtful to the sport.
> 
> If the argument is that these charges will scare riders straight, I ask this: If cyclists have not already been scared straight by the federal investigation, allegations, and everything else leveled against Lance, what will scare them straight?


So Marti, Brunyeel, del Morel, etc should still be allow to poison riders? Really? A guy like del Moral who tells riders "Take the shot or you do not start" and "you're not a real professional if you don't take drugs." Is it "Old News" to go after him and his buddies?

We have see that ignoring the issue has consistently been the worst tactic for the sport, it only makes the problem worse. Real change did not come until the last few years when WADA took over the sanctioning side of the sport from the UCI......when the issue was finally addressed instead of ignored.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> I agree with part of that last article: Armstrong brought this on himself.
> 
> If only he stayed retired...
> If only he avoided triathlons...
> 
> Had things unfolded in a different manner, we would see this saga for what it truly is: OLD NEWS.
> 
> 
> I've noticed something among the cyclists in my area. Those who are really excited about Lance "going down" are angry, bitter people. These are the same guys who never really achieved anything. They are happy when they see someone pulled over by a cop on the freeway.
> 
> So take away a tour victory and who gets it? _Who cares, as long as it isn't Lance. Nobody is THAT good!__ I just want him to get the punishment he deserves!_
> 
> It's a mindset I'll never understand.
> 
> 
> The shadenfreude lurks behind a stalking horse of what is _good for the sport_.
> 
> Yeah right.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I agree that Lance is to blame. He could have not doped! He could have taken a different path after 2005. He could have done a number of things which would have avoided this ridiculousness. Yes, Lance is the a-hole! But this ordeal is bad for cycling. It's bad for the sport. Full stop.


Have you asked yourself, 'who are the people interested in perpetuating the myth?'

By far, the most measured responses are coming from people who compete athleticallly at a high level. Look at FL's , TH's and Frankie's recent interviews. They speak calmly and kind of just shrug their shoulders.

Those are people who are not polling "cyclists in my area." It should seem obvious that the people who are closest to the highest levels in the sport (but not being paid by the sport) see the issue the most clearly.

What happens to people like Steve Tilford, and LeMond? Well, we know what happens to them. They're subject to character assassination by LA and his minions who are pretty lousy people.

A recent poster wrote about the East German women swimmers. That happened at the '76 Olympics and the big victim was Shirley Babashoff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Babashoff

Babashoff was occasionally *referred to as "Surly Shirley" and described as a "sore loser"* by the media because of her public accusations of drug cheating by the East German swimmers. It was later proven that many East German athletes were using performance-enhancing drugs.

After her Olympic career ended, Babashoff coached swimming, had a son in 1986, whom she raised alone, and became a letter carrier for the United States Postal Service in Orange County, California.

Although Babashoff never won an individual gold medal in Olympic competition, *she is still regarded as one of the top swimmers in history*, and is most vividly remembered for having swum the anchor leg on the gold-medal winning women's 4x100 m freestyle relay team, in *its victory over the doped up, steroid-plagued 1976 East German women*, in what is widely acknowledged as having been the single greatest race in the entire history of women's swimming​

Please, just stop with the silliness worrying about what's good for cycling. The truth never hurt anyone who's generally honest to begin with.. 

What's more worrisome to me are the haters of Floyd and Tyler. They effed up, they repented, they were ridiculed, and now people are moving on from that. Armstrong needs to do the same thing.


----------



## Local Hero

If these guys are currently _poisoning_ riders, why not go after them for what they are currently doing?


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> If these guys are currently _poisoning_ riders, why not go after them for what they are currently doing?


The current USADA charges go after 1 rider a DS and 4? doctors. Please, just let the truth come out and stop with the protestations.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Tyler's book comes out next year so it is not a surprise that nobody has read it. His appearance on 60 Minutes was one of their best rated episodes of the year without a football lead in
> 
> Which is why it was the lead story on CNN, ABC, and CBS? If nobody cares you would not see every major media outlet in America all over this story with very negative coverage
> 
> Lance Armstrong faces fresh doping charges from USADA - The Washington Post
> 
> Cycling Doctor Luis García del Moral, Who Worked for Lance Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service Team, Under a Microscope - WSJ.com
> 
> Lance Armstrong Barred From Ironman France Amid Doping Allegations - ABC News
> 
> Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com
> 
> USADA's mandate is to pursue doping in sport. Should they ignore all doping or just Lance's


Maybe you should clarify these "lead" news stories were indeed on the websites and not televised programs. I didn't see televised lead stories from ABC, NBC, CBS, or even ESPN concerning this. When they did get to it on ESPN (after basketball, baseball, and nascar they gave it 15sec and a here we go again spin. It's great your earlier rumored statements on the USDA are now validated, but then it's follow with suspect info. again.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> Maybe you should clarify these "lead" news stories were indeed on the websites and not televised programs. I didn't see televised lead stories from ABC, NBC, CBS, or even ESPN concerning this. When they did get to it on ESPN (after basketball, baseball, and nascar they gave it 15sec and a here we go again spin. It's great your earlier rumored statements on the USDA are now validated, but then it's follow with suspect info. again.


Just because you did not see it does not mean it did not happen.

lets just look at ABC

World News Tonight
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/lance-armstrong-faces-doping-charges-16562321

Lead story on Nightline
Armstrong Faces New Doping Charges | Video - ABC News

Good Morning America
Lance Armstrong Doping Allegations Re-Surface | Video - ABC News


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual if they don't like the news they try to attack the messenger then whine when the messenger responds
> 
> Yes, I ride. A lot. Close to 10,000 miles a year. Have been in and around the sport for decades. Have a wide selection of bikes, Ti , Carbon, and my new 29er.
> 
> As for the word Myth you will find many definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was an active media campaign to built the Lance myth with absurd claims eagerly consumed by a clueless public. Now that the myth has been shown to be a big lie many of the dupes are getting angry.
> 
> I suggest pointing your anger at those who invented the fable, not asking if I ride a bike.


are any of them Treks or just all Specialized?


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Just because you did not see it does not mean it did not happen.
> 
> lets just look at ABC
> 
> World News Tonight
> Lance Armstrong Faces Doping Charges | Video - ABC News
> 
> Lead story on Nightline
> Armstrong Faces New Doping Charges | Video - ABC News
> 
> Good Morning America
> Lance Armstrong Doping Allegations Re-Surface | Video - ABC News


Weird you only show ABC not any other stations as well as Sawyer says "we turn now" and Clinton's press guy says "turning now" before both reports. I see "we turn now" as a transitional phrase used to move from one story to the next. How do you see it being used? No really a lead story eh.....

Also after reading all these posts the writing style of Chris-X and yourself are alarmingly similar. I believe you both have the same blood values.


----------



## Local Hero

The USADA report says that blood data from 2009 and 2010 is_ consistent with _X, Y, or Z. That said, I don't find the biological passport evidence to be particularly convincing.

We know that a clean individuals hematocrit can vary close to 10% over a few days. Dehydration or even a large meal can alter crit levels. Yet WADA says that a change of 6% or greater is "abnormal."

It's definitely the type of thing over which experts can argue for days. 


Some of the things I would find more convincing:
-A positive test; one that shows metabolites from or trace elements of a substance
-Getting caught red-handed. 
-Finding a bag full of blood.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> The USADA report says that blood data from 2009 and 2010 is_ consistent with _X, Y, or Z. That said, I don't find the biological passport evidence to be particularly convincing.
> 
> We know that a clean individuals hematocrit can vary close to 10% over a few days. Dehydration or even a large meal can alter crit levels. Yet WADA says that a change of 6% or greater is "abnormal."
> 
> It's definitely the type of thing over which experts can argue for days.
> 
> 
> Some of the things I would find more convincing:
> -A positive test; one that shows metabolites from or trace elements of a substance
> -Getting caught red-handed.
> -Finding a bag full of blood.


Here are a few articles to read before you make more mistakes

*Analysis: Armstrong?s Tour Blood Levels Debated | Cyclingnews.com*



> "What we know from our research is that during periods of hard activity, like in the Tour de France, we normally see a drop in these blood values. We don't see this with Armstrong,"


:


> “His blood profile contradicts what we see and what we know from international studies during the last few decades,” he said in a phone interview. “His blood values are not acting as we would expect, so that is highly unusual.”





> there is no significant difference between those two blood markers at the start and end of the race, and secondly, the values rise on two occasions during the event, around the time of the two rest days. In addition to that, they say that his reticulocyte (new red blood cell) levels are below expected levels, something which Mørkeberg and Belhage state can also be an indication of blood doping.





> "It could be that he received some blood transfusions,”





> the picture is inconsistent with what we normally see. Armstrong's levels are unchanged from the first to the last test, and normally we expect a decrease. We saw this fall in his levels during the Giro d'Italia a couple of months earlier, but not during the Tour."





> “I am completely in agreement with Jakob about his interpretation of the results,” he told Cyclingnews. “They are not normal, not dropping when you should expect them to drop. And on the other hand, the reticulocytes are dropping when they shouldn’t





> “What we can say is that there are some similarities to our test subjects in the laboratory when we had given them external blood.”


Why was nothing done by the UCI? I expect we will find out eventually

*Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com*



> WADA has received complaints in recent months from several individuals and representatives of antidoping organizations who have raised concerns about the UCI's oversight.





> particularly concerned about the status of five professional riders who were flagged for doping in December but have not yet been sanctioned by the UCI.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> I'm silly? Your standard is unanimous agreement by EVERYONE? As a police officer, you don't run into any unreasonable people? So you're saying that even though you're convinced LA is a fraud, he has to be left alone because people buy into his propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately many don't like a sober analysis which vanquishes Santa Claus. Who knew they would be middle aged people and not children.


No I was responding to what appears to be your opinion that if and when sanctioned a great many Americans, arguably a majority, will suddenly see the light and see him as a cheat and not a persecuted hero.

Listen, until he came out and admitted it people thought that Landis was being attacked and even possibly framed by a European Establishment sick of "American winners" and this was someone without such a universal "feel good" comeback story, Presidential Appointments and a cancer foundation named after them.

We all get that as well as believing that Armstrong doped (as most of us seem to believe) that you have a dislike of the guy on a personal level but you are projecting your dislike onto a far wider part of the populace. 

How many people who know the name Lance Armstrong in the US do you think even saw let alone remember the zipping of lips he did to Simeoni? How many do you think have a clue he was involved in a law suit over an alleged broken promise to give seed money for a bike shop to a former employee? 

I am not saying this is right mind you but they will see the following...

1. Cancer survivor
2. Livestrong Foundation.
3. Never tested positive.
4. Only named accusers (atm) self-admitted liars (and that is if the know who Landis and Hamilton are) and cheats themselves.

In terms of public opinion this case will do little or nothing to alter the already polarized landscape and the majority who see only the above will see Armstrong as a champion persecuted because of his success in what many americans, if the even see cycling as a sport, as an effeminate and ultimately "european" one. Another term often used for those seen as persecuted is "martyr."

Check out definitions 2 and 3
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/martyr 

Sadly this is how a GREAT many Americans, possibly most, will see him when all is said and done. Why do you think the USADA is helping to push these news stories? They are trying to put ****** in the PR armor Armstrong has built for over a decade. I do not envy the USADA board at all in this. Even with all the evidence in the world they are going to have a hard time in the court of public opinion and as a partially gov't funded organization, in an atmosphere of cut, cut, cut, they need to change this perception for their own practical sake forget about perception, legacy etc.


----------



## Local Hero

It's true. 

I posted this article on my facebook last night: Lance Armstrong Wants To Tell Nation Something But Nation Has To Promise Not To Get Mad | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Tonight I went to the gym. I ran into a couple facebook "friends" there. The first is an accomplished triathlete who brought up the article, said that he loves the Onion, and doesn't understand why Lance is being "persecuted" and so much money is being wasted. 

Later my spin instructor--a USAT Level II Coach--said, "That CANNOT be real!" about the article. (Yes, I take spin classes on my recovery days.) The spin instructor then said, "I heard that he's not going to fight the charges. That's too bad; I think he's innocent." |

I didn't really get into it with these people. I think Lance took some injections, transfused some blood, and kicked puppies. I really think that Lance brought this on himself, as I mentioned earlier in the thread. 

The saddest part is that cycling is becoming even more tarnished by this nonsense. We know that all pro sports have dopers. Boxers take EPO, as do NBA players. As do countless other athletes. This stuff is running rampant in MMA. But it's a "problem" in cycling. And that sucks.


----------



## badge118

Well as to your last point look at the history of street gangs in this country. How many communities have ignored the problem in the face if a neighbor confronting it. The community confronting the issue looks bad in the news paper, people start referring to it as a "combat zone", "sh** hole" whatever, even if there are 1 million dollar homes in one section. The property values drop, businesses leave and the community suffers. The place where it is actively ignored, even buried, benefits by watching their property values rise and their reputation becomes something like "even though it is close to town X it is a nice place to live." Right up until there is a shoot out between rival gangs where a 12 year old gets caught in the cross fire. Then they try to blame it on a few bad seeds, or the other town's problems crossing the boarder. Until if course due to public out cry the Media finally does a story exposing the truth.

That is another big bit, the Media. Look at how they get all over this story. It's not even a criminal case but here it is. Now look at how much coverage has EVER been out there about Bonds or Clemens. I can honestly say I think I have seen more Armstrong stories in The last week than I have Clemens or Bonds since BALCO broke. When was the last time any expose' on doping in the NFL was done? Then look at how much advertising revenue is brought to the major media outlets via NFL, MLB etc. How much comes from the UCI or NRC? Coincidence? I think not. While it would have no effect on MMA I think the only thing that could fix things is if the Federal Govt said "NBA, NFL, NBA; if you wish to maintain the anti-trust exemptions we have for you you must sign on to the WADA protocols and begin enforcement. Additionally Sporting Fraud of this type is now a Federal Crime under the jurisdiction of the DEA and we invite all States and territories to advance legislation modeled on this." Until then though Cycling and to a lesser extent track and field will have the appearance in the public consciousness of being the home of dope fiends and cheats. He lack of coverage of the steroid filled 250+ lbs line backer doing a 40 yard sprint in sub 5 second times allows Joe Six pack to sit back and say "they are clean."

One question, honest one actually of Dr. F. I have been having issues finding how in the world the Olympic Basketball players can be in the NBA without having them signed on with WADA. I though if the sport sent athletes to the Olympics they had to be signed on? This was, as I understood it, one of the reasons why recently MLB set up their own world championship system rather than allow their players to go to the Olympics.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

It is wishful thinking to pretend that this has not damaged Lance. Sure, some tri geeks are repeating his talking points but the majority of the public see him as a doper. If he continues with his increasingly absurd media campaign it will just get worse

He once had one of the highest Q ranking in the country, now only 31% think he is telling the truth. The majority think he is a fraud.

Lance Armstrong and Doping: WSJ Sentiment Tracker by NetBase | NetBase

It will only get worse


----------



## badge118

Well wish I could remember the NYT reporter's name interviewed on the BBC world service a couple nights ago but she stated something pretty similar to what those who have "wishful thinking" have said. Btw in my case it is far from wishful thinking, rather cynicism tbh. Also simple facebook and twitter polls are largely useless. There are these things called response bias and stuff that real pollsters and statisticians need to be concerned about in order to validate the accuracy of their polling which simple skimming of FB and twitter fail to account for.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Well wish I could remember the NYT reporter's name interviewed on the BBC world service a couple nights ago but she stated something pretty similar to what those who have "wishful thinking" have said. Btw in my case it is far from wishful thinking, rather cynicism tbh. Also simple facebook and twitter polls are largely useless. There are these things called response bias and stuff that real pollsters and statisticians need to be concerned about in order to validate the accuracy of their polling which simple skimming of FB and twitter fail to account for.


Wrong (did you even read the link?)

This was not a poll or a survey it was a automated review of what people are actually writing about. Polls can be gamed, hundreds of thousands of facebook and twitter pages cannot

The response is negative, and it is only going to get worse


----------



## Local Hero

How many kids got into cycling because of Lance? 

How many masters racers got into doping because of Lance? 


For more humor, check this out: Shane Mosley Admits to Knowingly Using EPO in Lawsuit Against BALCO's Victor Conte - YouTube


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong (did you even read the link?)
> 
> This was not a poll or a survey it was a automated review of what people are actually writing about. Polls can be gamed, hundreds of thousands of facebook and twitter pages cannot
> 
> The response is negative, and it is only going to get worse


I know how it worked and that was my point. They data mined social media. For any data set to be valid you have to take certain things into account. Many business review sites are running into this problem now. Often people who are VERY passionate in a negative way are more apt to sound off than those who are positive. As such these companies have had to come up with different methods to get an accurate review system for businesses. Much the same could be argued here. People who have been sitting around fuming over a doper getting away with it are going to trumpet to the heavens "Finally". 

Now if the study could tell us how many of these specific posters previously trumpeted Armstrong as a clean rider and champion and also did so giving the context of how many posts now vs earlier period I would not be raising the issue. However it seems that all the data mining tells us is simply raw positive vs raw negative comments which is only of limited use for anyone who looks at things critically.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is wishful thinking to pretend that this has not damaged Lance. Sure, some tri geeks are repeating his talking points but the majority of the public see him as a doper. If he continues with his increasingly absurd media campaign it will just get worse
> 
> He once had one of the highest Q ranking in the country, now only 31% think he is telling the truth. The majority think he is a fraud.
> 
> Lance Armstrong and Doping: WSJ Sentiment Tracker by NetBase | NetBase
> 
> It will only get worse


I believe an argument could be supported to tie the 3% jokes and 13% over it to the 31% pro armstrong. As you have implied many times just because the public doesn't care to be bothered with LA stories doesn't mean we shouldn't go after him. I'm going with 47% are pro LA and 53% are against. Still not in LA's favor but certainly not the social media stat spin posted by the WSJ.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is wishful thinking to pretend that this has not damaged Lance. Sure, some tri geeks are repeating his talking points but the majority of the public see him as a doper. If he continues with his increasingly absurd media campaign it will just get worse
> 
> He once had one of the highest Q ranking in the country, now only 31% think he is telling the truth. The majority think he is a fraud.
> 
> Lance Armstrong and Doping: WSJ Sentiment Tracker by NetBase | NetBase
> 
> It will only get worse





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong (did you even read the link?)
> 
> This was not a poll or a survey it was a automated review of what people are actually writing about. Polls can be gamed, hundreds of thousands of facebook and twitter pages cannot
> 
> The response is negative, and it is only going to get worse


We should all be able to agree that those who are writing about the Lance issue care (to some extent) about the Lance issue. 

Take another topic. What if that same automated review covered the thousands of responses regarding Latvian austerity? Surely there would be pro, con, jokes, and neutral replies. But surely the majority of people don't care about (or know about) Latvian austerity. 

Too obscure? Try Pacman vs. Bradley. There was some facebook hype on that one. People had strong opinions. Some people didn't care. Some joked that "Boxing was pure before this fight!" 

There are enough people on Facebook to garner pro, con, jokes, and neutral on just about any topic. Even if a topic is "trending" it can still fade within days (or hours if something more exciting comes up). 

Your grave prediction that "it will only get worse" may be true to some extent. Lance's reputation may become tarnished, as will the reputation of cycling. But people are not going to stay as focused on this as you. Nobody cares as much as cyclists. 

I wont be mislead by a fancy infographic. I still think that the majority of people don't care. To most this is OLD NEWS. All we need is a high profile murder case or natural disaster and the Lance saga will be relegated to the back page, a substory in sports.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Someone really should reach out to the major media outlets that are on this story and tell them nobody is interested and it is old news. They clearly have not got the latest talking points and need to be educated. 60 Minutes should ignore their high ratings and the websites should ignore their traffic figures. It is all old news, nobody cares

The death of the myth has hit some hard. Denial is one of the stages of grief. Anger is next. People don't like being lied to

Denial 
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance


----------



## Local Hero

So we have denial on one side and obsession on the other. 

Hmmm. 


Pop-psychology aside, the next stage of this saga is whether Lance will even fight the charges. I'm actually hoping that he will not fight them. 

Any bets?


----------



## Chris-X

*My opinion*



badge118 said:


> No I was responding to what appears to be your opinion that if and when sanctioned a great many Americans, arguably a majority, will suddenly see the light and see him as a cheat and not a persecuted hero..


I think you are projecting here. What is proper is to do the right thing and people who are interested will do the research/reading and see he's obviously guilty. You're the one who's concerned with all of these scenarios of public opinion and all that nonsense. I don't concern myself with what Bobby or Susie may or may not think based on some public misperception that the accusers love cancer and hate excellence.



badge118 said:


> Listen, until he came out and admitted it people thought that Landis was being attacked and even possibly framed by a European Establishment sick of "American winners" and this was someone without such a universal "feel good" comeback story, Presidential Appointments and a cancer foundation named after them..


You're so busy constructing strawmen that you can't see that I could care less what uninformed people think. I don't base my opinions on general perceptions without knowing the facts. You're just demonstrating your beliefs because mine bear no relationship to what you're trying to advance.



badge118 said:


> We all get that as well as believing that Armstrong doped (as most of us seem to believe) that you have a dislike of the guy on a personal level but you are projecting your dislike onto a far wider part of the populace...


I have a dislike for the guy because I know the facts surrounding him and he's a repulsive human being based on those facts. This is covered succinctly in this recent article.

Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com

There's more than that but the article does a good job conveying the fact that Armstrong is a scumbag. You're the one arguing this silliness that he's being wronged or at least being wronged in the eyes of a dull and uninformed American populace which has been saturated with the very simple, erroneous, self serving, mythology and propaganda that Armstrong and his sponsors like Nike have created.



badge118 said:


> How many people who know the name Lance Armstrong in the US do you think even saw let alone remember the zipping of lips he did to Simeoni? How many do you think have a clue he was involved in a law suit over an alleged broken promise to give seed money for a bike shop to a former employee?
> 
> I am not saying this is right mind you but they will see the following...
> 
> 1. Cancer survivor
> 2. Livestrong Foundation.
> 3. Never tested positive.
> 4. Only named accusers (atm) self-admitted liars (and that is if the know who Landis and Hamilton are) and cheats themselves...


Again, so what? The public is misinformed! With people like you relentlessly arguing witch hunt, vendetta, SOL technicality bs, how does that get the truth of the situation across? These discredited arguments are now being undermined, correctly, by the vast majority of the mainstream media.



badge118 said:


> In terms of public opinion this case will do little or nothing to alter the already polarized landscape and the majority who see only the above will see Armstrong as a champion persecuted because of his success in what many americans, if the even see cycling as a sport, as an effeminate and ultimately "european" one. Another term often used for those seen as persecuted is "martyr."
> 
> Check out definitions 2 and 3
> Martyr - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary ..


Only the uninformed or foolish see Armstrong as "persecuted." It's not my fault a majority of people are in the dark, and you have absolutely no excuse for furthering this nonsense.

Bro, an essential aspect of martyrdom is the death of the subject.

1: a person who voluntarily* suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 
*
2: a person who sacrifices something of great value and *especially life* itself for the sake of principle 

Just because a definition "3" gains acceptance through the misuse of that word by the uneducated doesn't change the meaning of a word.

FYI, most illigitimate regimes are very careful not to create "martyrs" by killing their foes. Honestly, you really missed out on the whole idea of what a martyr is. Perhaps you want to study history to see the roles martyrs have played. Pharmstrong is no martyr except for the incredibly self absorbed, of which, I admit there are many. Armstrong adheres to his own idolatry as a religion..



badge118 said:


> Sadly this is how a GREAT many Americans, possibly most, will see him when all is said and done. Why do you think the USADA is helping to push these news stories? They are trying to put ****** in the PR armor Armstrong has built for over a decade. I do not envy the USADA board at all in this. Even with all the evidence in the world they are going to have a hard time in the court of public opinion and as a partially gov't funded organization, in an atmosphere of cut, cut, cut, they need to change this perception for their own practical sake forget about perception, legacy etc.


And you, yourself don't believe Obama was born in Kenya, but many do! This is the kind of garbage you're arguing here.

Again you're creating strawmen? When did I say the Armstrong phenomenon was anything but Public Relations bs? 

I'll repeat, this is an incredibly strange argument coming from a cop. I didn't know the entire LE function was based on polling. 

Apparently you love arguing with yourself and creating illusory arguments for others like myself to answer to.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> So we have denial on one side and obsession on the other.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> Pop-psychology aside, the next stage of this saga is whether Lance will even fight the charges. I'm actually hoping that he will not fight them.
> 
> Any bets?


I hope he does not fight them as well. He would lose a case against USADA. it would be a waste of time and money

I expect he and his lawyers know this. If they do anything I expect they will try an different path and challenge USADA's jurisdiction in Federal court. I can't see how it would succeed but it would rally the faithful

No matter what people say about this being old news when USADA strips lance of all of his Tour wins it will be huge news


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> So we have denial on one side and obsession on the other.
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> Pop-psychology aside, the next stage of this saga is whether Lance will even fight the charges. I'm actually hoping that he will not fight them.
> 
> Any bets?


I'd bet you're right.

Why not let the whole matter slide? What can they actually "do" to him? Take away his TDF titles? Who cares? Fine him? How to collect? Take away his birthday? Lance already has what he wants. His sponsors got what they want. His teams got what the want. The only thing left is what the anti-doping agencies and their apologists want.

Regardless of how this turns out, people will continue to believe what they believe. Lance will continue to be be hero to many and a great Satan to others. Nothing will change.

I'll say this - I'll continue to support Livestroong, because I think what they are trying to do is far more important than anything related to cycle racing and doping. In fact in terms of order of importance, LA's doping and the USADA isn't even close to being on the Radar of Important $h!+. People living and dealing with cancer is WAY more important - I know - I live/deal with it every day.


----------



## Chris-X

*Clear your sympathies lie*



Samadhi said:


> I'd bet you're right.
> 
> Why not let the whole matter slide? What can they actually "do" to him? Take away his TDF titles? *Who cares?* Fine him? How to collect? Take away his birthday? Lance already has what he wants. His sponsors got what they want. His teams got what the want. The only thing left is what the anti-doping agencies and their apologists want.
> 
> Regardless of how this turns out, people will continue to believe what they believe. Lance will continue to be be hero to many and a great Satan to others. Nothing will change.
> 
> I'll say this - I'll continue to support Livestroong, because I think what they are trying to do is far more important than anything related to cycle racing and doping. In fact in terms of order of importance, LA's doping and the USADA isn't even close to being on the Radar of Important $h!+. People living and dealing with cancer is WAY more important - I know - I live/deal with it every day.


with the Fraud?

I'm sorry you or a loved one is sick, but if I were you I'd be furious that Armstrong has conflated his fraud with gravely ill people he knows nothing about..

I'd say that to his face because the halo effect shielding a career of cheating and false HOPE is demented behavior.

FYI, your use of the word "apologists" is ironic. Armstrong is the one with apologists. You've been an apologist for him in this very post.

a·pol·o·gist/əˈpäləjist/

Noun: A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.


Synonyms:


defender 

USADA and the authorities are just carrying out their function and doing their jobs.

As to the bolded and highlighted, you asked, "who cares?" More irony. You realize "Lance" cares and not a little bit. A LOT!

This is why he spins, lies, and vindictively destroys whoever gets in his way.

He's using cancer victims which is the bottom line.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Yeah, nobody cares. When Armstrong's Tour titles are stripped from him it will just be a small article in the newspaper (Who reads those anymore?). The few who read it will say 

"I didn't even know that guy who landed on the moon was still alive"


----------



## Local Hero

Let's continue with this thought experiement: 

IF Lance's 2003 TdF victory is taken away, will it be given to Ullrich? Does Ullrich want that asterisk? What about 2005 and Basso? 

Would Telekom/T-Mobile survive the scrutiny that USPS endured? 


And what of the individual stage victories?


Landis is correct: It was an era of doping.


----------



## Cableguy

Every now and then I skim through this thread, and that other long one in the doping forum, just to see if something new and interesting has happened or been brought up... and, wow. I think some of you might want to consider agreeing to disagree and do something else... anything else.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Let's continue with this thought experiement:
> 
> IF Lance's 2003 TdF victory is taken away, will it be given to Ullrich? Does Ullrich want that asterisk? What about 2005 and Basso?
> 
> Would Telekom/T-Mobile survive the scrutiny that USPS endured?
> 
> 
> And what of the individual stage victories?
> 
> 
> Landis is correct: It was an era of doping.


Good question

When Jef dHont talked about organized doping on Telekom what happened? A bunch of the riders called a press conference and confessed that they had doped. When the same happens with Postal Lance and his buddies set out to ruin the life of whoever told the truth.

It was an era of doping, why should Lance be the only rider to escape sanction? I do not see anyone here campaigning to give landis back his title because "everyone was doing it"


----------



## Chris-X

*Everybody who is*



Local Hero said:


> Let's continue with this thought experiement:
> 
> IF Lance's 2003 TdF victory is taken away, will it be given to Ullrich? Does Ullrich want that asterisk? What about 2005 and Basso?
> 
> Would Telekom/T-Mobile survive the scrutiny that USPS endured?
> 
> 
> And what of the individual stage victories?
> 
> 
> Landis is correct: It was an era of doping.


thinking has moved way beyond your "thought experiment."

a millstone around neck - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



A millstone around your neck | The King's English

A heavy burden weighing you down. Inescapable. And probably self-inflicted. That’s how we think of a millstone around our necks. A job, a relationship, an ongoing commitment – these things can often be called “millstones around our neck.”

What about a commitment to a lie?


Do you have any idea what the aforementioned means?

Why the heck do you think TH got rid of the gold medal as soon as he confessed?

As the Toto Turns 255 | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## jarbiker

*The whole damn sport*



Samadhi said:


> I'd bet you're right.
> 
> Why not let the whole matter slide? What can they actually "do" to him? Take away his TDF titles? Who cares? Fine him? How to collect? Take away his birthday? Lance already has what he wants. His sponsors got what they want. His teams got what the want. The only thing left is what the anti-doping agencies and their apologists want.
> 
> Regardless of how this turns out, people will continue to believe what they believe. Lance will continue to be be hero to many and a great Satan to others. Nothing will change.
> 
> I'll say this - I'll continue to support Livestroong, because I think what they are trying to do is far more important than anything related to cycle racing and doping. In fact in terms of order of importance, LA's doping and the USADA isn't even close to being on the Radar of Important $h!+. People living and dealing with cancer is WAY more important - I know - I live/deal with it every day.


of cycling is corrupt. Nothing but dopers. All of them, every race. Name a clean rider and I will show you someone in the back. Just let them all be dopers and be done with it.


----------



## zigmeister

I finally just read the actual formal full letter.

Sounds to me that they are just going to parade the usual suspects: Tyler, Floyd, Frankie and Betsy in front of their "arbitration panel." Then, give Lance and others the chance to respond. Finally, just rule they are all guilty, which of course was all pre-determined to begin with and the agenda all along, and then put out the press releases that they have done a great thing for cycling and doping today!!

Finally, they will hand out some lifetime bans or take some victories away.

In the big picture, what is really they end result they accomplished when there entire process is flawed and has no legal precedence and significance whatsoever? Serious question by the way.

This will be interesting to see how it all proceeds. I'm sure it isn't anything like I described above.


----------



## Urb

zigmeister said:


> In the big picture, what is really they end result they accomplished when there entire process is flawed and has no legal precedence and significance whatsoever? Serious question by the way.


They get to justify thier budget and keep thier jobs.


----------



## cmdrpiffle

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, nobody cares. When Armstrong's Tour titles are stripped from him it will just be a small article in the newspaper (Who reads those anymore?). The few who read it will say
> 
> "I didn't even know that guy who landed on the moon was still alive"


Brilliant :thumbsup:


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> with the Fraud?


I should condemn a man because I happen to _think_ he's perpetrated a fraud?

This is a great country we live in, ain't it, Chris?




> I'm sorry you or a loved one is sick,


Thank you, but I'm quite sure you have exactly zero idea about what you're saying. Being "sorry" for someone who has cancer, means absolutely dick. Sorry doesn't cut it. You're not even half as sorry as we are.

Show me how much empathy you have by DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Show us how sorry you are and put your pedals where your mouth is. Sign up for charity rides that support organizations helping cancer survivors and their families. Doesn't have to be Livestrong. Raise some money, help some people and then come back and tell us how sorry you are.

That's what LA did, and quite frankly a lot of cancer survivors don't gove a damn about where the money came from. We live in a world where spending money on blowing up god-forsaken $hi+-holes in a desert somewhere or hounding people over what is, in the big picture about as important as what I ate for lunch today is far more important than helping people who really need help. We live in a world where a president came to office on bottlegging money and many people count him among the greatest men to sit behind that desk. People don't care about cheating. People don't care about fraud. All people care about is who wins. The end justifies the means. It isn't how you play the game. Look around you Chris, it's a world where rules are for the loosers.



> but if I were you I'd be furious that Armstrong has conflated his fraud with gravely ill people he knows nothing about..


And don't presume to to put yourself in my shoes until you've actually been there in your own.



> I'd say that to his face because the halo effect shielding a career of cheating and false HOPE is demented behavior.


Then put your man-pants on, go find the guy and frikkin tell him.

False hope? Gimme a break. Have a doctor tell you that you have cancer and that there is nothing to be done about it, then I want you to think about that after you leave the doctors office for lets say a week so it REALLY sinks in that you've just come face-to-face with the agent of your demise and we'll see what you have to say then. Mean while don't presume. False hope? False hope is better than none and what's so false about telling people with cancer that they can still have a reasonable quality of life while it lasts and showing them how to do it? I got back into cycling because of cancer. Cycling has not only improved many aspects of my physical health, it's improved my mental health as well. And I'm not the only one. I know someone whose fight with cancer is way harder than mine and she survives because of what she read by LA, because she saw that the fight for survival is actually worth it. Now, in my friends case, the cervical cancer will take her soon enough and that will be a sad day for those of us who know her, but she'll go out kicking and screaming. The cancer will kill her, but it will not defeat her and we can thank Lance Armstrong for that.



> FYI, your use of the word "apologists" is ironic. Armstrong is the one with apologists. You've been an apologist for him in this very post.


No, I'm not an apologist at all. I simply don't care about what he's done, if he's done it at all. On top of that, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is not based on what a bunch of armchair jurists think will happen when he has his hearing. Guilt is established after that and not before.



> He's using cancer victims which is the bottom line.


No Chris, he's helping them - he's helping _survivors_, not victims and don't you forget that.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> I should condemn a man because I happen to _think_ he's perpetrated a fraud?
> 
> This is a great country we live in, ain't it, Chris?.


Let the truth come out, if he's not guilty of anything there's nothing to be afraid of.




Samadhi said:


> Thank you, but I'm quite sure you have exactly zero idea about what you're saying. Being "sorry" for someone who has cancer, means absolutely dick. Sorry doesn't cut it. You're not even half as sorry as we are.


I let these comments slide because, contrary to what you wrote, you have no idea what any strangers are going through in life. The genius of Armstrong's halo/shield strategy is he's exploiting vulnerable people who believe they have a personal connection to him. They don't, other than they're human.



Samadhi said:


> Show me how much empathy you have by DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Show us how sorry you are and put your pedals where your mouth is. Sign up for charity rides that support organizations helping cancer survivors and their families. Doesn't have to be Livestrong. Raise some money, help some people and then come back and tell us how sorry you are.


There are many worthy charities. Why do cancer charities take precedence over them? Maybe there are political solutions to health care issues? I fight very strenuously for those.




Samadhi said:


> That's what LA did, and quite frankly a lot of cancer survivors don't gove a damn about where the money came from. We live in a world where spending money on blowing up god-forsaken $hi+-holes in a desert somewhere or hounding people over what is, in the big picture about as important as what I ate for lunch today is far more important than helping people who really need help. We live in a world where a president came to office on bottlegging money and many people count him among the greatest men to sit behind that desk. People don't care about cheating. People don't care about fraud. All people care about is who wins. The end justifies the means. It isn't how you play the game. Look around you Chris, it's a world where rules are for the loosers..


It sounds like you're in a bad place and for that I'm sorry. I have a little bit of a different take on what LA did and why LA did it. Selfishness comes in at the top of that list.

Also, in spite of the many horrible things that take place in our world, most people haven't adopted a creed in which dishonesty and cheating doesn't matter. Even if the whole world is going to hell, you do the right thing no matter what.

If you don't do that, you're left with people like Armstrong and much worse.





Samadhi said:


> And don't presume to to put yourself in my shoes until you've actually been there in your own.


But you can blindly lash out at me?




Samadhi said:


> Then put your man-pants on, go find the guy and frikkin tell him..


Here's the deal. Cancer victims/survivors have basically nothing to do with Armstrong other than the artificial connection he's created with one purpose in mind; to save his own skin.

We're talking about doping on a cycling website. Do you really think in a court of law/arbitration panel,, Armstrong's protestations about helping cancer patients carry any weight? That's why he is relentlessly spinning in the court of public opinion and threatening anyone who may tell the truth about him. I think it's repulsive and many others who are concerned about where the money comes from think similiarly.



Samadhi said:


> False hope? Gimme a break. Have a doctor tell you that you have cancer and that there is nothing to be done about it, then I want you to think about that after you leave the doctors office for lets say a week so it REALLY sinks in that you've just come face-to-face with the agent of your demise and we'll see what you have to say then. Mean while don't presume. False hope? False hope is better than none and what's so false about telling people with cancer that they can still have a reasonable quality of life while it lasts and showing them how to do it? I got back into cycling because of cancer. Cycling has not only improved many aspects of my physical health, it's improved my mental health as well. And I'm not the only one. I know someone whose fight with cancer is way harder than mine and she survives because of what she read by LA, because she saw that the fight for survival is actually worth it. Now, in my friends case, the cervical cancer will take her soon enough and that will be a sad day for those of us who know her, but she'll go out kicking and screaming. The cancer will kill her, but it will not defeat her and we can thank Lance Armstrong for that..


No matter how long my life is, I want to know what's true. Everybody has to face their mortality at one point or another. I don't need a fraudulent philosopher to point me in that direction. If you're doing well, I'm happy for you. What I object to is what you attribute that to and rather than keep your inspiration to yourself, you try to foist stuff on others here because it was beneficial to you. The way I live my life is very important to me. Survival is not my only goal. 




Samadhi said:


> No, I'm not an apologist at all. I simply don't care about what he's done, if he's done it at all. On top of that, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is not based on what a bunch of armchair jurists think will happen when he has his hearing. Guilt is established after that and not before..


Oh, he's guilty. You're making legal distinctions now which we're not bound to here. *And I do care* that we aspire to some kind of subjective values in life, like the Theological Virtues. It's important IMHO to live both well if possible, and GOOD! 

What the heck does Life itself mean if there isn't integrity and honesty? You can survive in that kind of world, I'd rather pass into the next realm.





Samadhi said:


> No Chris, he's helping them - he's helping _survivors_, not victims and don't you forget that.


I knew you'd make a big deal over that distinction. I know the guy to be helping himself over all others. Is he evil incarnate? Certainly not. Is he some great humanitarian? He ain't that either. He's an atheist profiting off peddling HOPE to shield himself from fraud.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

zigmeister said:


> I finally just read the actual formal full letter.
> 
> Sounds to me that they are just going to parade the usual suspects: Tyler, Floyd, Frankie and Betsy in front of their "arbitration panel." Then, give Lance and others the chance to respond. Finally, just rule they are all guilty, which of course was all pre-determined to begin with and the agenda all along, and then put out the press releases that they have done a great thing for cycling and doping today!!
> 
> Finally, they will hand out some lifetime bans or take some victories away.
> 
> In the big picture, what is really they end result they accomplished when there entire process is flawed and has no legal precedence and significance whatsoever? Serious question by the way.
> 
> This will be interesting to see how it all proceeds. I'm sure it isn't anything like I described above.


How does more then 10 witnesses get distilled down into the "Usual suspects"? 

Can't wait to see his 2010 blood values The 2009 ones were bad enough for many experts to question them


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> ISnip


This controversy has had a very positive effect on Livestrong

For a decade they wasted money like a drunken sailor. Having parties, promoting Lance, traveling the world, and calling it a program expense. The last 2 years they have been under a microscope as they scrambled to put the cookies back in the jar. 

They have slashed their travel spending, no more $6,000,000 parties. Advertising that is focused on raising awareness of cancer, not raising awareness of Lance. Many changes for the good

You should thank Floyd. Without him millions more would have been wasted 

oh, and before you get sanctimonious on me over the last 3 years myself and 10 friends have raised over $250,000 for a children's leukemia ward. It did not go to parties, Advertising a myth or selling T-Shirts. It went to a blood machine that we negotiated a discount on because we paid in cash and fixing up a few rooms so parents can have extend stays with their children.


----------



## Local Hero

Chris-X said:


> thinking has moved way beyond your "thought experiment."
> 
> a millstone around neck - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> A millstone around your neck | The King's English
> 
> A heavy burden weighing you down. Inescapable. And probably self-inflicted. That’s how we think of a millstone around our necks. A job, a relationship, an ongoing commitment – these things can often be called “millstones around our neck.”
> 
> What about a commitment to a lie?
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea what the aforementioned means?
> 
> Why the heck do you think TH got rid of the gold medal as soon as he confessed?
> 
> As the Toto Turns 255 | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


The pop psychology does nothing for me. Sorry.


----------



## Urb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You should thank Floyd. Without him millions more would have been wasted


Hmm there may be much truth to this. Most certainly this caused the opposition to be on gaurd. Even more so than before.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> The pop psychology does nothing for me. Sorry.


"Hope springs eternal!"

I guess you like the classics.

Who gets the tainted victories in cycling is obviously (to most) the least of anyone's worries.:thumbsup:


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This controversy has had a very positive effect on Livestrong
> 
> For a decade they wasted money like a drunken sailor. Having parties, promoting Lance, traveling the world, and calling it a program expense.


What do you think NPO's do for a living? Live like it was a monastery?



> The last 2 years they have been under a microscope as they scrambled to put the cookies back in the jar.


The last 2 years have been tough on a lot of NPO's. People aren't giving like they used to because money's tight.



> oh, and before you get sanctimonious on me over the last 3 years myself and 10 friends have raised over $250,000 for a children's leukemia ward.


Nice. Good job.




> It did not go to parties, Advertising a myth or selling T-Shirts.


Wow! that must make you better than Lance Armstrong!


----------



## hummina shadeeba

*wasted time?!*

the guy who's being dubbed the greatest cyclist of all time finally, finally going down in flames and you think we should talk about something else? is this a cycling forum? Is this the doping section? Maybe you should go somewhere else.
I just started reading this thread and it's deteriating into an attack on the doctor here. I suspect he might have a bit of an ax to grind after having to deal with the kool aid drinkers for years, but he's being nice and keeping to the facts and not getting upset. Those who dont want to discuss lance's great sinking because they think he's innocent, need to get sane. Those who dont want to discuss it for any other reason should, as I said, just go somewhere else. I know the doctor is a serious lance hater and thats very understandable. Lance is scum to people who aren't clueless and have any ethics in cycling or outside of it. 

the more I find and the more revelations and interviews that are coming out, the more I want to egg his house. But to make me really happy he needs to be shamed and put in jail. 

lance has got to be one of the greatest shams that's been purpatrated.


----------



## froze

hummina shadeeba said:


> lance has got to be one of the greatest shams that's been purpatrated.


I think boxing has the lock on that.


----------



## froze

I have been telling forums for a long time that doping is very prevalent in the pro circuit, and UCI knows it but hides it. Now a book has come out that is worth reading to gain insight into the mentality of pro cyclists and the UCI, and the whys and whats. That book is entitled the "Secret Race" written by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle, published by Bantam Books.

I hope this book will gain enough public and government attention that UCI will be forced to take a very hard stand against doping...but their hardheaded so I kind of doubt it.


----------



## mariomal99

UCI still waiting for details and evidence from USADA????


----------



## froze

mariomal99 said:


> UCI still waiting for details and evidence from USADA????


Again, UCI won't take away Lance's titles, so it doesn't matter what evidence they get from USADA. If UCI takes away his wins and titles they know they will open a huge can of worms and will probably have to eliminate at least half of the winners since the 70's! And I bet Lance will lead the charge if UCI does this, and UCI knows they've been paid to look the other way by riders including Lance. And then UCI would have to dissolve because they can't be trusted to run clean races. Trust me, UCI doesn't want to go down that road. The only thing we can hope for is that all of this Lance crap has scared UCI so badly that from now on they'll be darn sure to run a clean shop. Notice the key word...hope.


----------



## trailrunner68

froze said:


> Again, UCI won't take away Lance's titles, so it doesn't matter what evidence they get from USADA. If UCI takes away his wins and titles they know they will open a huge can of worms and will probably have to eliminate at least half of the winners since the 70's! And I bet Lance will lead the charge if UCI does this, and UCI knows they've been paid to look the other way by riders including Lance. And then UCI would have to dissolve because they can't be trusted to run clean races. Trust me, UCI doesn't want to go down that road. The only thing we can hope for is that all of this Lance crap has scared UCI so badly that from now on they'll be darn sure to run a clean shop. Notice the key word...hope.


I think you got this backasswords. If the UCI wants to avoid sanctioning Armstrong then it will have to appeal to CAS. More damaging information will come out. The best move for the UCI is to give lip service to Armstrong publicly but in the end claim their hands are tied and they have to abide by the USADA's decision. 

Prior results are not at risk because those riders are not guilty of being part of doping conspiracy that continued nearly to the present day. Armstrong's thuggery and gangsterism made himself a special case.


----------



## Lick Skillet

I disagree, the UCI is in a pickle for being just as guilty as LA since they were lying in the same bed. The best bet for UCI is to determine the evidence is hearsay, lacking evidence and not physical proof. They will want to sweep this under the rug and move on....


----------



## froze

Lick Skillet said:


> I disagree, the UCI is in a pickle for being just as guilty as LA since they were lying in the same bed. The best bet for UCI is to determine the evidence is hearsay, lacking evidence and not physical proof. They will want to sweep this under the rug and move on....


Exactly correct.


----------



## trailrunner68

Lick Skillet said:


> I disagree, the UCI is in a pickle for being just as guilty as LA since they were lying in the same bed. The best bet for UCI is to determine the evidence is hearsay, lacking evidence and not physical proof. They will want to sweep this under the rug and move on....


Not the old "hearsay" bullcrap again. 

The UCI does not get to weigh the evidence against Armstrong. Armstrong gave up that right when he punked out on the process. The decision has been made. The UCI has to appeal to CAS if they do not want to accept it. The UCI would have to attack the USADA's decision on procedural grounds. That pretty much means challenge the ban based on the SOL, but that would entail the USADA giving even more information about why the SOL should not apply. That information will be damaging to Verbruggen and the UCI.

McQuaid's best play is to throw Armstrong under the bus and, if he has to, pass some of the blame onto Verbruggen. He can blame everything on the old dirty era of the sport and say the sport has improved and moved on. None of this has to be explicitly stated. He can reluctantly bow to the USADA's decision and make a weak comment about how things were different back in the day then spend the rest of an interview outlining how much improved the doping side of the sport is and what he is doing to make it even better. He could use the occasion to launch a new anti-doping initiative.

McQuaid's problem right now is mainly a PR problem. Damaging stuff is going come out. He needs to limit the damage. Fighting for months with WADA and the USADA makes the problem worse. Even if the UCI can eventually win some sort of victory at CAS and save five of Armstrong's titles, the UCI will look worse for it. McQuaid is already publicly denying that the UCI is protecting Armstrong and he is claiming they are not afraid of sanctioning Armstrong. That shows he is worried about how this looks.


----------



## trailrunner68

This just in:

_"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."_

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/07/us-cycling-armstrong-mcquaid-idUSBRE88611Z20120907


----------



## Addict07

Lick Skillet said:


> I disagree, the UCI is in a pickle for being just as guilty as LA since they were lying in the same bed. The best bet for UCI is to determine the evidence is hearsay, lacking evidence and not physical proof. They will want to sweep this under the rug and move on....


The UCI is indeed in a pickle, but their motivation from here on out is to limit the damage to themselves, they could care less about LA. If they incur the wrath of WADA, they risk being thrown out of the Olympics, and if they challenge in CAS, they risk more evidence being released about their own culpability. Best for them to accept the findings and move on.


----------



## goloso

Addict07 said:


> Best for them to accept the findings and move on.


...and try to punish the guys that helped the USADA

McQuaid also asked the USADA to provide the UCI with three Garmin-Barracuda riders' files after their own team manager Jonathan Vaughters hinted this month that they had doped earlier in their careers.

Just in case anyone else thinks about speaking out.


----------



## asgelle

Eric55la said:


> That's all money and resources that are not being spent on policing the active peloton


You need to work on your pronouns. What money and resources are not being used on policing the active peloton?


----------



## trailrunner68

Eric55la said:


> That's all money and resources that are not being spent on policing the active peloton


No problem, mate. The money and resources are being spent policing active professional triathletes, and the USADA reeled in a big one.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Eric55la said:


> That's all money and resources that are not being spent on policing the active peloton


This is about today

Armstrong is currently a licensed professional in a USADA sport (Tri). He owns and runs a Junior team. He also is a principle of a Pro Tour team 
Johan Bruyneel is a current Manager for a ProTour team
Perdro Ceyla is currently employed by a ProTour team
Michele Ferrari admits to coaching over a dozen professional athtletes. CONI has tied him to 70
Luis del Moral owns a clinic in Valencia. He works with multiple riders and tennis players today
Pepe Marti currently works with Alberto Contador. 

Lets stop pretending this is about the past.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is about today
> 
> Armstrong is currently a licensed professional in a USADA sport (Tri). He owns and runs a Junior team. He also is a principle of a Pro Tour team
> Johan Bruyneel is a current Manager for a ProTour team
> Perdro Ceyla is currently employed by a ProTour team
> Michele Ferrari admits to coaching over a dozen professional athtletes. CONI has tied him to 70
> Luis del Moral owns a clinic in Valencia. He works with multiple riders and tennis players today
> Pepe Marti currently works with Alberto Contador.
> 
> Lets stop pretending this is about the past.


Wow! so the USADA bans Lance but allows Johan Bruyneel and Perdro Ceyla who also had doping problems to remain with the USADA Pro Tour Team! Let's not ban them though. This is great stuff.


----------



## den bakker

froze said:


> Wow! so the USADA bans Lance but allows Johan Bruyneel and Perdro Ceyla who also had doping problems to remain with the USADA Pro Tour Team! Let's not ban them though. This is great stuff.


facepalm. 
Bruyneel confirms he


----------



## froze

den bakker said:


> facepalm.
> Bruyneel confirms he


And I mentioned that all athletic sports, pro and college, and in some instances high school, dope, and that website mentions football, but no one wants to ban doping in other sports. 

Like I said before, I think this is all about politics, if you dope and piss someone off that you shouldn't they'll go after you but ignore everyone else guilty of the same crap.


----------



## froze

The USADA cannot strip the TDF titles from Lance, that is strictly a UCI thing; it doesn't matter about the Pro Tour team crap, we're talking about the TDF titles, and UCI won't do that without opening a can of worms they don't want opened.


----------



## den bakker

froze said:


> And I mentioned that all athletic sports, pro and college, and in some instances high school, dope, and that website mentions football, but no one wants to ban doping in other sports.
> 
> Like I said before, I think this is all about politics, if you dope and piss someone off that you shouldn't they'll go after you but ignore everyone else guilty of the same crap.


I quoted all in your post and now you just change topic again. well done, have a nice day.


----------

