# Contador's and Schleck's paid liars question Armstrong case



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Armstrong Ruling Questioned By Doping Experts | Cyclingnews.com

This is a bit ridiculous. These "Doping experts" are lawyers who defend dopers. if they are "Experts" It is surprising that they are unaware of the rulings and Statue of limitations (SOL)

The Hellebuck case is the standard for Tolling SOL in a WADA case
http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Given that Armstrong lied in multiple official investigations, under oath, in interviews, and in contracts for over a decade it would not be hard to reset SOL.

Wonder if these experts will be working the Bruyneel case next? Hope so


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

I'm no lawyer, but what I garnered from the article is: legal standards that apply to others should apply to Lance as well - Choad or not.

You point the finger at "dopers" - I bet that if the same effort/witch hunt that was directed at Lance was directed at every other rider in the grand tour peloton for the last 100 years, you'd see a majority of riders in the same group - Dopers.

Lance didn't invent doping, and doping didn't end when he left the sport. Lance was merely the best at working a system that was established years or decades before he arrived on the scene. Are you a Mecckx fan? Check his doping history. Upon Lance's comeback from cancer, he hired a Spanish team doc, a Belgian manager, and Italian trainer - the best in the business. Dope doesn't keep you from crashing, missing a critical tactical move during a race, having an off day, getting sick, losing a team sponsor, or help motivating teammates to work for you. Lance did all that through sheer will, and will go down as the greatest Tour racer in history - doping notwithstanding. If you want to talk about dopers, look at the top 10 finishers of the grand tours 1999-2005. Then look into the history of doping in cycling, and other sports doping controls - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, ATP, Euro soccer....


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> I'm no lawyer, but what I garnered from the article is: legal standards that apply to others should apply to Lance as well - Choad or not.
> 
> You point the finger at "dopers" - I bet that if the same effort/witch hunt that was directed at Lance was directed at every other rider in the grand tour peloton for the last 100 years, you'd see a majority of riders in the same group - Dopers.
> 
> Lance didn't invent doping, and doping didn't end when he left the sport. Lance was merely the best at working a system that was established years or decades before he arrived on the scene. Are you a Mecckx fan? Check his doping history. Upon Lance's comeback from cancer, he hired a Spanish team doc, a Belgian manager, and Italian trainer - the best in the business. Dope doesn't keep you from crashing, missing a critical tactical move during a race, having an off day, getting sick, losing a team sponsor, or help motivating teammates to work for you. Lance did all that through sheer will, and will go down as the greatest Tour racer in history - doping notwithstanding. If you want to talk about dopers, look at the top 10 finishers of the grand tours 1999-2005. Then look into the history of doping in cycling, and other sports doping controls - NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, ATP, Euro soccer....


Man, are you late to the party.



Basically what you just poasted has been said countless times in this forum.

Jeez....


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

Cool. Just found this forum.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> I'm no lawyer, but what I garnered from the article is: legal standards that apply to others should apply to Lance as well - Choad or not.
> 
> .


Did you read what I wrote?

Tolling SOL is a legal standard that is used world wide. It's use by USADA was validated in the Hellebuyck case. 

It is odd that these "Experts" who make their income defending dopers do not know this


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> Cool. Just found this forum.



You've been a member since '02 and you just found this forum???


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Man, are you late to the party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


but probably less than "Lance is a doper and a liar" though

Sablotny you will need thick skin to play in this forum. I should send you some of the crap I get sent to me. There is a reason my rep is a negative whatever. LA haters. It is truly laughable. At least robdamanii included an explanation on why he thought I was clueless. The others? LMAO


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

_"[If Armstrong had of] come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute [of limitations] should apply," said Tygart to USA Today.

If Armstrong cooperated with USADA at the time he was charged he may have been lost just the 2004 and 2005 titles however the eight-year time frame can be extended when offences are covered-up. The evidence in USADA's Reasoned Decision and the findings of systematic doping at US Postal means the standard limits were not applied. These anti-doping rule violations are also of a fraudulent nature, according to Tygart._

I think that first statement is disingenuous. 

Tygart's logic does not make sense to me. Every doper makes an effort to "cover up" their doping in one way or another. According to him, when would the SOL ever apply?

(And please don't give me the "Lance was the worst, the meanest, the nastiest..." argument.)


----------



## hipo_p51 (Jul 6, 2012)

cda 455 said:


> Man, are you late to the party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jeez... Is right, you people who live here think you are gods gift to cycling info. You people should lighten up a little and let everyone speak (type) their thoughts. Everyone cant be informed to the same level you all claim to be. Is it to much to ask?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

hipo_p51 said:


> Jeez... Is right, you people who live here think you are gods gift to cycling info. You people should lighten up a little and let everyone speak (type) their thoughts. Everyone cant be informed to the same level you all claim to be. Is it to much to ask?


You're in a forum that only talks about doping.


Lots and lots of threads on doping. How about reading and educating yourself on doping before poasting something that's already been covered. Is it to much to ask?

There is a search function that works well too, if you have a certain question. Is it to much to ask?

Everyone starts out as a nOOB. It's up to you to inform yourself. Is it to much to ask?

It's like walking in on the middle of a conversation. You want the world to stop for you to catch up when you should be responsible for your own policing. Is it to much to ask?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

*Using "too" correctly. Is that too much to ask?*



cda 455 said:


> You're in a forum that only talks about doping.
> 
> 
> Lots and lots of threads on doping. How about reading and educating yourself on doping before poasting something that's already been covered. Is it to much to ask?
> ...


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


>



:lol:


I copied and pasted his question  .


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

The rules of grammar should apply to all equally.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> The rules of grammar should apply to all equally.



A_men_  !


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*Also include spelling*



Local Hero said:


> The rules of grammar should apply to all equally.


Your / You're 
Lose / Loose


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Rokh On said:


> but probably less than "Lance is a doper and a liar" though
> 
> Sablotny you will need thick skin to play in this forum. I should send you some of the crap I get sent to me. There is a reason my rep is a negative whatever. LA haters. It is truly laughable. At least robdamanii included an explanation on why he thought I was clueless. The others? LMAO


And it's obvious with the "LA haters" comment that you're still either A) willfully ignorant of the offenses perpetrated by Pharmstrong or B) just completely clueless.

Neither is a good thing, BTW.



hipo_p51 said:


> Jeez... Is right, you people who live here think you are gods gift to cycling info. You people should lighten up a little and let everyone speak (type) their thoughts. Everyone cant be informed to the same level you all claim to be. Is it to much to ask?


Well the USADA report IS out there for everyone to read. Ignorance is no excuse at this point. If you're too lazy to read it, just admit so.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Every doper makes an effort to "cover up" their doping in one way or another. According to him, when would the SOL ever apply?


A common litmus test is if he ever committed perjury or lied to an official investigation in an effort to cover up his doping. 

He lied when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999
He lied in the investigation of dumping dozens of syringes and drugs in 2000
He lied to the Vrijman report in 2005
He committed perjury in the SCA case in 2005

There is also a good case for an organized cover up of EPO positives in 2001 and 02. While Saugy has recently changed his public position two years ago he told investigators a much different story that involved being pressured by the UCI to drop it because it was not going anywhere.

Given these events I doubt USADA would have much difficulty tolling SOL


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Man, are you late to the party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is there some meaningful point that you're trying to make?


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> You're in a forum that only talks about doping.
> 
> 
> Lots and lots of threads on doping. How about reading and educating yourself on doping before poasting something that's already been covered. Is it to much to ask?
> ...




Whoa, step back, everyone.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*

Don't like someone's post or felt its been covered- then don't read it, put them on ignore or provide them a link. Playing thread police, insults or other similar behavior will lead to bad things for you. 

Also the line pushing with the digs at other posters stops *now*.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Grammer Police In da House!*



Local Hero said:


>



Dat's juz tutu funni! :thumbsup:


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

*Speelling Police are here as well...Oh Joy!*



C6Rider said:


> Your / You're
> Lose / Loose


Danks Budz - I feel edjamacated already! :thumbsup:


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti cannot stop talking about Lance Armstrong.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

ghost6 said:


> Doctor Falsetti cannot stop talking about Lance Armstrong.


This is the Doping forum. The Armstrong case is all over the news. Of course he will be talking about Lance Armstrong.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

chaulk61 said:


> This is the Doping forum. The Armstrong case is all over the news. Of course he will be talking about Lance Armstrong.


Search this forum. Falsetti talks about Lance when he's making headline news and when he's not. I've never seen someone with such an unending axe to grind.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> A common litmus test is if he ever committed perjury or lied to an official investigation in an effort to cover up his doping.
> 
> He lied when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999
> He lied in the investigation of dumping dozens of syringes and drugs in 2000
> ...


There are number of problems with those four examples. And there's the glaring issue of using any of those four examples to toll the SOL on tdf 2001-2004. 

Cutting to the chase: Tygart's statement was disingenuous.


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

ghost6 said:


> Search this forum. Falsetti talks about Lance when he's making headline news and when he's not. I've never seen someone with such an unending axe to grind.


 You are correct in that Falsetti does post much during periods when LA has not been in the news. In fact his posts have, more often than not, anticipated future news stories.
Axe to grind? Perhaps. Or maybe he cares about the sport.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



ghost6 said:


> Doctor Falsetti cannot stop talking about Lance Armstrong.


If you don't like a poster's posts put them on ignore. Problem solved. Making comments like this lead to nothing good for you or the discussion in hand.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you read what I wrote?
> 
> Tolling SOL is a legal standard that is used world wide. It's use by USADA was validated in the Hellebuyck case.
> 
> It is odd that these "Experts" who make their income defending dopers do not know this


In the Hellebuyck case, it was Hellebuyck himself who admitted he had perjured himself. Perjury has not been proven in the Armstrong case, and I doubt Armstrong is going to admit it any time soon. You can cite Hellebuyck all you want, but the conditions aren't satisfied that would make it apply.

If you want to convict Armstrong of perjury, you're going to have to charge him and, unless he rolls over (again), take him to trial, where it will be a "he said-she said" thing. It's not a done deal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Search this forum. Falsetti talks about Lance when he's making headline news and when he's not. I've never seen someone with such an unending axe to grind.


Post, not poster. 

If you take issue with what I write please address the topic instead of insulting me personally


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> In the Hellebuyck case, it was Hellebuyck himself who admitted he had perjured himself. Perjury has not been proven in the Armstrong case, and I doubt Armstrong is going to admit it any time soon. You can cite Hellebuyck all you want, but the conditions aren't satisfied that would make it apply.
> 
> If you want to convict Armstrong of perjury, you're going to have to charge him and, unless he rolls over (again), take him to trial, where it will be a "he said-she said" thing. It's not a done deal.


Do you really assume that the only way to toll the SOL is if Lance admits to perjury? Really? 

USADA would be able to show that Armstrong actively worked to mislead official investigations. They would not need an admission from Lance. 

In the end it does not matter. Lance gave up......and as he says quitting is forever


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you really assume that the only way to toll the SOL is if Lance admits to perjury? Really?
> 
> USADA would be able to show that Armstrong actively worked to mislead official investigations. They would not need an admission from Lance.
> 
> In the end it does not matter. Lance gave up......and as he says quitting is forever


Wait a minute, I thought Lance and UCI were in bed together. How could he mislead official investigations when the investigators and the investigations were corrupt?

These things are not as simple as you would like them to be. If they were, SCA would already own Armstrong's house.


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

ghost6 said:


> Doctor Falsetti cannot stop talking about Lance Armstrong.


What's he going to post about when this is finally over?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Wait a minute, I thought Lance and UCI were in bed together. How could he mislead official investigations when the investigators and the investigations were corrupt?
> 
> These things are not as simple as you would like them to be. If they were, SCA would already own Armstrong's house.


UCI enabling the cover up only gives more power to USADA's tolling argument, not less. 

How would SCA own Armstrong's house? They just sent their letter on Monday.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cpk said:


> What's he going to post about when this is finally over?


He'll be upset that Lance still has too much money.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

WADA Will Not Appeal USADA Decision On Lance Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com

Not surprisingly WADA doesn't agree with Contador/Schleck/Bruyneel's "Experts"


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Cpk said:


> What's he going to post about when this is finally over?


I don't understand why it is so shocking that someone "only talks about doping within the doping forum."

What is happening with Lance and everything associated is very interesting to many of us who are involved in cycling.

It is what it is..

I enjoy reading most of what the RBR folks contribute here....including Doc Falsetti's contributions.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> He committed perjury in the SCA case in 2005


This is the only example where he was under oath and could be tried for perjury. The rest are just lies.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Fogdweller said:


> This is the only example where he was under oath and could be tried for perjury. The rest are just lies.


My list was for events that could toll SOL, not perjury. I doubt he would be charged with perjury in a civil case, that is very rare, but these events were used effectively to toll the SOL. Misleading an official investigation, as Armstrong did multiple times, can be used to toll SOL


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

*Yep*



cda 455 said:


> You've been a member since '02 and you just found this forum???


I prefer to help people with experience & advice on bikes, road riding and wrenching than lob molotovs in this forum, I guess. Sorry for providing my opinion.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Am I the only one who found Tygart's statement disingenuous? _"[If Armstrong had of] come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute [of limitations] should apply," said Tygart to USA Today._

Not that it really matters. Tygart can say, "If Armstrong came forward earlier we *may* have gone easier on him!" to rub salt in the woulds all day and it makes no difference. The more interesting aspect is the SOL. 

________________________________________________


Some of the "events" that Tygart says extended the SOL have a double jeopardy smell to them. All dopers do things to cover their doping. 

According to Tygart, when would the SOL *not* apply to a formerly accused doper? Just accuse everyone every year. If they deny it you effectively nullify the SOL.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

robdamanii said:


> And it's obvious with the "LA haters" comment that you're still either A) willfully ignorant of the offenses perpetrated by Pharmstrong or B) just completely clueless.
> 
> Neither is a good thing, BTW.
> 
> ...


Could you post a link to the report? I clicked on some links on Cyclingnews, but they were only links to other news stories.

As for your options A. Don't believe Lance doped or B. Are clueless - I believe that doesn't cover the spectrum. I'm certain Lance doped. I want a better, cleaner pro cycling sport. But I also believe Lance achieved his victories in a system requiring doping to win - that he did not create. The fact that he did it better than all of his competitors really ticks some people off.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> Could you post a link to the report? I clicked on some links on Cyclingnews, but they were only links to other news stories.
> 
> As for your options A. Don't believe Lance doped or B. Are clueless - I believe that doesn't cover the spectrum. I'm certain Lance doped. I want a better, cleaner pro cycling sport. But I also believe Lance achieved his victories in a system requiring doping to win - that he did not create. The fact that he did it better than all of his competitors really ticks some people off.


http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2012/10/Reasoned-Decision.pdf

200 pages. It has highs and lows. Some parts are juicy, some dry. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.


----------



## BGEPizza (Sep 28, 2009)

Sablotny said:


> Could you post a link to the report?


Here are the affidavits. Click on the "Appendices and Supporting Materials" tab.

Cycling Investigation - USADA


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Am I the only one who found Tygart's statement disingenuous?


Yes.

WADA's head addressed the SOL question. WADA said it had an external, independent review of the application of the statute of limitations. 



> "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> I prefer to help people with experience & advice on bikes, road riding and wrenching than lob molotovs in this forum, I guess. Sorry for providing my opinion.


Dude, you're a plank owner (As the Navy would call it) basically an original member so you belong to the instant awesome club :thumbsup: !


I'll admit I was genuinely amazed because you sounded like a nOOB. 


I apologize for coming off sounding like 'that guy' :blush2:  .


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Sablotny said:


> Could you post a link to the report? I clicked on some links on Cyclingnews, but they were only links to other news stories.
> 
> As for your options A. Don't believe Lance doped or B. Are clueless - I believe that doesn't cover the spectrum. I'm certain Lance doped. I want a better, cleaner pro cycling sport. But I also believe Lance achieved his victories in a system requiring doping to win - that he did not create. The fact that he did it better than all of his competitors really ticks some people off.


Cheating is still cheating. "Required to dope to win" doesn't excuse you from doping, doesn't excuse you from forcing others in your control to dop, doesn't excuse you from destroying people's lives to hide it and build your empire on a lie.

See the thread on morality of Pharmstrong's actions. It's clear there are plenty of people who just don't mind that he cheated, lied and essentially stole on his way to the top.

That's just sad to see...


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Am I the only one who found Tygart's statement disingenuous? _"[If Armstrong had of] come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute [of limitations] should apply," said Tygart to USA Today._
> 
> Not that it really matters. Tygart can say, "If Armstrong came forward earlier we *may* have gone easier on him!" to rub salt in the woulds all day and it makes no difference. The more interesting aspect is the SOL.
> 
> ...


Double jeopardy only applies when an actual indictment has been reached. Sorry, this tactic won't save your boy.

Tygart's statement had nothing disingenuous about it. Like the 6 who testified against Pharmstrong, he was offered a deal. The deal appears to not toll the SOL, but he's a stubborn goat and wouldn't take it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Sablotny said:


> But I also believe Lance achieved his victories in a system requiring doping to win - that he did not create. The fact that he did it better than all of his competitors really ticks some people off.


Did the system also require him to pay off the UCI? Smear anyone who told the truth?


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Double jeopardy only applies when an actual indictment has been reached. Sorry, this tactic won't save your boy.
> 
> Tygart's statement had nothing disingenuous about it. Like the 6 who testified against Pharmstrong, he was offered a deal. The deal appears to not toll the SOL, but he's a stubborn goat and wouldn't take it.


Even more basically, it only applies to persons charged criminally. It has absolutely nothing to do with an administrative hearing conducted by a sport governing authority.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> this tactic won't save *your boy*.


Why continue with this nonsense?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Why continue with this nonsense?


I could ask you the same.

Why do you continually try to look for an excuse for Lance's transgressions? Why do you continually try to minimize and refute the evidence posted against him?

You must have some reason...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Regarding my comment that this all smells like double jeopardy. I know this it is not technically double-jeopardy. And I did not call this double jeopardy. Yet I have explained why making exceptions to the SOL based on how someone responded to past allegations has a double jeopardy feel to it. I'll explain it again. 

The basic premise is this: All dopers take measures to cover up their doping. If a prosecutor wants to completely nullify the SOL he can accuse all suspects and wait for them to deny it. It does not matter if the evidence does not yet support a conviction. Then at any time in the future (according to Tygart's reasoning) if new evidence comes up the SOL will not apply.

According to Tygart, when would a statue of limitations apply?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I could ask you the same.
> 
> Why do you continually try to look for an excuse for Lance's transgressions? Why do you continually try to minimize and refute the evidence posted against him?
> 
> You must have some reason...


This isn't about me or my motivations. 

If you can't discuss this without getting personal with me please feel free to ignore me.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> This isn't about me or my motivations.
> 
> If you can't discuss this without getting personal with me please feel free to ignore me.


Really? I thought you were "moving on?"



> If people don't move on now, when will they? And name one person here who has parroted an Armstrong talking point. Personally, I've moved on with my life. Yeah, others won't move on. It's sad. I'm aware that it's out there. It's like, why are you continuing? You got what you wanted; Lance Armstrong never did anything in his life. Great. For some, it's like, shouldn't you be out training and focusing on what you're doing? F%^&ing move on. So strange.


So which is it? You've moved on or you're still here fighting against the evidence against Lance? Frankly I don't care, but if you're going to come up with a talking point, then make it a good one.

As has been pointed out, "double jeopardy" doesn't apply to Lance. Your reasoning about tolling the SOL doesn't hold water. So why not explain to us why should Lance NOT answer for the wrongs he committed prior to 2005? There's NOTHING that prevents that as you plainly see.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Regarding my comment that this all smells like double jeopardy. I know this it is not technically double-jeopardy. And I did not call this double jeopardy. Yet I have explained why making exceptions to the SOL based on how someone responded to past allegations has a double jeopardy feel to it. I'll explain it again.
> 
> The basic premise is this: All dopers take measures to cover up their doping. If a prosecutor wants to completely nullify the SOL he can accuse all suspects and wait for them to deny it. It does not matter if the evidence does not yet support a conviction. Then at any time in the future (according to Tygart's reasoning) if new evidence comes up the SOL will not apply.
> 
> According to Tygart, when would a statue of limitations apply?


Levi lost results well past the SOL, so how is this unique to Lance?

If there is evidence that shows offenses occurred beyond the SOL, then tolling the SOL is appropriate. In order to open a case against an athlete, there has to be a reasonable body of evidence to begin with (passport case, positive test, witness testimony, etc.) One simply doesn't accuse everyone of doping, wait for them to deny it and then bust them 10 years down the line. This was a far reaching case that involved more than 30 riders, staff and directors. This isn't Valverde getting busted on a DNA test. 

Now you're just getting silly with your slippery slope argument.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Really? I thought you were "moving on?"
> 
> 
> 
> So which is it? You've moved on or you're still here fighting against the evidence against Lance? Frankly I don't care,


I wish you would act like you didn't care. Digging through my post history doesn't really help. I'm asking you for a third or fourth time now to please stop trying to make this about me. 


> As has been pointed out, "double jeopardy" doesn't apply to Lance. Your reasoning about tolling the SOL doesn't hold water. So why not explain to us why should Lance NOT answer for the wrongs he committed prior to 2005? There's NOTHING that prevents that as you plainly see.


I've explained why Tygart's reasoning is fishy -- it makes the statute of limitations meaningless. 

Your rebuttal that "it doesn't hold water" doesn't hold water.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Digging through my post history doesn't really help. I'm asking you for a third or fourth time now to please stop trying to make this about me.
> I've explained why Tygart's reasoning is fishy -- it makes the statute of limitations meaningless.
> 
> Your rebuttal that "it doesn't hold water" doesn't hold water.



So anything Tygart says is fishy? 

Or is it just fishy when it's about Lance?


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> This isn't about me or my motivations.
> 
> If you can't discuss this without getting personal with me please feel free to ignore me.


How about growing a thicker skin?


He asked you theoretical reasonable questions. How is that personal? Rob's been harsher, but that poast was rather civil while trying to make a point.

I believe you simply missed his point and _you _made it personal.


In the end, we're all talking about someone and some entity entirely so far removed from most of us that it doesn't matter, in regarding to how it affects and how we live our lives.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Oh, and here's the counter to your "Tygart's reasoning is fishy" argument:



> Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations for doping offenses. If the USADA’s sanction were limited to the 8-year statute, Armstrong would retain at least five of his Tour de France titles (1999-2003). However, in sanctioning Armstrong for conduct going back to 1998, the USADA relied on the American legal principle that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitations defense has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct. According to the USADA, it is entitled to apply United States law to decide whether the Armstrong is entitled to rely on the statute of limitations. The USADA’s reliance on fraudulent concealment as the basis for ignoring the statute of limitations is not without controversy. *The case USADA cites in the Reasoned Decision is Kansas City, Mo. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 310 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1962). That very case makes clear that mere denial on the defendant’s part is not enough to toll the running of the statute of limitations. *Instead, the accepted principle is that the limitation period begins to run from the time that the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, discovers or should have discovered the cause of action.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I say Tygart's logic is fishy. The counter is pointing out that _the USADA’s reliance on fraudulent concealment as the basis for ignoring the statute of limitations is not without controversy_!

Devastating...


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

LeMond called it years ago. Everthing he said turned out to be true based on the evidence that he had seen. Where we that much in denial to not consider it all of these years? Lemond might have some issues himself but he called Lance out on it countless times. Many made fun of Greg and called him a joke. Trek dropped him over his accusations. We lost a great line of bikes because of it as well. I guess Trek apologizing to Lance would be a long stretch. American companies don't do that unless they've been sued and their actions are publicized to the masses. Most Americans could care less about cycling anyway outside of the Pharmastrong fisco, and even then they are ill informed. Oh well. Life goes on.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> I say Tygart's logic is fishy. The counter is pointing out that _the USADA’s reliance on fraudulent concealment as the basis for ignoring the statute of limitations is not without controversy_!
> 
> Devastating...


Can you read?



> Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations for doping offenses. If the USADA’s sanction were limited to the 8-year statute, Armstrong would retain at least five of his Tour de France titles (1999-2003). However, in sanctioning Armstrong for conduct going back to 1998, the *USADA relied on the American legal principle that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitations defense has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct.* According to the USADA, it is entitled to apply United States law to decide whether the Armstrong is entitled to rely on the statute of limitations. The USADA’s reliance on fraudulent concealment as the basis for ignoring the statute of limitations is not without controversy. *The case USADA cites in the Reasoned Decision is Kansas City, Mo. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 310 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1962). That very case makes clear that mere denial on the defendant’s part is not enough to toll the running of the statute of limitations.* Instead, the accepted principle is that the limitation period begins to run from the time that the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, discovers or should have discovered the cause of action.


I bolded the important parts and italicized AND bolded the part that explains why your comment about Tygart is wide of the mark...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

WADA hired outside experts to analyze the tolling of the SOL. They said



> "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".


ASO agreed and stripped him of all 7.

So far the only "Experts" complaining make their living defending dopers.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

I believe the reason Armstrong did come forward was probably because his legal team instructed him not to. And I think he was maybe banking on a USADA/ UCI conflict where the UCI would challenge USADA in some way which was not the case of course. The part that kind of puzzles me is that there is an 8 year statute of limitations on doping but since he "concealed his efforts" to dope that no longer applies. 

"Concealed his efforts" is a pretty broad term, but as far as I know everyone who commits an illegal act is always concealing their efforts.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

g29er said:


> I believe the reason Armstrong did come forward was probably because his legal team instructed him not to. And I think he was maybe banking on a USADA/ UCI conflict where the UCI would challenge USADA in some way which was not the case of course. The part that kind of puzzles me is that there is an 8 year statute of limitations on doping but since he "concealed his efforts" to dope that no longer applies.
> 
> "Concealed his efforts" is a pretty broad term, but as far as I know everyone who commits an illegal act is always concealing their efforts.


Oh. My. God.



> Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping code provides for an eight-year statute of limitations for doping offenses. If the USADA’s sanction were limited to the 8-year statute, Armstrong would retain at least five of his Tour de France titles (1999-2003). However, in sanctioning Armstrong for conduct going back to 1998, the USADA relied on the American legal principle that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitations defense *has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct.* According to the USADA, it is entitled to apply United States law to decide whether the Armstrong is entitled to rely on the statute of limitations. The USADA’s reliance on fraudulent concealment as the basis for ignoring the statute of limitations is not without controversy. The case USADA cites in the Reasoned Decision is Kansas City, Mo. v. Federal Pac. Elec. Co., 310 F.2d 271 (8th Cir. 1962). That very case makes clear that mere denial on the defendant’s part is not enough to toll the running of the statute of limitations. Instead, the accepted principle is that the limitation period begins to run from the time that the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, discovers or should have discovered the cause of action.


Act of fraud. Not just denial, but fraudulent activity. That's what it takes to toll SOL.


----------



## g29er (Mar 28, 2009)

> Oh. My. God.





> Can you read?


Debates are cool and all, but If you don't like mine or other people's opinions, then dont read them, or better yet, go to another thread and post there. But there is no need to play forum-god. For example, I am a photographer and I shoot with a Canon 1Dmark IV and a 7D. I find Instagram photos to be boring and quite noobish for people who call themselves "photographers", but I dont slam them when they post their "photos" on the Canon forums or when they ask questions that some people deem to be silly. I just ignore them and read on if I feel that it is not worth replying to. You should do the same here.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

terbennett said:


> LeMond called it years ago. Everthing he said turned out to be true based on the evidence that he had seen. Where we that much in denial to not consider it all of these years? Lemond might have some issues himself but he called Lance out on it countless times. Many made fun of Greg and called him a joke. Trek dropped him over his accusations. We lost a great line of bikes because of it as well. *I guess Trek apologizing to Lance would be a long stretch*. American companies don't do that unless they've been sued and their actions are publicized to the masses. Most Americans could care less about cycling anyway outside of the Pharmastrong fisco, and even then they are ill informed. Oh well. Life goes on.


You meant apologize to GREG, right?

Yeah, it's sad, but all my non-cycling friends and co-workers care about, with regards to cycling, is Lance. They're always quizzing me on what I think about his "situation". They don't really want to know, most just want to hear he's been framed.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> That's what it takes to toll SOL.


It's not just pointing to a law and insulting people. Try applying the law to the facts.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

g29er said:


> Debates are cool and all, but If you don't like mine or other people's opinions, then dont read them, or better yet, go to another thread and post there.


You are welcome to your opinion, but do not expect anyone to agree with you if you ignore the facts. 

The fact is Armstrong fraudulent concealed his doping by not just lying to the public but also by lying to multiple official investigations and under oath. Experts agree that this is sufficient to toll the SOL.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> It's not just pointing to a law and insulting people. Try applying the law to the facts.


What's insulting? The fact that the law invalidates your assertion that Tygart's reasoning is fishy? I'm sorry if you're bothered by the facts of the case, but they ARE the facts. 

You've merely cried wolf on the "insulting people" bit over and over and over. Why don't you explain why the referenced case would NOT apply instead of just complaining that someone is attacking your (incorrect) assumption.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

g29er said:


> Debates are cool and all, but If you don't like mine or other people's opinions, then dont read them, or better yet, go to another thread and post there. But there is no need to play forum-god. For example, I am a photographer and I shoot with a Canon 1Dmark IV and a 7D. I find Instagram photos to be boring and quite noobish for people who call themselves "photographers", but I dont slam them when they post their "photos" on the Canon forums or when they ask questions that some people deem to be silly. I just ignore them and read on if I feel that it is not worth replying to. You should do the same here.


If you don't like the opinions stated (which are backed by FACTS, not by blind fanboyism) then you're welcome to find the ignore button. 

I'd suggest you read the reasoned decision and understand WHY things occurred the way they have. It's enlightening and it will answer most of your questions.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

We should make up names for all the doping cyclists in history. Here's a start - Phullrich, Phasso, Phulle, Phastre, Phlecks, Pherckx, Phoser, Phicco, Phloyd, Phanquteil, Phoppi, Phaul, the Phelissier Brothers, Phugno, Phimpson, Phiis, Phantani, Phevenet, Phaertens, Phrooks... OK, I'm bored now.


----------

