# Subpoenas issued



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

I have no idea if this will ever lead to a "conviction" or not. Pretty sure it will lead to a lot more evidence of the pervasiveness of doping in cycling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/sports/cycling/14cyclinginquiry.html?_r=2&hpw


----------



## 3rensho (Aug 26, 2003)

I wonder if this will change the attitudes of those that said this was 'bullsh*t'. Glad to hear that Tyler may be one of the guys that cooperates with authorities. What has he got to lose? Same with Floyd I guess.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Reminds me of an old joke.
A man was issued a subpoena. He didn't know what it was so he took it to an elder in town. The elder told the man that they should break down the word to discover its meaning. The elder started the process by stating that "sub" means below and "poena" means, well we all know what a poena is, so it looks like they have you by the balls!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Weird*

"Landis, who has met several times with the lead agent on the case, Jeff Novitzky, is not believed to be among the witnesses the authorities want to question before the grand jury at this point." -NY Times

I guess they already know he is willing and ready when they need him. Like many have said, this is a big deal. I wonder who will buy the rights to the MOVIE about all this when it is over 

This all sucks, but in my opinion, it needs to happen.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Sometimes our judicial system is biased and people get favorable or unfavorable treatment due to their socioeconomic status, political connections or lack thereof, and other stuff like that which should not be a factor. 

But in this scenario, I've got a hunch this prosecutor is going to do a thorough and professional job and a whole lot of dirty laundry is going to be laid out there. A whole lot of folks now know, thanks to the Martha Stewart case, that lying to prosecutors (especially under subpoena) is often more dangerous than the issue being investigated itself. You add in a few guys in the know who have absolutely nothing to lose at this point (Landis and Hamilton and maybe others) who can lead prosecutors in the right direction well... ...I'd just say stay tuned.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> Sometimes our judicial system is biased and people get favorable or unfavorable treatment due to their socioeconomic status, political connections or lack thereof, and other stuff like that which should not be a factor.
> 
> But in this scenario, I've got a hunch this prosecutor is going to do a thorough and professional job and a whole lot of dirty laundry is going to be laid out there. A whole lot of folks now know, thanks to the Martha Stewart case, that lying to prosecutors (especially under subpoena) is often more dangerous than the issue being investigated itself. You add in a few guys in the know who have absolutely nothing to lose at this point (Landis and Hamilton and maybe others) who can lead prosecutors in the right direction well... ...I'd just say stay tuned.


I may be wrong, but it sounds like fishing expedition, still. We hear all kinds of leaks and news about subpoenas, etc. but no hard evidence was ever mentioned, not even once. So they will ask people what they saw - I am just not that impressed. This won't be enough to go to grand jury or judge.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

I haven't heard Andreu's name come up in any of this since he was on the team pre-Landis. I suspect Tyler will spill the beans and Frankie can line up in round two of the subpoenas.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

3rensho said:


> I wonder if this will change the attitudes of those that said this was 'bullsh*t'. Glad to hear that Tyler may be one of the guys that cooperates with authorities. What has he got to lose? Same with Floyd I guess.


Do you really think Floyd isn't any worse off than before he vomited up his allegations?

Doping 'earned' Hamilton an Olympic gold medal. You think he really has nothing to lose by pulling a Landis?

His foundation is apparently still active at some level.
http://www.tylerhamilton.com/cms/mission


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

I haven't visited this forum for a while because it amazes me how people love to believe in conspiracies whether there is any actual proof or not. A spliced together video showing Cancellara making unusual hand movements with a report of a mechanical bike doping by Cassani has many questioning Cancellara's victories. With many calling him a cheat because its physically impossible for someone to open such a huge gap as he did unless he was aided by an electric bike during the classics.

Well I think Cancellara put to rest all the innuendo by his performance thus far at the tour. He did an amazing prologue & then he decimated the field on the cobbles opening up that huge gap mostly by himself. So why is it so easy for everyone to believe something as true when there is no proof at all but because its on the internet is must be true?

We like to build up our athletes & put them on top of mountains & then we love to knock them down. Cavendish is a prime example. People loved him last year & this year when his troubles began, people were cheering his downfall. People say he deserves a knocking cuz he's too cocky. Oh get real, he's still the same cocky guy he was before. Lance is another guy that everyone has put on top of the pedestal. Once there, people have been looking for years for a way to knock him down. And Floyd is giving everyone all the things that they want to hear. 

Floyd has made some spectacular allegations in the recent WSJ article. This is coming from a guy that has changed his story a number of times. And yet people are willing take his word on face value with no proof? One of the allegations that I have a hard time believing is that he claims that LA did coke. I find this extremely difficult to believe considering that Armstrong is THE most tested athlete on the planet. Unlike EPO, the metabolites from coke or any other recreational drug don't disappear that fast which is why it is way easier to catch guys doing this. 

Ask Boonen, Simoni, Ullrich & a host of others that have been nabbed by out of competition testing for recreational drug use. If he was doing coke when he was racing, then LA would have been nabbed long ago. But of course Floyd has this all covered cuz the UCI have LA's back. All part of the conspiracy again which we are suppose to believe. 

Where this is all going to lead, who knows? The only thing I do know is that federal prosecutors are taking the word of Floyd very seriously. If this whole thing we're to help clean up the sport, I would be all for it. But I don't see it playing out that way. Look what happened in baseball. Nothing. Does baseball have the biological passport? More testing? Stricter penalties? Nope, nope & nope.

Floyd's actions show that he's not interested in helping the sport grow but for his own personal gains & he doesn't care who gets hurt in the process. Look no further than team Bahati foundation or whats left of it. I think its pretty telling when Vaughters, a supposed good friend of Floyd's, doesn't even offer him a contract which is what Floyd has been after all this time & the reason for this federal inquiry in the first place. This is the part that I think everyone is forgetting about in terms of these allegatioins. Context. The inability of Floyd to get a Pro tour contract with a team which has led to this.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

Unless I'm mistaken, there's no physical proof and this is all a fishing trip?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

gamara said:


> I find this extremely difficult to believe considering that Armstrong is THE most tested athlete on the planet.


How come it's that hard to believe? After all you believe the "most tested" BS from LA.




> Ask Boonen, Simoni, Ullrich & a host of others that have been nabbed by out of competition testing for recreational drug use. If he was doing coke when he was racing, then LA would have been nabbed long ago. But of course Floyd has this all covered cuz the UCI have LA's back. All part of the conspiracy again which we are suppose to believe.


There is a well documented case of a cocaine addict racing for years without a single positive test, his name was Marco Pantani.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

55x11 said:


> I may be wrong, but it sounds like fishing expedition, still. We hear all kinds of leaks and news about subpoenas, etc. but no hard evidence was ever mentioned, not even once. So they will ask people what they saw - I am just not that impressed. This won't be enough to go to grand jury or judge.


I'm an attorney and can guarantee you no judge would ever look at a bunch of subpoenas in a situation like this as a fishing expedition. They have very specific, concrete allegations. Now they can go out and get info by subpoena to figure out if that info is true or bullshit. Maybe Landis is lying, maybe he is not. They are probably going to find out. The whole BALCO thing got brought down by one syringe of the stuff being anonymously sent to drug enforcement authorities. That whole operation eventually unraveled due to one little piece of concrete information. 

Grand juries take their jobs very, very seriously and the prosecutor is apparently presenting info and witnesses to one instead of deciding whether to pursue charges on his own. The prosecutor can present info to the grand jury that he wants them to hear and the grand jury can actively tell the prosecutor what else they want to hear and subpoena. The grand jury will ultimately decide what happens with charges since the prosecutor decided to go that route. I doubt they are a bunch of cyclists and probably are very interested in the proper use of their tax money and ethics in sports.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Gatorback said:


> I'm an attorney and can guarantee you no judge would ever look at a bunch of subpoenas in a situation like this as a fishing expedition. They have very specific, concrete allegations. Now they can go out and get info by subpoena to figure out if that info is true or bullshit. Maybe Landis is lying, maybe he is not. They are probably going to find out. The whole BALCO thing got brought down by one syringe of the stuff being anonymously sent to drug enforcement authorities. That whole operation eventually unraveled due to one little piece of concrete information.
> 
> Grand juries take their jobs very, very seriously and the prosecutor is apparently presenting info and witnesses to one instead of deciding whether to pursue charges on his own. The prosecutor can present info to the grand jury that he wants them to hear and the grand jury can actively tell the prosecutor what else they want to hear and subpoena. The grand jury will ultimately decide what happens with charges since the prosecutor decided to go that route. I doubt they are a bunch of cyclists and probably are very interested in the proper use of their tax money and ethics in sports.


Normally I would agree with you, but what you seemed to have forgotten is that there are a lot of people on this forum who apparently have very intimate knowledge of the case. I have been amazed at how much information about his investigation the prosecutor has been sharing with some of our forum members. Most prosecutors/investigators will keep their investigations close to the chest, but for some reason in this case the prosecutor seems to be letting anyone and everyone come and review his files, in detail.


----------



## garysol1 (Jun 4, 2008)

rydbyk said:


> it needs to happen.


Does it? Does it really? It is professional cycling. It has no effect on me or my life or my cycling. While I enjoy watching the races I have no doubt that there is cheating going on and there will continue to be cheating. Let the cycling and sporting agencies worry about it. I really do not want my tax money nor my federal officials wasting my money or there time on this. There is much more important issues out there for the feds to be worrying about.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> How come it's that hard to believe? After all you believe the "most tested" BS from LA.
> 
> 
> There is a well documented case of a cocaine addict racing for years without a single positive test, his name was Marco Pantani.


Why is it BS? What sport does the most testing? What athlete in that sport gets selected for "random" tests constantly?

Was Pantani a "coke addict" during his whole career? Do you think testing has improved since his career ended?


----------



## JohnHemlock (Jul 15, 2006)

Speaking of cocaine, Fignon has a funny story in his book about racing while coked to the gills in Columbia. They stayed up all night and then rode like the wind. Some of the lads smuggled blow back to Europe hidden in the seattube of their bicycles.


----------



## Keeping up with Junior (Feb 27, 2003)

*Sticks and Balls*



garysol1 said:


> ...Let the cycling and sporting agencies worry about it. I really do not want my tax money nor my federal officials wasting my money or there time on this. There is much more important issues out there for the feds to be worrying about.


Good point, why is our federal government wasting a moment on this. It is not even an American sport. It is about like our federal government launching an investigation into the poor officiating at the World Cup... who cares, it is not an American sport. If they (US Government) really think doping is a serious problem then go after one of the sacred cow sports like baseball, football or basketball. Otherwise this is just a sideshow in the grand scheme of things and should be far lower on the horizon.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> Why is it BS? What sport does the most testing? What athlete in that sport gets selected for "random" tests constantly?
> 
> Was Pantani a "coke addict" during his whole career? Do you think testing has improved since his career ended?


Wow, I cannot believe any of this has not been discussed to death and back in here before. Good catch.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

3rensho said:


> What has he got to lose?


A gold medal.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Best line of the article, and the most telling:



> Landis, who has met several times with the lead agent on the case, Jeff Novitzky, is not thought to be among the witnesses the authorities want to question before the grand jury, at least at this point.


So the guy whose claims are the basis of the investigation is not going under oath before a grand jury??? Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser.

That means it's a fishing expedition for sure.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

Keeping up with Junior said:


> Good point, why is our federal government wasting a moment on this. It is not even an American sport. It is about like our federal government launching an investigation into the poor officiating at the World Cup... who cares, it is not an American sport. If they (US Government) really think doping is a serious problem then go after one of the sacred cow sports like baseball, football or basketball. Otherwise this is just a sideshow in the grand scheme of things and should be far lower on the horizon.


You are overlooking the obvious: guys want to win. Think about the agent who gets to shoot the elephant. Lance is in the crosshairs now and someone wants to bag that trophy.


----------



## gamara (May 20, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> How come it's that hard to believe? After all you believe the "most tested" BS from LA.
> 
> 
> There is a well documented case of a cocaine addict racing for years without a single positive test, his name was Marco Pantani.


Hmmm, I don't think I'm stating anything that is not already out in the public. Besides the quote that LA is the most tested athlete is not from LA himself but Phil Liggett. Besides, you don't hear WADA or the UCI denying this fact. 

Secondly as to Pantani, have you read any of the biographies after his death? Every little detail of his doping practices have been uncovered by many authors with all the same conclusion. Yes Pantani doped throughout his whole entire career, the proof is readily available for all to see in the medical files of Dr. Conconi. But was he on coke the whole time? No. 

Pantani only started to use coke after he was kicked out of the 99 Giro for blood doping. From what is known, he only used coke when he was depressed. So how often was his coke use until his death in 04? How often was he depressed during those years??? So unless you're his dealer, it would be hard to say that this guy used coke his whole entire career. 

The thing with coke is that one of the tests for it is by hair samples because there will always be trace amounts of it in the hair. That is why there was speculation back in the late 90's that many of the french riders had dyed hair because it was speculated as a way to mask it. 

As I've mentioned in many other different posts, no other sport has done as much as cycling in terms of testing, new testing methods, out of competition testing & research. Do you not think that since Pantani's death that the testing done by WADA has improved immensely? 

As I said before, people will argue to the death about some conspiracy that they believe in. Speculation is one thing but proof is another thing entirely. Taking into account the source of these allegations, one has to take into context the motivation of Floyd's actions. He still has a case pending against him for computer hacking & espionage which is a very serious offense. Would it surprise me if perhaps he's cutting some sort of deal for this?? Who knows?? But without physical proof, which Landis readily admits that he has none, why should I so easily accept & believe his word as proof? Especially if his claims make no sense or if they contradict himself.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Why is it BS? What sport does the most testing? What athlete in that sport gets selected for "random" tests constantly?


Marion Jones was tested more and never failed one, not even need of a backdated TUE. Cipollini would have been tested more frequently as he won more races. It is a comment by LA that has been perpetuated into fact. That he has been tested many times is not in question. But he is far from the most tested athlete. 



> Was Pantani a "coke addict" during his whole career? Do you think testing has improved since his career ended?


For a good chunk of it, yes he was. Read his manager Manuela Ronchi's book or William Fotherington's book. In his manager's book she describes the multiple times they tried to get him away from the people who helped him score to no avail. It ended up killing him. Jose Maria Jiminez was another incredible talent who lost his life after he was admitted to a clinic for treatment for cocaine addiction. Never tested positive either.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Marion Jones was tested more and never failed one, not even need of a backdated TUE. Cipollini would have been tested more frequently as he won more races. It is a comment by LA that has been perpetuated into fact. That he has been tested many times is not in question. But he is far from the most tested athlete.


Interesting, perhaps you can provide the actual numbers of all in competition and out of competition tests for both. I am guessing you won't take me up on that.



> For a good chunk of it, yes he was. Read his manager Manuela Ronchi's book or William Fotherington's book. In his manager's book she describes the multiple times they tried to get him away from the people who helped him score to no avail. It ended up killing him. Jose Maria Jiminez was another incredible talent who lost his life after he was admitted to a clinic for treatment for cocaine addiction. Never tested positive either.


Did you not read the books well or are you purposely passing along false info? I have read those books and all of the coke use was in his last year or two.

But let's be honest, nothing will change your mind about LA. You are one of those people who hate him so much that you will spin anything against him. If you were a devout Catholic and God came down saying LA was innocent you would say he was lying and that you have been a Muslim your whole life.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Interesting, perhaps you can provide the actual numbers of all in competition and out of competition tests for both. I am guessing you won't take me up on that.


Here are the numbers. Quit insulting people:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2108681&postcount=143


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

garysol1 said:


> Let the cycling and sporting agencies worry about it. I really do not want my tax money nor my federal officials wasting my money or there time on this. There is much more important issues out there for the feds to be worrying about.



This. x eleventy


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

wiz525 said:


> This. x eleventy


so write your Congressman, we live in a nation of laws not men. Being a good liar with legions of sympathizers doesn't bring him above the justice system.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> Did you not read the books well or are you purposely passing along false info? I have read those books and all of the coke use was in his last year or two.


Well I suggest you read pages 166 to 169 which centre on the events just after Pantani was kicked out of the Giro at Madonna di Campiglio in 1999. If you're a non cocaine user who's depressed you're unlikely to go out on a coke binge to get over it. If you already use coke then it's more likely.
Coke has been around in cycling since before time. The Pelessier brothers cited its use together with morphine & strychnine in the 20's, and it is one of the constituents of Pot Belge of Festina 98 & Cahors 06 fame.




> But let's be honest, nothing will change your mind about LA.


Short of a miracle, unlikely. There's too much that doesn't sit right for me. His treatment of Pantani in 2000, Bassons in 99 and Simeoni in 2004 were unpleasant glimpses of his character. The same traits were apparent in 2009 with his attitude to Contador. But I will wait and see what if anything emerges from the Federal investigation.
LA from 92-96 was great to watch. 99 on was boring, just as Indurain bored me. I was disappointed because of the rider he was before led me to believe that he was capable of much more, not just turning up to the Tour and SFA else. 



> You are one of those people who hate him so much that you will spin anything against him. If you were a devout Catholic and God came down saying LA was innocent you would say he was lying and that you have been a Muslim your whole life.


Read SilasCL's post.


----------



## wiz525 (Dec 31, 2007)

blackhat said:


> so write your Congressman, we live in a nation of laws not men. Being a good liar with legions of sympathizers doesn't bring him above the justice system.


I didn't say it did. I'm speaking about priorities. I felt the same way about Congress stepping into Baseball. It's a waste of time and resources from my point of view, especially if it's a fishing escapade.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Here are the numbers. Quit insulting people:
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2108681&postcount=143



Yeh, but Lance is the most tested rider that has won the TdF 7X. Nobody else who has won 7X has been tested as much as Lance.

Fixed.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> so write your Congressman, we live in a nation of laws not men. Being a good liar with legions of sympathizers doesn't bring him above the justice system.


If only the justice system had some law could they could charge riders with.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> If only the justice system had some law could they could charge riders with.


I don't follow you. The "riders" they're seemingly looking at are bound by criminal law like everyone else. If LA & Co orchestrated a conspiracy to commit large scale fraud or whatever else they're pursuing, the justice system certainly has such laws in place.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

blackhat said:


> I don't follow you. The "riders" they're seemingly looking at are bound by criminal law like everyone else. If LA & Co orchestrated a conspiracy to commit large scale fraud or whatever else they're pursuing, the justice system certainly has such laws in place.


There were no laws that cover US riders doping. Charges like that are not possible, and are not going to happen. Forget about it. If doping were illegal, Hamilton, Landis, etc. would be serving time. Find me anyone who has ever been charged with the crime of doping in this country. You can't. Even admitted dopers like Marion Jones, who were convicted of crimes, were never charged with doping.

As for fraud, it's going to be hard to drag any riders into that, because no riders were part of the team ownership and none helped finance the team. Lance later became a part owner of the team, but not while he was riding.

So what are you left with? Not much. Hope, I guess.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> There were no laws that cover US riders doping. Charges like that are not possible, and are not going to happen. Forget about it. If doping were illegal, Hamilton, Landis, etc. would be serving time. Find me anyone who has ever been charged with the crime of doping in this country. You can't. Even admitted dopers like Marion Jones, who were convicted of crimes, were never charged with doping.
> 
> As for fraud, it's going to be hard to drag any riders into that, because no riders were part of the team ownership and none helped finance the team. Lance later became a part owner of the team, but not while he was riding.
> 
> So what are you left with? Not much. Hope, I guess.


An interesting perspective. 

Perhaps the results from this investigation will be akin to Capone going to jail for tax evasion; or more accurately Martha Stewart for lying to investigators.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

blackhat said:


> so write your Congressman, we live in a nation of laws not men. Being a good liar with legions of sympathizers doesn't bring him above the justice system.


We shouldn't have to when there's an oil leak in the gulf dumping 60,000 barrels of oil a day... it should be obvious what they should be investigating.

Besides that, where is the physical evidence with which to trumpet this witch hunt?


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

mohair_chair said:


> Best line of the article, and the most telling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately in this case I think it's a fishing expedition in a well stocked pond.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

thesmokingman said:


> We shouldn't have to when there's an oil leak in the gulf dumping 60,000 barrels of oil a day... it should be obvious what they should be investigating.
> 
> Besides that, where is the physical evidence with which to trumpet this witch hunt?


I'm pretty sure there's enough investigators to do both... and that Nowitzky isn't particularly qualified to be looking into oil spills. He is, apparently, pretty good at unraveling doping conspiracies.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> Best line of the article, and the most telling:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, just chumming the water.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

Do I assume you haven't seen the headlines about Armstrong contradicting his _sworn testimony in the 2005 SCA case? Armstrong testified that he owned about 10% of Tailwind (confirmed by Stapleton in his own testimony). Armstrong now saying he'll comply with the investigation but he was just a rider under contract to Tailwind and didn't own any of it, oh no sirree.

Now either he lied under oath or he's lying now - I'd say that neatly brings his credibility down to Flandis level. My favourite quote is that there must not be a witch hunt because he's done too much good for too many people. So that grants immunity does it? And there was me assuming that those good things were done from good motives, not simply to provide immunity against criticism.

Armstrong is rattled - the key is the SCA testimony, so many half truths and downright lies. Funny how breaking omerta may not even matter and Armstrong will simply be hoist by his own petard and the hubris that assumes people can't read a document in the public domain._


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 27, 2008)

blackhat said:


> I'm pretty sure there's enough investigators to do both... and that Nowitzky isn't particularly qualified to be looking into oil spills. He is, apparently, pretty good at unraveling doping conspiracies.


Apparently not since it's A still leaking, and B its still leaking, and C its still leaking, and D the people responsible well... quick lets pull out the funhouse mirrors. What's next for them, go after salt content in food? Go after healthcare... oh wait they already fubar'd that one up. Close Gitmo? Hmm, nah lets go after some cyclists because this upstanding guy here says so.

On the level of things important to this country, wasting resources on the word of Landis doesn't seem like one of them to me.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

By all accounts, the federal investigation is about fraud involving taxpayer funds, which means it is exclusive to the USPS years, which ended in 2004. Armstrong wasn't an owner then. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Bianchigirl said:


> Do I assume you haven't seen the headlines about Armstrong contradicting his _sworn testimony in the 2005 SCA case? Armstrong testified that he owned about 10% of Tailwind (confirmed by Stapleton in his own testimony). Armstrong now saying he'll comply with the investigation but he was just a rider under contract to Tailwind and didn't own any of it, oh no sirree.
> 
> Now either he lied under oath or he's lying now - I'd say that neatly brings his credibility down to Flandis level. My favourite quote is that there must not be a witch hunt because he's done too much good for too many people. So that grants immunity does it? And there was me assuming that those good things were done from good motives, not simply to provide immunity against criticism.
> 
> Armstrong is rattled - the key is the SCA testimony, so many half truths and downright lies. Funny how breaking omerta may not even matter and Armstrong will simply be hoist by his own petard and the hubris that assumes people can't read a document in the public domain._


_


Are you saying that you want a date with Lance?_


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Bianchigirl said:


> Do I assume you haven't seen the headlines about Armstrong contradicting his _sworn testimony in the 2005 SCA case? Armstrong testified that he owned about 10% of Tailwind (confirmed by Stapleton in his own testimony). Armstrong now saying he'll comply with the investigation but he was just a rider under contract to Tailwind and didn't own any of it, oh no sirree.
> 
> Now either he lied under oath or he's lying now - I'd say that neatly brings his credibility down to Flandis level. My favourite quote is that there must not be a witch hunt because he's done too much good for too many people. So that grants immunity does it? And there was me assuming that those good things were done from good motives, not simply to provide immunity against criticism.
> 
> Armstrong is rattled - the key is the SCA testimony, so many half truths and downright lies. Funny how breaking omerta may not even matter and Armstrong will simply be hoist by his own petard and the hubris that assumes people can't read a document in the public domain._


_

2005 is not 2004 or 2002 or 1999.

What clout did Armstrong have in 1998 to become a part owner?_


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

The date when he became an owner is absolutely irrelevant - the point is that, on Wednesday, he denied _ever_ having an ownership stake in Tailwind. As his own sworn testimony proves, that's a lie. And if he's happy to lie about that, what else is he happy to lie about?

See, boys, that's the way this credibility thing works - you tell a bare faced lie and it calls the veracity of all your other statements into question :lol:


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

The non-smoking gun.

Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports, is?
A. I'm an athlete on the team.
Q. Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?
A. A small one.
Q. When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?
A. Perhaps 10 percent.
Q. Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?
A. No. I don't remember.
Q. Would it have been in 2005, or before that?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Do you have any -- is there -- do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? '02? '03? '04?
A. Before today.
Q. OK. Would it have been before 2001?
A. Probably not, but I'm not a hundred percent sure.
Q. Who would know the answer to that question as to when you acquired an ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. Bill Stapleton.
Q. Is there documentation? Like do you have papers or an ownership certificate of some sort that reflects your ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. I'm sure there is.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> The date when he became an owner is absolutely irrelevant - the point is that, on Wednesday, he denied _ever_ having an ownership stake in Tailwind. As his own sworn testimony proves, that's a lie. And if he's happy to lie about that, what else is he happy to lie about?
> 
> See, boys, that's the way this credibility thing works - you tell a bare faced lie and it calls the veracity of all your other statements into question :lol:



View attachment 205910


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> The date when he became an owner is absolutely irrelevant - the point is that, on Wednesday, he denied _ever_ having an ownership stake in Tailwind. As his own sworn testimony proves, that's a lie. And if he's happy to lie about that, what else is he happy to lie about?
> 
> See, boys, that's the way this credibility thing works - you tell a bare faced lie and it calls the veracity of all your other statements into question :lol:


Cyclingnews.com has Lance quoted thusly:



> "When the Postal Services were sponsors of the team I was a rider on the team," Armstrong said before Wednesday's Tour de France stage.
> 
> "I was a rider on the team that was contracted to Tailwind Sports. I never had any dealing, any dealings with the Postal Services. Zero."
> 
> "There is a lot of information out there and being somebody that knows the situation probably better than anybody else, it's not very accurate," the added. "I think the most glaring thing is this misperception that I was the owner of the team. That's completely untrue."


So, you got the SCA testimony wrong, and you got Lance's quote wrong. Where does that leave you in terms of credibility?


----------



## CoffeeBean2 (Aug 6, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> By all accounts, the federal investigation is about fraud involving taxpayer funds, which means it is exclusive to the USPS years, which ended in 2004. Armstrong wasn't an owner then. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.


Side note: the USPS doesn't use taxpayer funds. It is self-sufficient and has not used taxpayer funds since the 1980's. So I wonder if the investigators can still use fraud? It seems they might be able to use tax evasion for the sold bikes?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm curious as to how many on here commenting on the legal aspects of the ongoing investigation have actual expertise or training in legal issues?

I don't know whether Armstrong doped or not, but I can tell you about the legal system, discovery procedures, subpoenas, etc. I do this for a living. If this guy Nowitzky is the one who took down BALCO then he sure as hell knows what he is doing. And he ain't wasting his time messing around with allegations that don't have real substance. That doesn't mean the allegations are true, but they have raised an experienced prosecutor's eyebrows enough to where he has decided he wants to get to the bottom of it and find out. And I'll bet you he does.


----------



## OES (Jan 23, 2002)

I'm genuinely puzzled, not making a statement: How would transfusing your own blood be a federal matter? What's the crime?



Gatorback said:


> I'm an attorney and can guarantee you no judge would ever look at a bunch of subpoenas in a situation like this as a fishing expedition. They have very specific, concrete allegations. Now they can go out and get info by subpoena to figure out if that info is true or bullshit. Maybe Landis is lying, maybe he is not. They are probably going to find out. The whole BALCO thing got brought down by one syringe of the stuff being anonymously sent to drug enforcement authorities. That whole operation eventually unraveled due to one little piece of concrete information.
> 
> Grand juries take their jobs very, very seriously and the prosecutor is apparently presenting info and witnesses to one instead of deciding whether to pursue charges on his own. The prosecutor can present info to the grand jury that he wants them to hear and the grand jury can actively tell the prosecutor what else they want to hear and subpoena. The grand jury will ultimately decide what happens with charges since the prosecutor decided to go that route. I doubt they are a bunch of cyclists and probably are very interested in the proper use of their tax money and ethics in sports.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Gatorback said:


> I'm curious as to how many on here commenting on the legal aspects of the ongoing investigation have actual expertise or training in legal issues?
> 
> I don't know whether Armstrong doped or not, but I can tell you about the legal system, discovery procedures, subpoenas, etc. I do this for a living. If this guy Nowitzky is the one who took down BALCO then he sure as hell knows what he is doing. And he ain't wasting his time messing around with allegations that don't have real substance. That doesn't mean the allegations are true, but they have raised an experienced prosecutor's eyebrows enough to where he has decided he wants to get to the bottom of it and find out. And I'll bet you he does.


+1:thumbsup:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Gatorback said:


> I'm curious as to how many on here commenting on the legal aspects of the ongoing investigation have actual expertise or training in legal issues?
> 
> I don't know whether Armstrong doped or not, but I can tell you about the legal system, discovery procedures, subpoenas, etc. I do this for a living. If this guy Nowitzky is the one who took down BALCO then he sure as hell knows what he is doing. And he ain't wasting his time messing around with allegations that don't have real substance. That doesn't mean the allegations are true, but they have raised an experienced prosecutor's eyebrows enough to where he has decided he wants to get to the bottom of it and find out. And I'll bet you he does.


Sure, just like that other experienced prosecutor Kenneth Starr did. Wait, what was he investigating again? Real estate deals? That was one long fishing expedition.


----------



## Jimbolaya (Jun 2, 2008)

gamara said:


> The thing with coke is that one of the tests for it is by hair samples because there will always be trace amounts of it in the hair. That is why there was speculation back in the late 90's that many of the french riders had dyed hair because it was speculated as a way to mask it.


So that's why Pantani had a shaved head!


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> By all accounts, the federal investigation is about fraud involving taxpayer funds, which means it is exclusive to the USPS years, which ended in 2004. Armstrong wasn't an owner then. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.


The USPS keeps claiming that they are not tax-payer supported.


----------



## Mootsie (Feb 4, 2004)

OES said:


> I'm genuinely puzzled, not making a statement: How would transfusing your own blood be a federal matter? What's the crime?


It's called fraud and supporting it with government funds (US Postal) is a federal crime.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Bianchigirl said:


> See, boys, that's the way this credibility thing works - you tell a bare faced lie and it calls the veracity of all your other statements into question :lol:


So just like Landis and his claims?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

OES said:


> I'm genuinely puzzled, not making a statement: How would transfusing your own blood be a federal matter? What's the crime?


I wasn't even thinking of blood doping. I was thinking of defrauding a federal governmental agency, possession of controlled substances, trafficking in controlled substances, conspiracy to do all these things, RICO claims, etc.

But since you asked, I took a quick look. Blood doping would violate all kinds of FDA standards which regulate blood and blood products, and likely a bunch of state law as well depending on where the blood doping occurred. If there was blood doping going on, there were likely many infractions committed unless they were following dozens of FDA regulations including detailed record keeping, storage practices, and inspections. And if they were doing any processing of the blood, even more issues would come into play.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> Sure, just like that other experienced prosecutor Kenneth Starr did. Wait, what was he investigating again? Real estate deals? That was one long fishing expedition.


Another great legal mind to the rescue!

You do know that Ken Starr was never a prosecutor, right?


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

and whatever happened to Bond's in the BALCO deal- thats right not jack $h*te...

get the parallel???


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> Another great legal mind to the rescue!
> 
> You do know that Ken Starr was never a prosecutor, right?


Yes, those of us without law degrees have feeble little minds that just cannot comprehend the legal system at any level.

How foolish to call Ken Starr a prosecutor when he was Solicitor General. Nevermind that both are representatives for the government (and, theoretically, "the people"). It's just a completely idiotic comparison.

What fools we are that when we observe prosecutors in situations such as the Duke "rape" it leads us to believe that prosecutors may, indeed, act imprudently.

On behalf of all non-legals, please accept my sincere apology for making any assumptions about the legal process. Oh, what idiotic fools we are!


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

a_avery007 said:


> and whatever happened to Bond's in the BALCO deal- thats right not jack $h*te...
> 
> get the parallel???


Even if there is not a huge "legal" punishment....

Bonds admitted steroid use. Bonds did not have a huge foundation called Livestrong. Bonds is not Lance Armstrong (international idol for many..like it or not). Bonds' "fans" were isolated for the most part to this town called San Francisco. 

So "no" not really.

T*he media will absolutely go apesh*t if and or when Lance is found guilty of perf. enhancing drugs.*

Not even the same at all.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> Bonds admitted steroid use.


Hearsay!


----------



## nathanbal (Feb 23, 2009)

does the US justice system have any jurisdiction if all these acts supposed acts where performed offshore (ie if these guys where blood doping but it was done in europe)? also, if the bikes where being sold to fund the doping, how does this relate to USPS? they are going to have a very hard time proving a direct relationship between govt funds and the racing team funding a doping program... given most of these guys havent been caught over the past 15 years, its a safe assumption they knew how to cover their tracks. without a smoking gun, i'm tipping this is a case of a prosecutor looking for some publicity and nothing more.


----------



## Bianchigirl (Sep 17, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> So, you got the SCA testimony wrong, and you got Lance's quote wrong. Where does that leave you in terms of credibility?


That's right, just a lowly rider like Hamilton & Livingston carrying water bottled and pulling for his team leader...Lance Armstrong. To attempt to position himself as 'just a little fish' (ah poor little Lance' is disingenuous at best.

I'm interested why CSE and Mellow Johnny's - 2 companies directly linked to Armstrong - were registered at the same adress as Tailwind from 2002. And doesn't this inability to get it together with paperwork - the shares in Tailwind, the UCI donation - rather give the lie to Armstrong/Stapleton's reputation as killer businessmen?

BTW think you'll find CN has the NEW version of the story, cobbled together after Tim Herman emailed all the sympa press once they'd spotted the monumental c*ck up.

Mohair, whilst I absolutely admire your ability to see nothing but good in Armstrong, I think even you will have to begin to admit that there are too many holes. But first, I'd really recommend the SCA testimony - try counting the number of times Armstrong says 'I don't remember' - it's absolutely astonishing what a dreadfully poor memory he has


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

"I also have stock in IBM and IT&T."


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

*Huh*



jorgy said:


> Hearsay!



"Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season."

-ESPN

If you want to "believe" Bonds that he did not know what the cream and clear were....that is down right amusing. Sounds like Barry should sue G. Anderson for "not telling" him what the products were based on your belief.

Or.....were you kidding? Hope so.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> I'm an attorney and can guarantee you no judge would ever look at a bunch of subpoenas in a situation like this as a fishing expedition. They have very specific, concrete allegations. Now they can go out and get info by subpoena to figure out if that info is true or bullshit. Maybe Landis is lying, maybe he is not. They are probably going to find out. The whole BALCO thing got brought down by one syringe of the stuff being anonymously sent to drug enforcement authorities. That whole operation eventually unraveled due to one little piece of concrete information.
> 
> Grand juries take their jobs very, very seriously and the prosecutor is apparently presenting info and witnesses to one instead of deciding whether to pursue charges on his own. The prosecutor can present info to the grand jury that he wants them to hear and the grand jury can actively tell the prosecutor what else they want to hear and subpoena. The grand jury will ultimately decide what happens with charges since the prosecutor decided to go that route. I doubt they are a bunch of cyclists and probably are very interested in the proper use of their tax money and ethics in sports.


So would allegations by Landis be enough to issue subpoenas to guys mentioned in his Wall Street interview? (LA, Hincapie, Levi, Zabriskie, etc.)
Or - do they need some physical evidence - photos, bank account transactions, syringes, blood, hair, etc.

Of course I wouldn't be completely surprised if the feds have tons of evidence and somehow manage to keep it ALL under wraps - but I would be impressed, usually things of this nature tend to leak. Think Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson etc.. 
What does surprise me a little is that with plenty of leaks about other aspects of the case, we never hear about even a whiff of a "smoking gun" evidence, if it exists, or what it might be, very generally speaking. The "case of missing bikes" does not rise to the level of convincing evidence that would put anyone in jail, sorry. And when a few months after Landis story came out Wall Street journalist has to write about stop signs and strip clubs, this doesn't make me very excited about the eventual outcome. With Balco, for example,I seem to recall there were plenty of "smoke" and leaks well before Conte plead guilty. Since the public opinion does matter tremendously in this type of case involving a well-known celebrity of LA level, and the current perception in general public is that this is still a witch-hunt of some sort (only cycling fans like us pay attention to details), I am surprised we haven't heard any hints about what the smoking gun will be, which makes me think it doesn't exist (yet).


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Bianchigirl said:


> That's right, just a lowly rider like Hamilton & Livingston carrying water bottled and pulling for his team leader...Lance Armstrong. To attempt to position himself as 'just a little fish' (ah poor little Lance' is disingenuous at best.
> 
> I'm interested why CSE and Mellow Johnny's - 2 companies directly linked to Armstrong - were registered at the same adress as Tailwind from 2002. And doesn't this inability to get it together with paperwork - the shares in Tailwind, the UCI donation - rather give the lie to Armstrong/Stapleton's reputation as killer businessmen?
> 
> ...


You hate Lance with a bitterness that no one will probably understand, and that's fine. That's why you consider anyone who picks apart your posts and disagrees with you to be a Lance fanboy. It must be true, right? I don't live in a black and white world like that. When I see posts that have the facts wrong or that boost legally trivial and easily explained items up to smoking gun level, I'll speak up. And I think if you seriously read my posts on these matters, you'll see I'm not taking sides. 

So, you found two companies directly linked to Armstrong registered at the same adress as Tailwind from 2002. So what? Seriously, what does that prove? Are you suggesting that proves that Lance was a partner in Tailwind while on USPS? That's a ridiculous leap. Mellow Johnnys didn't exist until 2008. And Lance has plenty of other business ventures. Read about it here: 

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/11/02/story2.html

As for Lance saying 'I don't remember' a lot, all that indicates is that you know nothing about depositions. Look up the testimony of ANY deposition given by anyone and you'll find the same thing. If you could find transcripts of Greg Lemond's testimony in various cases, you would find his memory just as lacking as Armstrongs. 

If you ever have to testify in a deposition, your lawyer will tell you exactly what Lance's lawyer told him. If you don't know an answer, or if you cannot give an answer with full precision, then say you don't know or can't recall. It's pretty basic. It happens every day in every deposition. And the reason you do that is because if you don't know the answer, but you guess at it and get it wrong, that will be used against you later to question your credibility.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

SilasCL said:


> You do know that Ken Starr was never a prosecutor, right?


Regardless, he supervised a team of prosecutors that went off on one of the longest and most expensive fishing expeditions we've ever seen in this country, and in the end, nothing he was charged with investigating resulted in any charges.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> "Bonds told a U.S. grand jury that he used undetectable steroids known as "the cream" and "the clear," which he received from personal trainer Greg Anderson during the 2003 season."
> 
> -ESPN


Actually, Bonds admitted to unknowingly using steroids. You're leaving out the important part where Bonds claims he didn't know they were steroids at the time. He said he thought they were flaxseed oil and something else I can't remember.

Do I believe him? No frickin' way. But that's the whole story.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Actually, Bonds admitted to unknowingly using steroids. You're leaving out the important part where Bonds claims he didn't know they were steroids at the time. He said he thought they were flaxseed oil and something else I can't remember.
> 
> Do I believe him? No frickin' way. But that's the whole story.



Yep. That is why I wrote this:

If you want to "believe" Bonds that he did not know what the cream and clear were....that is down right amusing. Sounds like Barry should sue G. Anderson for "not telling" him what the products were based on your belief.:thumbsup:


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

rydbyk said:


> Sounds like Barry should sue G. Anderson for "not telling" him what the products were based on your belief.:thumbsup:


Anderson spent a year in prison protecting Bonds, so it would be pretty cruel for Bonds to turn around and sue him. Even Bonds isn't that much of a jerk.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Bianchigirl said:


> That's right, just a lowly rider like Hamilton & Livingston carrying water bottled and pulling for his team leader...Lance Armstrong. To attempt to position himself as 'just a little fish' (ah poor little Lance' is disingenuous at best.
> 
> I'm interested why CSE and Mellow Johnny's - 2 companies directly linked to Armstrong - were registered at the same adress as Tailwind from 2002. And doesn't this inability to get it together with paperwork - the shares in Tailwind, the UCI donation - rather give the lie to Armstrong/Stapleton's reputation as killer businessmen?
> 
> ...




Bianchigirl...by any chance are you Stephanie McIlvain?  While you do make some valid points here and there, your haterade is in full effect...


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Whether anyone gets convicted or not, I have a feeling by the time this is over the fanboys who claim Armstrong raced clean are going to be on par with the flat-earthers and evolution deniers 

That is, if Armstrong doesn't do the smart thing and just fess up so he avoids any sort of Marion Jones situation.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Whether anyone gets convicted or not, I have a feeling by the time this is over the fanboys who claim Armstrong raced clean are going to be on par with the flat-earthers and evolution deniers
> 
> That is, if Armstrong doesn't do the smart thing and just fess up so he avoids any sort of Marion Jones situation.



You may be right. I do know that there are a ton of LA "fanboys" like myself that understand there is an incredibly high chance that he has not always raced clean.....just like most other pros that he has beaten perhaps...:idea: 

As long as it was an equal playing field, I am OK with Lance's victories for the most part. Again, if I had it my way, I would push the Staples Easy Button and wake up tomorrow to a clean sport....one can hope right?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

rydbyk said:


> As long as it was an equal playing field, I am OK with Lance's victories for the most part. Again, if I had it my way, I would push the Staples Easy Button and wake up tomorrow to a clean sport....one can hope right?


Doesn't matter one way or the other to me, I'm not ever going to be a professional cyclist who has to make the decision.

What's clear to me is that overwhelmingly those who made it didn't mind the doping which is probably a large part of why they made it to the big time.

As Ulrich has said, he never cheated anyone and I doubt Armstong did either before his retirement. 

As for even playing field. Maybe when EPO could be used without restraint, but once blood doping became necessary I'm not so sure that was open to anyone willing.

Clearly at some point it became "unfair" as shown by Basso and the Buffalo in the Giro (2006?), or over the last few years where the guys winning were pretty likely to be the ones to get popped (e.g. Ricco, Rebellin).


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> You may be right. I do know that there are a ton of LA "fanboys" like myself that understand there is an incredibly high chance that he has not always raced clean.....just like most other pros that he has beaten perhaps...:idea:
> 
> As long as it was an *equal playing field,* I am OK with Lance's victories for the most part. Again, if I had it my way, I would push the Staples Easy Button and wake up tomorrow to a clean sport....one can hope right?


Faulty logic. A person with better connections and more money will be able to buy more advanced pharmaceuticals or a greater quantity. If Lance did use (which I would be shocked if he didn't) then he most certainly had an advantage over most other cyclists.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Henry Porter said:


> Faulty logic. A person with better connections and more money will be able to buy more advanced pharmaceuticals or a greater quantity. If Lance did use (which I would be shocked if he didn't) then he most certainly had an advantage over most other cyclists.


OTOH, he who dares wins. Armstong might have had an advantage if he went to blood doping before some others (or if he was doing it all along), but clearly as Fuentes showed lots of cyclists were doing it. So I guess it comes down to what "most" means.

Personally as I see it, the doping was an arms race and part & parcel aspect of the sport that I'd love to know more about since it likely did have a great deal of influence over the outcome of races since I started following the sport.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Dwayne Barry said:


> OTOH, he who dares wins. Armstong might have had an advantage if he went to blood doping before some others (or if he was doing it all along), but clearly as Fuentes showed lots of cyclists were doing it. So I guess it comes down to what "most" means.
> 
> Personally as I see it, the doping was an arms race and part & parcel aspect of the sport that I'd love to know more about since it likely did have a great deal of influence over the outcome of races since I started following the sport.


I want to know about it because I enjoy conspiracies and think the science behind it is fascinating.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Here are the numbers. Quit insulting people:
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=2108681&postcount=143


Perhaps people like you need to be insulted. Read the post again and you will see that LA was tested many more times than Jones....unless you decide not to include the UCI tests like that poster tried doing at first. As a matter of fact he was tested about three times more then her. Oops.

If you look at what the "myth" is then if you compare LA in Cipo just in the years has was a Tour winner (which is what the "myth" is about) you will find he has 75 tests to Cipo's 70, using the numbers in that post. Oops.

The problem is that some of you have become so obsessed with irrational hate for someone you don't even know that you can't be bothered with facts...even if you post them and they prove you wrong.

Eagerly awaiting an angry response from you.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Henry Porter said:


> Faulty logic. A person with better connections and more money will be able to buy more advanced pharmaceuticals or a greater quantity. If Lance did use (which I would be shocked if he didn't) then he most certainly had an advantage over most other cyclists.



Good point. I have considered that in the past. I personally do not know how much better/more effective one drug is over another. Do you?

If one gives a CLEAR advantage over another and was only used by the winner(s), then perhaps your point is valid.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Well I suggest you read pages 166 to 169 which centre on the events just after Pantani was kicked out of the Giro at Madonna di Campiglio in 1999. If you're a non cocaine user who's depressed you're unlikely to go out on a coke binge to get over it. If you already use coke then it's more likely.
> Coke has been around in cycling since before time. The Pelessier brothers cited its use together with morphine & strychnine in the 20's, and it is one of the constituents of Pot Belge of Festina 98 & Cahors 06 fame.


So you claim the books about Marco show he was a coke addict through his career and your proof is that one doesn't just go on a coke binge. Hall of Fail post.




> Short of a miracle, unlikely. There's too much that doesn't sit right for me. His treatment of Pantani in 2000, Bassons in 99 and Simeoni in 2004 were unpleasant glimpses of his character. The same traits were apparent in 2009 with his attitude to Contador. But I will wait and see what if anything emerges from the Federal investigation.
> LA from 92-96 was great to watch. 99 on was boring, just as Indurain bored me. I was disappointed because of the rider he was before led me to believe that he was capable of much more, not just turning up to the Tour and SFA else.


Thanks for admitting it, but it's pretty pathetic. 



> Read SilasCL's post.


Read and shred.


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Good point. I have considered that in the past. I personally do not know how much better/more effective one drug is over another. Do you?
> 
> If one gives a CLEAR advantage over another and was only used by the winner(s), then perhaps your point is valid.


Part of them, I do know. Others not so much. 

As for your second paragraph, you missed the point of my post.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Perico said:


> The problem is that some of you have become so obsessed with irrational hate for someone you don't even know that you can't be bothered with facts...even if you post them and they prove you wrong.


Well one fact that seems pretty clear to anyone following doping and cycling over the last decade is that we know of dozens if not hundreds of cyclists who were doping, tested and never come back positive over the time in question.

The testing was next to worthless as evidenced by the fact that when Gripper came into the UCI and they along with some national federations like the Italians and Belgians started to make the testing more rigorous, they started catching riders left and right.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> The testing was next to worthless as evidenced by the fact that when Gripper came into the UCI and they along with some national federations like the Italians and Belgians started to make the testing more rigorous, they started catching riders left and right.


I'm not sure if it was that testing got so much better, or that they began testing for the right thing. Around that time, a lot of riders got nailed for CERA, because they thought there was no test for it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I'm not sure if it was that testing got so much better, or that they began testing for the right thing. Around that time, a lot of riders got nailed for CERA, because they thought there was no test for it.


No this was before CERA. It was largely because the OOC testing became more frequent and less predictable. E.g., there were a rash of testosterone and old-fashion EPO positives.

Even now there are no doubt "windows of oppurtunites" and means to dope, e.g. microdosing EPO intravenously, because there are times when riders know they won't be tested.

I bet a surprise midnight testing or stopping the peloton in the middle of tomorrows stage and testing everyone would turn up a few positives.

I wouldn't be surprised if ridings are "microdosing" transfusions.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

55x11 said:


> So would allegations by Landis be enough to issue subpoenas to guys mentioned in his Wall Street interview? (LA, Hincapie, Levi, Zabriskie, etc.)
> Or - do they need some physical evidence - photos, bank account transactions, syringes, blood, hair, etc.


The allegations alone would be enough if they are specific allegations, especially since they come from someone who purports to have first hand knowledge and in fact could have had first hand knowledge since he was on their same team. In fact, search warrants are issued all the time based upon info from sources who would be considered highly dubious by most people. For example, some known drug dealer gets arrested, is interrogated by law enforcement officers who want to get to the big fish instead of a local corner dealer, and law enforcement uses the information from that dubious source to get info and search warrants to go after the sources.

The other stuff you mention, like physical evidence, photos, bank account transaction, syringes, blood, hair, etc. are things that you will typically get through supboenas or search warrants. They could of course help in getting access to more information, creating probable cause to issue even more subpoenas and get more search warrants, but you've got to start somewhere.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Perhaps people like you need to be insulted. Read the post again and you will see that LA was tested many more times than Jones....unless you decide not to include the UCI tests like that poster tried doing at first. As a matter of fact he was tested about three times more then her. Oops.
> 
> If you look at what the "myth" is then if you compare LA in Cipo just in the years has was a Tour winner (which is what the "myth" is about) you will find he has 75 tests to Cipo's 70, using the numbers in that post. Oops.
> 
> ...


You're a troll manipulating the numbers to try and save your hero...good luck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/3535573.stm


> Armstrong claimed he was the most tested athlete on the planet.


Does that specify a time period? The assertion you were originally defending in this thread was this:


> I find this extremely difficult to believe considering that Armstrong is THE most tested athlete on the planet.


Is there a time period involved there? I must be blind, because I can't see it.

You changed the goalposts to say that the 'myth' is about certain years. I showed your original assertion is wrong, so you want me to dig up more numbers. If it will prove you wrong, it's worth the effort.

Here's Zabel's palmares, count the victories from '99 to 2004. He was tested after each victory. I come up with 73. Assuming he was tested out of competition, while holding a leader's jersey, or by random tests more than 2 times, then he is ahead of Lance. I think that's a pretty safe assumption. Do you disagree with this analysis, or are you just going to refer to me as a hater again? It is original.

You also assert that Marion Jones had fewer tests than Lance, but the purpose of including her was to compare the number of out of competition tests. I have no idea what the testing procedure is at track meets, but she did have more OOC tests than Lance.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

SilasCL said:


> I have no idea what the testing procedure is at track meets, but she did have more OOC tests than Lance.


OOC tests are the only ones that matter anyway. In competition dope tests are IQ tests 

So someone needs to figure out how many OOC tests Armstrong had in the old days to get any idea of how rigorous the testing was. When did the athlete location thing come into effect, when did the 3 strikes come into effect? Did he have anything to worry about if blood doping was his primary technique?


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

This thread is hot, I mean real hot. Sizzling.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Perico said:


> Perhaps people like you need to be insulted. Read the post again and you will see that LA was tested many more times than Jones....*unless you decide not to include the UCI tests like that poster tried doing at first.* As a matter of fact he was tested about three times more then her. Oops.
> 
> If you look at what the "myth" is then if you compare LA in Cipo just in the years has was a Tour winner (which is what the "myth" is about) you will find he has 75 tests to Cipo's 70, using the numbers in that post. Oops.
> 
> ...


Bold #1: Yeah, I think we can exclude all UCI tests. Lance "donated" $100,000 to them.

Bold #2: Not liking someone is "irrational hate"? I don't like Lance. I don't hate him. That would require more passion and interest than I am willing to extend to him. My reasons are completely rational. First, he's a douchebag. Second, he uses women for a while, then dumps them. Third, he likes tooting his own horn and being the martyr. "I've helped so many people"! So have others, but most of them don't go around telling other people how great they are and how many people they've helped.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> You're a troll manipulating the numbers to try and save your hero...good luck.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/3535573.stm
> 
> ...


Typical response from the people who harbor obsessive, irrational hate for someone they don't know. Start with an insult then d everything you can to spin things into your hate. You know, things like ignoring the facts in the link you linked to, using your assumptions as fact and flat out making things up.

P.S. Thanks for amusing me with the angry B.S. response I predicted.:lol:


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Hater


Hmmm, more or less what I expected.


----------



## blackhat (Jan 2, 2003)

Perico said:


> Typical response from the people who harbor obsessive, irrational hate for someone they don't know. Start with an insult then d everything you can to spin things into your hate. You know, things like ignoring the facts in the link you linked to, using your assumptions as fact and flat out making things up.
> 
> P.S. Thanks for amusing me with the angry B.S. response I predicted.:lol:


Indulge me, what did he "make up"? Surely if you noticed "facts" that were ignored that might show that LA is the most frequently tested cyclist/athlete/___ you can point them out, no?


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> So you claim the books about Marco show he was a coke addict through his career and your proof is that one doesn't just go on a coke binge. Hall of Fail post.


 No, I was showing you that Pantani was using coke 5 years before his death. At the same time also pointing out that going on a coke binge is not the actions of a person who is new to coke, so it is likely that he was already using regularly by then.



perico said:


> If you look at what the "myth" is then if you compare LA in Cipo just in the years has was a Tour winner (which is what the "myth" is about) you will find he has 75 tests to Cipo's 70, using the numbers in that post. Oops.


To compare Cipo's Tour record to Armstrong's is pointless. Armstrong's season started in late April and ended in July, whereas Cipollini started earlier and finished later with more wins. Add in a longer career with 191 victories and you'll easily pass Armstrong's number of tests. If Cipo isn't good enough try Zabel with 213 wins and 6 Maillot Verts.

BTW, nice choice of moniker!


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> No, I was showing you that Pantani was using coke 5 years before his death. At the same time also pointing out that going on a coke binge is not the actions of a person who is new to coke, so it is likely that he was already using regularly by then.


"Likely" Hmmm, once again you use words that are saying it's your opinion as you are trying to claim they are facts.



> To compare Cipo's Tour record to Armstrong's is pointless. Armstrong's season started in late April and ended in July, whereas Cipollini started earlier and finished later with more wins. Add in a longer career with 191 victories and you'll easily pass Armstrong's number of tests. If Cipo isn't good enough try Zabel with 213 wins and 6 Maillot Verts.
> 
> BTW, nice choice of moniker!


Where did I compare just their Tour record? I simply compared the time the alleged "myth" is from, Lance's Tour years. I said nothing of just Tour records. Actually now that I think about it, that link conveniently ignored other races LA was tested at during those years, so the number (75) that came directly from the link is actually too low. 

If we want to add career numbers then we can add in LA's test from before 1999 (which the poster in the link conveniently did not, though he made sure to use Cipo's pre-1999 tests) but what is the point since the alleged "myth" was during his Tour years.

Apparently you decided to use the same sketchy tactics as Silas and got the same dose of fail. :lol:

blackhat, I already pointed those out multiple times, including this post. One other example of things he made up? Claiming I manipulated the numbers, when all I did was count the numbers posted in his link.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Actually now that I think about it, that link conveniently ignored other races LA was tested at during those years, so the number (75) that came directly from the link is actually too low.


You're making this up. The link says nothing of the sort.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> "Likely" Hmmm, once again you use words that are saying it's your opinion as you are trying to claim they are facts.


No I'm not. I am stating the fact that he was using coke in 98 which leads me to conclude that, given the circumstances and in my opinion, he had a problem with cocaine already. That's why I used the word likely in my original post. I presume from your last diatribe either that English was not one of your stronger subjects in school or that you are being deliberately obtuse.





Perico said:


> Where did I compare just their Tour record? I simply compared the time the alleged "myth" is from, Lance's Tour years. I said nothing of just Tour records. Actually now that I think about it, that link conveniently ignored other races LA was tested at during those years, so the number (75) that came directly from the link is actually too low.
> 
> If we want to add career numbers then we can add in LA's test from before 1999 (which the poster in the link conveniently did not, though he made sure to use Cipo's pre-1999 tests) but what is the point since the alleged "myth" was during his Tour years.


The inclusion of Cipo's total career wins was to illustrate how prolific he was. However I was only comparing the Tour era since LA had a career break due to his cancer. Even with that LA had a shorter overall career with even shorter seasons post 98.



Perico said:


> Apparently you decided to use the same sketchy tactics as Silas and got the same dose of fail. :lol:


How old are you? LOL



Perico said:


> blackhat, I already pointed those out multiple times, including this post. One other example of things he made up? Claiming I manipulated the numbers, when all I did was count the numbers posted in his link.


In view of your comments to me regarding Catholics & Muslims, I can only conclude that you hanker after the times gone by in Salem or Spain.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

ultimobici said:


> In view of your comments to me regarding Catholics & Muslims, I can only conclude that you hanker after the times gone by in Salem or Spain.


A very good troll, eh?
Obviously a troll, because I don't think anyone could possibly be that f##king moronic without them needing someone to water them once a day and put them on a sunny windowsill.

(No offense to any plant-life reading RBR at the moment...)


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> A very good troll, eh?
> Obviously a troll, because I don't think anyone could possibly be that f##king moronic without them needing someone to water them once a day and put them on a sunny windowsill.
> 
> (No offense to any plant-life reading RBR at the moment...)


I know, I shouldn't rise to it.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> You're making this up. The link says nothing of the sort.


Actually it does. I'll give you one example and then watch as you try to come up with more spin to avoid admitting your link hurts your obsession more then it helps it.

In 2004 your link lists 8 tests, yet just from stage wins at the Tour of Georgia and Tour de France he had 8 tests and that does not include being tested while in the leaders jersey or any random tests at various races.

Try again.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> No I'm not. I am stating the fact that he was using coke in 98 which leads me to conclude that, given the circumstances and in my opinion, he had a problem with cocaine already. That's why I used the word likely in my original post. I presume from your last diatribe either that English was not one of your stronger subjects in school or that you are being deliberately obtuse.


Wow, you admit I am correct and then go on to personal attacks...and you later ask how old I am?!?!?!?! 





> The inclusion of Cipo's total career wins was to illustrate how prolific he was. However I was only comparing the Tour era since LA had a career break due to his cancer. Even with that LA had a shorter overall career with even shorter seasons post 98.


And that has nothing to do with what we are arguing, so you are either bringing it up as a distraction or...



> How old are you? LOL


Clearly, at least as old as you considering how you are replying.





> In view of your comments to me regarding Catholics & Muslims, I can only conclude that you hanker after the times gone by in Salem or Spain.


That would be another asinine conclusion made by you. 

Keep trying.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

PlatyPius said:


> A very good troll, eh?
> Obviously a troll, because I don't think anyone could possibly be that f##king moronic without them needing someone to water them once a day and put them on a sunny windowsill.
> 
> (No offense to any plant-life reading RBR at the moment...)


 Hey Platy, two bits of advice:

1) You shouldn't call others trolls when you are ignoring the topic and simply posting insults and personal attacks...which is just trolling.

2) You claim to own your own shop, what kind of business sense is it for that owner to post insults and personal attacks on a public forum, especially one containing potential customers? Bad business sense.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> Actually it does. I'll give you one example and then watch as you try to come up with more spin to avoid admitting your link hurts your obsession more then it helps it.
> 
> In 2004 your link lists 8 tests, yet just from stage wins at the Tour of Georgia and Tour de France he had 8 tests and that does not include being tested while in the leaders jersey or any random tests at various races.
> 
> Try again.


The numbers may or may not be from just the Tour. I didn't put them together, and i couldn't find similar info on the UCIs website today. I also don't recall who was doing the testing at various events back then, so the UCI may have only tested at certain events while other governing bodies tested at other events. I still dismiss your claim that those tests are only from the tour. It's possible but there's no evidence which shows it to be true.

It may just be an unanswerable question whether he was 'the most tested athlete on the planet' or not, given the information that's currently available to the public.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*moderators note*

Enough of the personal attacks everyone.


----------

