# Armstrong ratted out Hamilton



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The CN article mixes up homologous and autologous but:


Hamilton states in the book that he was called into the UCI headquarters to meet with then-president Hein Verbruggen and Dr. Mario Zorzoli, the UCI's chief medical officer, where he was informed that his blood tests indicated autologous transfusion - blood from another person - after the Ventoux stage of the 2004 Dauphiné Libéré.

The kicker? Armstrong himself arranged the meeting, Floyd Landis tells Hamilton. Landis alleges that Armstrong helped bring down the UCI's anti-doping authorities on his main competitors including Hamilton and Euskaltel's Iban Mayo.

"He called Hein, after Ventoux. Said you guys and Mayo were on some new ****, told Hein to stop you,"*Landis is quoted as saying.

Tyler Hamilton's Book Reveals In-depth Doping Network | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Ironic that the invisible twin thing came out as a result Lance's ratting on Tyler and the twin thing is what eventually led toTyler to coming clean about doping in the peloton.


----------



## Daren (Jul 25, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> ... autologous transfusion - blood from another person - ...


Medical Distionary

autologous transfusion,
a procedure in which blood is removed from a donor and stored for a variable period before it is returned to the donor's circulation.

Someone dropped the ball in their research in writing this article and explained the meaning of autologous transfusion incorrectly


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Landis the LIER for years is supposed to be believed?

This is MY problem. Not wether lance doped. All the people who LIED for years are now supposedly telling the truth to take down LA and PROFIT from his down fall?

I hate RATS! Once a RAT, ALWAYS a RAT!


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

So if it turns out LA ratted out Hamilton and Mayo to the UCI you're going to have to turn your anti-rat vehemence against him too?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> So if it turns out LA ratted out Hamilton and Mayo to the UCI you're going to have to turn your anti-rat vehemence against him too?


If he DID and not from Hamilton's mouth or others with a vendetta against LA, then yes he is a DIRTY rat and loses even more respect with me.


----------



## cmdrpiffle (Mar 28, 2006)

DIRT BOY said:


> If he DID and not from Hamilton's mouth or others with a vendetta against LA, then yes he is a DIRTY rat and loses even more respect with me.


_ "and loses even more respect with me."_

And you are...? Your 'once something, always something' logic is akin to sticking your head in the sand and refusing to recognize change.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

DIRT BOY said:


> If he DID and not from Hamilton's mouth or others with a vendetta against LA, then yes he is a DIRTY rat and loses even more respect with me.


We'll you don't just have to go on TH word... Note the NINE FORMER POSTAL teamates who VERIFY TH's account about the book. I'd say Lance is the biggest rat of all. 

"What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s supporters—and it might be the most damaging one."

Tyler Hamilton on Lance Armstrong: The Secret Is Out - Page 1 | Books | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

DIRT BOY said:


> Landis the LIER for years is supposed to be believed?
> 
> This is MY problem. Not wether lance doped. All the people who LIED for years are now supposedly telling the truth to take down LA and PROFIT from his down fall?
> 
> I hate RATS! Once a RAT, ALWAYS a RAT!


Not all of them lied about their own doping. Many never lied. Moreover, you can't dismiss what they are saying merely because they lied about their own doping. People lie about their own behavior all the time and then come clean, often after they are caught. This is straight forward human behavior and follows logic and credibility lines. There is little nexus between lying about their own doping and lying about Lance doping. Tyler would also be exposing himself if his book did not match his Grand Jury testimony.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Tschai said:


> Not all of them lied about their own doping. Many never lied. Moreover, you can't dismiss what they are saying merely because they lied about their own doping. People lie about their own behavior all the time and then come clean, often after they are caught. This is straight forward human behavior and follows logic and credibility lines. There is little nexus between lying about their own doping and lying about Lance doping. Tyler would also be exposing himself if his book did not match his Grand Jury testimony.


You would make a defense lawyers dream juror. It is called credibility...look it up.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

If you examine the logic(?) used by many LA supporters, they could never accept ANY eyewitness testimony against him. 

Anyone on his team who has already been caught or implicated can't possibly be believed because they are obviously cheats and/or liars. Anyone on his team who HASN'T been caught or implicated cannot be believed because they must be getting a sweetheart deal from USADA in exchange for their testimony.


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

spookyload said:


> You would make a defense lawyers dream juror. It is called credibility...look it up.


I call BS. Yes, Tyler's credibility as a witness would be an issue for the fact finder. My point was that his behavior is very consistent with many, many witnesses who lied in the past but have been proven to be telling the truth later, at trial and the like. In this case, the "he lied before and is lying now" stance is a very watered down argument. As a prosecutor, Tyler's testimony, assuming it is consistent with his 60 Minutes interview and book, would be very credible and powerful evidence against Lance. Moreover, people tend to tell the truth before Grand Juries. If his allegations were not consistent with his Grand Jury testimony, he would be opening the door to all sorts of legal troubles. As an attorney, I have a keen sense of when people are lying. Tyler was not lying on 60 Minutes. He was pained to be telling the truth.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> Landis the LIER for years is supposed to be believed?
> 
> This is MY problem. Not wether lance doped. All the people who LIED for years are now supposedly telling the truth to take down LA and PROFIT from his down fall?
> 
> I hate RATS! Once a RAT, ALWAYS a RAT!


My biggest problem is that USADA seems to be using the same exact tactics (secrecy, intimidation) they are accusing Lance of using. Maybe Tygart thinks it's funny or just desserts, but I find it profoundly distasteful.

And the whole 'witness intimidation' line is complete BS. Even if people decided they didn't want to testify in a CAS appeal hearing, I'm guessing their signed statements could still be entered into evidence. Not to support the truth of the matter therein, but as evidence that people had "accused" Lance of doping.

If the Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, Anderson the Boy Friday, etc. are the "witnesses," it's pretty easy to see why the letter sanctioning Lance was astonishingly vague. There ought to be some standard for providing specific information (e.g., dates, substances) to the accused for a non-analytical sanction.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

pedalruns said:


> We'll you don't just have to go on TH word... Note the NINE FORMER POSTAL teamates who VERIFY TH's account about the book. I'd say Lance is the biggest rat of all.


Who are these nine former Postal teammates? Okay, just name seven as I assume Landis and Andreu are among the nine.

Or are you just taking Tyler's word for it? The article you linked seems to indicate that all the information was conveyed to Coyle via Tyler for the book. Not that Coyle actually interviewed all nine. I'd have been a helluva lot more impressed if Coyle said that he actually interviewed the nine for the book.

_In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. _


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

jorgy said:


> My biggest problem is that USADA seems to be using the same exact tactics (secrecy, intimidation) they are accusing Lance of using. Maybe Tygart thinks it's funny or just desserts, but I find it profoundly distasteful.
> 
> And the whole 'witness intimidation' line is complete BS. Even if people decided they didn't want to testify in a CAS appeal hearing, I'm guessing their signed statements could still be entered into evidence. Not to support the truth of the matter therein, but as evidence that people had "accused" Lance of doping.
> 
> If the Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, Anderson the Boy Friday, etc. are the "witnesses," it's pretty easy to see why the letter sanctioning Lance was astonishingly vague. There ought to be some standard for providing specific information (e.g., dates, substances) to the accused for a non-analytical sanction.


Try to imagine this:

Government issues an indictment (formal charges) against a person. This person pleads "no contest", meaning he will not dispute the charges. Why? He knows he is guilty. There is no secrecy or intimidation there. The case does not proceed to trial and it is over. Judge sentences this person. Although I don't like making analogies to criminal cases, because the USADA case is not a criminal matter, this is basically what happened to Lance. If he did contest the USADA charges, he would have had his "day in court" and USADA would have provided specific information during the case.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Try to imagine this:
> 
> Government issues an indictment (formal charges) against a person. This person pleads "no contest", meaning he will not dispute the charges. Why? He knows he is guilty. There is no secrecy or intimidation there. The case does not proceed to trial and it is over. Judge sentences this person. Although I don't like making analogies to criminal cases, because the USADA case is not a criminal matter, this is basically what happened to Lance. If he did contest the USADA charges, he would have had his "day in court" and USADA would have provided specific information during the case.


No contest is NOT a guilty plea (or why would there be two different pleas?)! There are a number of reasons someone might plead no contest even if they're not guilty. Not saying Lance isn't guilty, just that his "plea" doesn't *prove* he is. The only thing it proves is that he doesn't want to go to arbitration. Period. 

You're right not to compare arbitration to a criminal case. The standard of proof in arbitration is MUCH lower and, from what I've read recently, the burden of proof is much more on the accused NOT the accuser. THIS is my major problem with "the system." Just because Lance doped and/or is a jerk does not mean that he's not entitled to due process before being stripped of his livelihood. REAL due process, not pseudo-arbitration-due-process. Yeah, yeah, he signed up for it when he took out his license. Rulings to the contrary, however, the doctrine of free association that has been cited to bind people to arbitration in cases like this is badly flawed in the case of athletes and governing bodies. You can't go to the alternate governing body down the street if you don't want to agree to arbitration. You agree or you don't compete.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

jorgy said:


> Who are these nine former Postal teammates? Okay, just name seven as I assume Landis and Andreu are among the nine.
> 
> Or are you just taking Tyler's word for it? The article you linked seems to indicate that all the information was conveyed to Coyle via Tyler for the book. Not that Coyle actually interviewed all nine. I'd have been a helluva lot more impressed if Coyle said that he actually interviewed the nine for the book.
> 
> _In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. _



Coyle interviewed all 9. The story is not just through Hamilton, Coyle verifies the claims by talking to the people involved.


The facts are very compelling mostly because they have been out there for the past 12 years - this book just pulls them all together and adds some back ground and detail.

It's actually amazing how much of the story is out there if you know what your looking for.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

pedalruns said:


> We'll you don't just have to go on TH word... Note the NINE FORMER POSTAL teamates who VERIFY TH's account about the book. I'd say Lance is the biggest rat of all.
> 
> "What ultimately makes the book so damning, however, is that it doesn’t require readers to put their full faith in Hamilton’s word. In the book’s preface, which details its genesis, Coyle not so subtly addresses Armstrong’s supporters by pointing out that, while the story is told through Hamilton, nine former Postal teammates agreed to cooperate with him on The Secret Race, verifying and corroborating Hamilton’s account. Nine teammates. That fact is the first punch thrown at Armstrong’s supporters—and it might be the most damaging one."
> 
> Tyler Hamilton on Lance Armstrong: The Secret Is Out - Page 1 | Books | OutsideOnline.com


And why did 9 former teammates decide to testify? Most were CAUGHT and and trying to save their own backsides. Sorry, I can't take their word on that. Including GH!

They all are trying to save their careers and MIGHT say ANYTHING to do it. then write a book and make more than they ever did riding a bike.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Tschai said:


> I call BS. Yes, Tyler's credibility as a witness would be an issue for the fact finder. My point was that his behavior is very consistent with many, many witnesses who lied in the past but have been proven to be telling the truth later, at trial and the like. In this case, the "he lied before and is lying now" stance is a very watered down argument. As a prosecutor, Tyler's testimony, assuming it is consistent with his 60 Minutes interview and book, would be very credible and powerful evidence against Lance. Moreover, people tend to tell the truth before Grand Juries. If his allegations were not consistent with his Grand Jury testimony, he would be opening the door to all sorts of legal troubles. As an attorney, I have a keen sense of when people are lying. Tyler was not lying on 60 Minutes. He was pained to be telling the truth.


I agree! This WHOLE mess. case is bogus from every angel. Lets not be surprised if the French Cycling federation is behind the USADA calling the shots :thumbsup:
At this point, I would believe ANYTHING!


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree! This WHOLE mess. case is bogus from every angel. Lets not be surprised if the French Cycling federation is behind the USADA calling the shots :thumbsup:
> At this point, I would believe ANYTHING!


What do you agree with? Unless I completely misunderstood Tschai is saying Hamilton is now telling the truth, regardless of what he said in the past...

Also, out of interest, why would the French cycling federation be involved?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jorgy said:


> And the whole 'witness intimidation' line is complete BS. .


Nope. Multiple witnesses have been followed and had their email hacked. The key people from USADA have been followed. Regardless USADA has followed their rules correctly

I have read Tyler's book. The source of the story is actually a couple of Armstrong's teammates who said that after he was smoked at the DL he called up Hein complaining about Tyler and Mayo. One of them, Floyd, told Tyler during the Tour what was up and Tyler confronted Lance on it. 

At first I thought it seemed crazy but when you see the deep personal and business relationship Hein and lance have it seems more plausible.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree! This WHOLE mess. case is bogus from every angel. Lets not be surprised if the French Cycling federation is behind the USADA calling the shots :thumbsup:
> At this point, I would believe ANYTHING!


Since you continue to defend Armstrong, I take you at your word. You would believe anything.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Tschai said:


> Moreover, people tend to tell the truth before Grand Juries. If his allegations were not consistent with his Grand Jury testimony, he would be opening the door to all sorts of legal troubles. As an attorney, I have a keen sense of when people are lying. Tyler was not lying on 60 Minutes. He was pained to be telling the truth.


Exactly. As you and I probably both realize, grand jury witnesses typically receive immunity from having their testimony, and evidence derived from it, used to prosecute them. They can, however, be prosecuted for perjury if they give false testimony. Thus they have every incentive to tell the truth before a grand jury, as the ONLY way they can land in the s**t is if they lie.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

DIRT BOY said:


> Landis the LIER for years is supposed to be believed?
> 
> This is MY problem. Not wether lance doped. All the people who LIED for years are now supposedly telling the truth to take down LA and PROFIT from his down fall?
> 
> I hate RATS! Once a RAT, ALWAYS a RAT!


So Lance always tells the truth - something tells me your logic is deeply flawed and in need of a major overhaul.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. Multiple witnesses have been followed and had their email hacked. The key people from USADA have been followed. Regardless USADA has followed their rules correctly



Names?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

OldChipper said:


> No contest is NOT a guilty plea (or why would there be two different pleas?)! There are a number of reasons someone might plead no contest even if they're not guilty. Not saying Lance isn't guilty, just that his "plea" doesn't *prove* he is. The only thing it proves is that he doesn't want to go to arbitration. Period.
> 
> You're right not to compare arbitration to a criminal case. The standard of proof in arbitration is MUCH lower and, from what I've read recently, the burden of proof is much more on the accused NOT the accuser. THIS is my major problem with "the system." Just because Lance doped and/or is a jerk does not mean that he's not entitled to due process before being stripped of his livelihood. REAL due process, not pseudo-arbitration-due-process. Yeah, yeah, he signed up for it when he took out his license. Rulings to the contrary, however, the doctrine of free association that has been cited to bind people to arbitration in cases like this is badly flawed in the case of athletes and governing bodies. You can't go to the alternate governing body down the street if you don't want to agree to arbitration. You agree or you don't compete.


There may be all sorts of reasons to plea no contest, but in 99% of the cases, the defendant is guilty. 

There seems to be many posters here that argue that they believe Lance doped, but the system is flawed and deprived Lance of due process. I am not sure what these people are trying to convey. The system may be flawed, it may not be, but it seems in Lance's case, it worked. Even if the system is flawed, Lance is still a colossal cheat.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

DIRT BOY said:


> I agree! This WHOLE mess. case is bogus from every angel. Lets not be surprised if the French Cycling federation is behind the USADA calling the shots :thumbsup:
> At this point, I would believe ANYTHING!


Jesus, have you had your nose so far up LA's backside that your brain has been starved of oxygen?


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

ultimobici said:


> Jesus, have you had your nose so far up LA's backside that your brain has been starved of oxygen?


wow, tone it down dude.


----------

