# The mega merged AntiUSADA thread



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

No need to open multiple threads with just a link on them all on the all topic. Merged for now.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Armstrong Case Hurts USADA's Credibility*

Armstrong case hurts USADA's credibility


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*A little balance in the Armstrong case*

http://northernarizonanews.com/blog/2012/09/15/copy-reviewed-by-oped-usada-an-undue-burden-on-armstrong/

With the way Falsetti attacks Armstrong and bashes anyone who dares to disagree with him here is a little bit of balance. 

Fact the French went after Armstong and could never prove a case against him.

Fact the United States Government went after Armstong and could not prove a case and closed it without making any charges.

Fact USADA has decided to take on Armstrong in an environment that provides no constitutional protections to the defendant and where it controls everything to include providing affidavits for its witnesses to sign and get notarized and send them back to the USADA to use against Armstong.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Has the USADA case against Lance really changed anything?*

Has USADA


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Block Buster Facts In Armstrong USADA Case!!!!*

The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Has USADA's inquisition damaged the case against Armstrong?*

Lance Armstrong: Has USADA's Inquisition Damaged the Case Against Him? | Bleacher Report


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Note from Judge Sparks ruling on Armstrong/USADA case*

The Least Thing: Notes from Sparks Ruling on Armstrong vs. USADA

Some very hard hitting notes that really bring doubt upon the credibility of the USADA.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*Very timely*

That article appeared one month ago. Welcome to September.




AntiUSADA said:


> The Least Thing: Notes from Sparks Ruling on Armstrong vs. USADA
> 
> Some very hard hitting notes that really bring doubt upon the credibility of the USADA.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

C6Rider said:


> That article appeared one month ago. Welcome to September.


Armstrong's alleged violations occurred years ago so what is your point?


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

I'm sure that this forum's regular readers / posters have seen all of them before, that's all.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

In others words if it does not play to the Lance haters do not post it for the truth is not what anyone wants to hear.


----------



## C6Rider (Nov 15, 2008)

*I'm sure that this forum's regular readers / posters have seen all of them before, that's all.*

What part of this do you not understand? Going for a ride to escape this madness.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

I don't see any truth in anything there.

His ruling was still that Lance's lawsuit was BS. USADA still followed their procedures.

Game over. Go back to your troll hole.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Enough namecalling-- EVERYONE.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Is "arse" name-calling?

Like, I put my saddle on my arse and went for a ride?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> I don't see any truth in anything there.
> 
> His ruling was still that Lance's lawsuit was BS. USADA still followed their procedures.
> 
> Game over. Go back to your troll hole.


USADA followed their own procedures, but a problem may lie with the fact that those procedures may not be lawful......

To quote:

The FDA’s and USADA’s methods in building a case against Armstrong appear unconstitutional and unlawful.

Taken from the below article written by 2 lawyers:

Daily Peloton - Pro Cycling News


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

slegros said:


> USADA followed their own procedures, but a problem may lie with the fact that those procedures may not be lawful......
> 
> To quote:
> 
> ...


Except this isn't a court of law for a criminal proceeding. This is a case in which someone violates the rules of an organization they have joined.

Not terribly different from a company taking action against an employee for violating their employment contract. 

Furthermore, they have no comment to make since the evidence hasn't been released: they can't comment on "USADA being unable to prove Lance's ownership of US Postal (team)" or any of their other assumptions. It's simply speculation as to the process and the arbitration.

Lastly, why did nobody complain when USADA took action against every other athlete they've sanctioned? 

Smoke and mirrors and fanboism.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> Except this isn't a court of law for a criminal proceeding. This is a case in which someone violates the rules of an organization they have joined.
> 
> Not terribly different from a company taking action against an employee for violating their employment contract.
> 
> Criminal court of law and constitutionality has little to do with it.



The violation itself is not what is being questioned. 

The methods by which the evidence and case were built to prove those violations are. There is a key difference here. It would appear that in their attempts to prove the violation, the FDA and USADA themselves violated not only the law, but the constitution.

The FDA and USADA should be allowed to violate both federal law and the constitution because they believe LA may have doped?

In your scenario above, because the employee violated the terms of their contract the employer is no longer bound by federal law or the constitution when taking action?


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

robdamanii said:


> I don't see any truth in anything there.
> 
> His ruling was still that Lance's lawsuit was BS. USADA still followed their procedures.
> 
> Game over. Go back to your troll hole.


I thought the judge's ruling was more along the lines that there haven't been any procedures by the USADA yet for the judge to rule on. Ergo, there was nothing to do but dismiss Armstrong's case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> The FDA and USADA should be allowed to violate both federal law and the constitution because they believe LA may have doped?


There is ZERO indication that anything remotely close to this has happened. Why do you pretend that there has?


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There is ZERO indication that anything remotely close to this has happened. Why do you pretend that there has?


So without a doubt USADA has no copies of the grand jury testimony? Because if they did, it would appear to have been obtained illegally.... What is the basis of USADAs evidence if they have no grand jury testimony? I'm honestly just looking for an explanation here....


Again from this article:
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=20287

Quote:
The FDA’s and USADA’s methods in building a case against Armstrong appear unconstitutional and unlawful. The prime example of this surrounds the Federal Grand Jury testimony of witnesses subpoenaed by the FDA (USADA does not have Federal Grand Jury subpoena power). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6 states that grand jury testimony shall be kept secret with some exceptions, none of which include leaking that testimony to the CEO of a non-profit, non-governmental entity, such as USADA. Persons not affiliated with the grand jury are not even supposed to know the names of the person(s) testifying, yet somehow it appears USADA obtained those names, and apparently obtained transcripts of the testimony.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> So without a doubt USADA has no copies of the grand jury testimony? Because if they did, it would appear to have been obtained illegally.... What is the basis of USADAs evidence if they have no grand jury testimony? I'm honestly just looking for an explanation here....
> 
> 
> Again from this article:
> ...


Without a doubt. They did not have access to it. They have said this multiple times. A deliberately misleading piece but a couple fanboys does not change this fact 

If you are going to accuse USADA of criminal activity I suggest you have your facts straight.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Without a doubt. They did not have access to it. They have said this multiple times. A deliberately misleading piece but a couple fanboys does not change this fact
> 
> If you are going to accuse USADA of criminal activity I suggest you have your facts straight.


I'm not accusing anyone of anything!!

I'm just questioning what I read! LOL!!


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Without a doubt. They did not have access to it. They have said this multiple times. A deliberately misleading piece but a couple fanboys does not change this fact
> 
> If you are going to accuse USADA of criminal activity I suggest you have your facts straight.


You are in a serious case of denial Falsetti. It has been reported that Tygart was sitting in on the grand jury testimony. He would not be allowed to take any of that testimony from those proceedings under federal law. Clearly Tygart and the USADA have done just that and that is why they are reluctant to release anything to the press or the UCI. 

The USADA is in a bind here if they release what they have they have some serious explaining to do and if they do not release all of the evidence they have some serious explaining to do. 

The only avenue that Tygart and the USADA have left is to only release a small portion of the evidence and that will put them in a bad light because it will be lacking. 

Any way you slice it and dice it Falsetti the USADA and Tygart have gotten a hold of evidence that is protected under federal law. Maybe the next big case will be Tygart being indited along with this guy from the FDA for failing to obey the law concerning federal grand jury testimony. Tygart even has the names of the grand jury a big no no.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

jorgy said:


> I thought the judge's ruling was more along the lines that there haven't been any procedures by the USADA yet for the judge to rule on. Ergo, there was nothing to do but dismiss Armstrong's case.


That is correct, and then the judge went on to question the USADA's motives as he clearly has stated their charging document was lacking and even unconstitutional. 

That however does nothing for Armstrong as the USADA is a rigged system to start with.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> Any way you slice it and dice it Falsetti the USADA and Tygart have gotten a hold of evidence that is protected under federal law. Maybe the next big case will be Tygart being indited along with this guy from the FDA for failing to obey the law concerning federal grand jury testimony. Tygart even has the names of the grand jury a big no no.


Prove it

You are accusing Travis and USADA of criminal activity and lying. For such strong accusations you must have great evidence......or are you just trolling?


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Prove it
> 
> You are accusing Travis and USADA of criminal activity and lying. For such strong accusations you must have great evidence......or are you just trolling?


If I am remembering correctly I have read your very own posts saying that Tygart has sat in on the grand jury testimony. If I am correct are you now back tracking?

At any rate it has been posted in these very forums that Tygart has sat in on the government grand jury testimony. Grand jury testimony is covered under very strict guidelines and laws. 

Or are you saying it is OK to not follow the rules and laws on Grand Jury testimony because it is against Armstrong?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

Thanks Coolhand I had the same idea 

BTW I didn't know it was allowed to create sockpuppet accounts in RBR.

the main question that remains is, this AntiUSADA, whose sock puppet is?


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Thanks Coolhand I had the same idea
> 
> BTW I didn't know it was allowed to create sockpuppet accounts in RBR.
> 
> the main question that remains is, this AntiUSADA, whose sock puppet is?



I'm not that interested in whose sock puppet AntiUSADA is. I for one am enjoying him being a busy little bee and working his butt off trying to get the genie back in the bottle. AND FAILING MISERABLY!! He's here because someone is getting desperate, the clock is ticking...tick,tock,tick,tock..


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

slegros said:


> So without a doubt USADA has no copies of the grand jury testimony? Because if they did, it would appear to have been obtained illegally.... What is the basis of USADAs evidence if they have no grand jury testimony? I'm honestly just looking for an explanation here....
> 
> 
> Again from this article:
> ...


FWIW - The word "appears" is used 6 times in this linked op-ed. That sounds like a lot of speculation on their part.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

HikenBike said:


> FWIW - The word "appears" is used 6 times in this linked op-ed. That sounds like a lot of speculation on their part.


Speculate is about all anyone can do at this point I guess. I'm as curious as the next guy to see what USADA give the UCI and/or comes out with publicly....


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

USADA is a rigged system? That's a good one. It appears to be rigged against doping lying scumbags. And I'm fine with that. 

Lance is just another in the long parade of dopers who have strenuously protested their innocence. Unfortunately he won't be the last. 

How does it feel to be a sycophant of one of the biggest frauds in sports history? Proud? Important? Anyone?


----------



## roddjbrown (Jan 19, 2012)

AntiUSADA, I'm curious (and this isn't an accusatory question) but do you genuinely believe that Lance wasn't doping? Or just that it's not fair he's been subject to such a lot of attention?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

So... Coolhand, why do you make a thread for AntiUSADA who just joined this forum? Seems wierd to me? 

I'd like to see a thread with Doctor Falsetti links he has posted?


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm rather curious as to how long AntiUSADA is interning with Livestrong. 

And I keep being surprised with how important the Lance camp deems internet forums to win people to his cause. Cyclingnews, RBR, surely he has to realize that 95% of cyclists don't read those forums. They're not going to judge him based on what a handful of people say on the internet.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

pedalruns said:


> So... Coolhand, why do you make a thread for AntiUSADA who just joined this forum? Seems wierd to me?
> 
> I'd like to see a thread with Doctor Falsetti links he has posted?


If you want to see Doc F's threads and posts you can do it from his profile page.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/member.php?u=375810
Click on "statistics" and you can find all his threads and posts there.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*



pedalruns said:


> So... Coolhand, why do you make a thread for AntiUSADA who just joined this forum? Seems wierd to me?
> 
> I'd like to see a thread with Doctor Falsetti links he has posted?


There were multiple threads started by him at the same time, most of which were just a link and all about the same basic topic. So I bundled them up and made a big package of Armstrongy goodness.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> There were multiple threads started by him at the same time, most of which were just a link and all about the same basic topic. So I bundled them up and made a big package of Armstrongy goodness.


Isn't this whole forum dedicated to Armostrongy goodness? At least AntiUSADA posted in the right forum.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> There were multiple threads started by him at the same time, most of which were just a link and all about the same basic topic. So I bundled them up and made a big package of Armstrongy goodness.


Well, how nice. That is so special for antiusada, what a lucky poster.


----------



## Wilier_Willy (Jul 23, 2006)

*AntiUSADA*

Come on man! I told you to use 3 red eggs a week not 6. Now look what you have done in this forum.

Sincerely,
Dr. Testerossa


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Professor Frink says*



pedalruns said:


> Well, how nice. That is so special for antiusada, what a lucky poster.


You blew up my sarcasm meter


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> You blew up my sarcasm meter


perfect... LOL!!


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

*Why Travis Tygart & USADA can't be trusted*

Why Travis Tygart and the USADA can't be trusted. 

Tygart is on record with news media with quotes from him saying that he and the USADA are waiting for the federal evidence to be sent to them to pursue Armstrong. There is no disputing that fact because this is a direct quote from Travis Tygart. 

The USADA has made deals with everyone that is a supposed witness against Armstrong to include immunity from sanctions to short suspensions served in the off season so they do not affect their ability to continue riding. 

Then there is the failure to timely release the evidence Travis Tygart and the USADA claim to have against Armstrong. What I think has happened is someone from the federal government has reminded Tygart that he is not supposed to have access to the evidence gathered in the grand jury investigation of Armstrong that ended up not being enough to make any charges against Armstrong, i.e. there was a lack of evidence to support a prosecution of Armstrong.

Now the USADA and Travis Tygart had to rewrite all the affidavits for all the witnesses who then had to go and get them notarized and send them back in an attempt to cover their tracks on having the federal grand jury evidence. 

In the end you will not see the full record from Travis Tygart and the USADA as they will only release a small amout of their evidence. This will only bring shame upon the USADA and may end up dissolving the organization when this is all said and done because there will not by any level of trust left in Travis Tygart and the USADA due to the shameful way they have mishandled this investigation. 

When you have federal judges questioning your motives and saying that the investigation and charging document has serious constitutional flaws and you have attorneys who have questioned the methods used to gain witness statements along with the constitutional flaws of the investigation there is no way anyone can stand in support of Travis Tygart and the USADA.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

AntiUSADA said:


> Tygart is on record with news media with quotes from him saying that he and the USADA are waiting for the federal evidence to be sent to them to pursue Armstrong. There is no disputing that fact because this is a direct quote from Travis Tygart.


Here's a helpful hint. If you want to have any credibility with people, when claiming something is a direct quote, you should include a citation to the primary source. That, in fact, is a direct quote from George Washington.

By the way, unless Travis Tygart refers to himself in the third person, what you write is not a direct quote.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

I have already posted the news story with the quote from Travis Tygart, you're trying to play uninformed does not change the fact that Travis Tygart was quoted in a news article saying he and the USADA were waiting for the evidence from the federal government. 

Standing here with your fingers in your ears singing LA LA LA LA LA LA in an attempt to block out the truth does not change what Travis Tygart has said in the press.

But just for you here is the quote in the press from Travis Tygart:


*"Unlike the U.S. Attorney, USADA's job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws," said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. "Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing, and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation." *


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

AntiUSADA said:


> But just for you here is the quote in the press from Travis Tygart:


And yet you're still unwilling or unable to cite a source. I can type too and put it in quotes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

AntiUSADA said:


> I have already posted the news story with the quote from Travis Tygart, you're trying to play uninformed does not change the fact that Travis Tygart was quoted in a news article saying he and the USADA were waiting for the evidence from the federal government.
> 
> Standing here with your fingers in your ears singing LA LA LA LA LA LA in an attempt to block out the truth does not change what Travis Tygart has said in the press.
> 
> ...


*

Look, we understand your goal is to disrupt the discussion by posting as much incorrect information as possible but at least try to post something that is not so easy to prove false




The American continued by explaining that USADA did not receive any information from the federal investigation into Armstrong's former team, US Postal, even though this had initially been planned.

Click to expand...

Tygart Received Death Threats During USADA's Armstrong Investigation | Cyclingnews.com*


----------



## gregario (Nov 19, 2001)

*Classic.*



AntiUSADA said:


> You are in a serious case of denial Falsetti.


That is probably the best example of projection I've ever seen. Anywhere.


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

I do believe our Moderator is enjoying this one. Lets hope he gets some more jollies before he is forced to ban us all.

Anti babble boy (Lance); clearly, you're just playing along, for the fun of it.

Clearly.


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

AntiUSADA did you eat Bikes Direct for breakfast?


----------



## Big-foot (Dec 14, 2002)

kiwisimon said:


> AntiUSADA did you eat Bikes Direct for breakfast?


Or LauraLyn?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



cyclesport45 said:


> I do believe our Moderator is enjoying this one. Lets hope he gets some more jollies before he is forced to ban us all.


Don't blame me, I voted for Kordos!


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Kordos!


Snicker. Mirek Kordos: .NET and AI


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

AntiUSADA said:


> ...Now the USADA and Travis Tygart had to rewrite all the affidavits for all the witnesses who then had to go and get them notarized and send them back in an attempt to cover their tracks......



What a wonderful imagination!!!! You may have missed your calling in writing espionage fiction.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

adimiro said:


> What a wonderful imagination!!!! You may have missed your calling in writing espionage fiction.


I'm not sure that I'd call *that* persons imagination wonderful.


----------

