# Armstrong's response to USADA



## Chris-X

Lance Armstrong's response to USADA doping charges - The Washington Post


----------



## zero85ZEN

Thanks for posting...

I skimmed the first part...I just don't have the patience to wade through all of it. Hope those that do read it in its entirety will share any key points they present.


----------



## Local Hero

His attorneys are good.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> His attorneys are good.


At what?


----------



## Local Hero

zero85ZEN said:


> Thanks for posting...
> 
> I skimmed the first part...I just don't have the patience to wade through all of it. Hope those that do read it in its entirety will share any key points they present.


They flipped the script, basically alleging that the USADA is the omerta. 

Also the response:

-Challenged the USADA's authority on multiple fronts. 
-Said that Lance cannot be expected to respond when the evidence is not described and the witnesses are not named. 
-Said that the review board cannot be expected to review evidence that has not been described or the unknown testimony of unknown witnesses. 
-Claims the 11 year old sample from the Tour de Swiss is gone. The guy who tested it said that he wouldn't go forward with it as a positive. 
-Claims the 2009/2010 blood doping charges have no expert analysis. They are just empty charges that the UCI chose not to pursue. 
-Accuses the USADA of committing a federal offense in their dealing with Landis and attempts to get him to testify against Armstrong. 
-Claims that the USADA is attacking Armstrong because they are big meanies.


----------



## trailrunner68

zero85ZEN said:


> Thanks for posting...
> 
> I skimmed the first part...I just don't have the patience to wade through all of it. Hope those that do read it in its entirety will share any key points they present.


It basically boils down to being outraged that, even though the process does not call for the sharing of evidence yet, the witnesses have not been identified so they cannot be intimidated. 

It is sort of like the obviously guilty at a plea hearing complaining that it is unfair that he has to plead guilty or not guilty because the prosecution has not shared all the evidence so the defendent can judge whether he has a chance of beating the rap. You make your plea. If it is not guilty the trial is scheduled. Before the trial you get the evidence. The prosecution does not hand over everything before you plead.


----------



## Lick Skillet

Billable hours.


----------



## Urb

This is only a drop in the bucket of obscurity. Innocent or guilty this is going to be a long drawn out process filled with bitterness and confusion.


----------



## Sasquatch

Lance is "waiting for the end to come"


----------



## Chris-X

*He's guilty.*



Urb said:


> This is only a drop in the bucket of obscurity. Innocent or guilty this is going to be a long drawn out process filled with bitterness and confusion.


You're under no obligation to maintain a presumption of innocence here.

He may get off. His guilt is obvious.

The *public hearing* that Lance will choose to demonstrate his innocence will be interesting.


----------



## zigmeister

The USDA is a non profit group that has zero civil or criminal authority to do a single thing except work with the UCI to possibly take some victories away.

It is a complete waste of time, resources and money with a predetermined outcome already in place.


----------



## Samadhi

zigmeister said:


> The USDA is a non profit group that has zero civil or criminal authority to do a single thing except work with the UCI to possibly take some victories away.
> 
> It is a complete waste of time, resources and money with a predetermined outcome already in place.


that seems likely. That and Armstrongs "response" seems like a thinly vieled threat: Get off our client's back or we'll use the items outlined in this document to leave you oinkin' from the boinkin' in both civil and criminal court.

Hell, there are attorneys and firms who would handle the USADA hearing pro bono and take the civil case on contingency - wouldn't cost Armstrong a penny. This is the sort of case that can make a career and if the response document's content is to be believed they'd have a strong case.

It might make sense for the USADA to make this whole thing go away.


----------



## PDex

The page is signed by Robert Luskin. Luskin was Karl Rove's attorney during the Plame affair.


----------



## Nob

"It might make sense for the USADA to make this whole thing go away."

You'd think. Going to cost them a LOT of $. And in the end Lance will win this one as well and be paid millions by USADA...the dumb asses,.


----------



## Samadhi

Nob said:


> "It might make sense for the USADA to make this whole thing go away."
> 
> You'd think. Going to cost them a LOT of $. And in the end Lance will win this one as well and be paid millions by USADA...the dumb asses,.


Not just money .....

The alledged irregularities in obtaining evidence via a federal grand jury could be handed over for criminal prosecution - a case for federal authorites. People could be going to jail.

LAs legal team could cut the nuts out of the USADA and cast a pall over the agency and set anti-doping efforts back to the stone age.


----------



## Chris-X

*Threat to do what?*



Samadhi said:


> that seems likely. That and Armstrongs "response" seems like a thinly vieled threat: Get off our client's back or we'll use the items outlined in this document to leave you oinkin' from the boinkin' in both civil and criminal court.
> 
> Hell, there are attorneys and firms who would handle the USADA hearing pro bono and take the civil case on contingency - wouldn't cost Armstrong a penny. This is the sort of case that can make a career and if the response document's content is to be believed they'd have a strong case.
> 
> It might make sense for the USADA to make this whole thing go away.


Your ideas make sense if you're the type of person baffled by absolute bs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/s...strong-case.html?_r=1&src=recg&pagewanted=all

The agency, which started operations in 2000, was a result of a recommendation made by the United States Olympic Committee, which developed how the agency would work and what rules it would follow. The committee, its athletes advisory council — of which *Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, was the chair *— and the national governing bodies of the Olympic sports in the United States *worked together *to design and eventually *approve the protocol the antidoping agency uses now*.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Not just money .....
> 
> The alledged irregularities in obtaining evidence via a federal grand jury could be handed over for criminal prosecution - a case for federal authorites. People could be going to jail.
> 
> LAs legal team could cut the nuts out of the USADA and cast a pall over the agency and set anti-doping efforts back to the stone age.


The FBI already investigated the "Leaks" . They found out they did not exist outside of imagination of Armstrong and his lawyers. 

What surprises me is he is willing to write so many points that are provably false, There were no leaks in the Federal case, he knows that. He also knows when and how he gets a full list of witnesses and all the evidence but continues to pretend it is all secret. 

This response was a attempted threat that was designed for public consumption, not to fight the case


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Nob said:


> "It might make sense for the USADA to make this whole thing go away."
> 
> You'd think. Going to cost them a LOT of $. And in the end Lance will win this one as well and be paid millions by USADA...the dumb asses,.


Maybe I am missing something but I do not see how Lance can beat USADA. 10+ direct witnesses of his doping, adverse blood samples, precedent on their side. Am I missing something?


----------



## Nob

Like the man says..."never tested positive".

Any time now....someone will show us differently. *NOT*


----------



## Samadhi

Chris-X said:


> Your ideas make sense if you're the type of person baffled by absolute bs.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/s...strong-case.html?_r=1&src=recg&pagewanted=all
> 
> The agency, which started operations in 2000, was a result of a recommendation made by the United States Olympic Committee, which developed how the agency would work and what rules it would follow. The committee, its athletes advisory council — of which *Armstrong’s agent, Bill Stapleton, was the chair *— and the national governing bodies of the Olympic sports in the United States *worked together *to design and eventually *approve the protocol the antidoping agency uses now*.


Meaningless, in that it now appears that serious irregularities in how certain evidence was gathered in vilolation of federal law could torpedo the whole schmere, send key figures in the USADA to to federal prison and perhaps sink the USADA altogether.

And that's not even considering the possible and highly probable civil suits.

A long fight? More like a long prison sentence.

If I had a job at the USADA, I'd be spending the weekend polishing up my resume.


----------



## psycleridr

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The FBI already investigated the "Leaks" . They found out they did not exist outside of imagination of Armstrong and his lawyers.
> 
> What surprises me is he is willing to write so many points that are provably false, There were no leaks in the Federal case, he knows that. He also knows when and how he gets a full list of witnesses and all the evidence but continues to pretend it is all secret.
> 
> This response was a attempted threat that was designed for public consumption, not to fight the case


Agreed^^^^^^^


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Maybe I am missing something but I do not see how Lance can beat USADA. 10+ direct witnesses of his doping, adverse blood samples, precedent on their side. Am I missing something?


Simple. None of that matters. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. LA is vindicated and Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower. Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Simple. None of that matters. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. LA is vindicated and Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower. Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


While that sounds nice to rally the troops it is not based on reality. If Lance does not like his sanction he can appeal to CAS. 

As soon as Lance loses all his Tour titles he will have many other things to worry about. Like paying SCA $5 million

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/s...-lose-5-million-if-guilty-of-doping.html?_r=1

Tim Herman appears to not understand that settlements based on fraud can be set aside. Times of London will also be looking for their money, plus damages. Multiple Sponsors had doping clauses in their agreements, with claw back provisions. 

Lance will spend the next few years paying lawyers and settlements.


----------



## stevesbike

Samadhi said:


> Simple. None of that matters. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. LA is vindicated and Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower. Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


A for effort, but that is a bunch of nonsense. The Armstrong letter is a PR move, not a legal one. Ruskin knows that the real moves won't begin until this process moves toward an arbitration hearing, which everyone knows is inevitable. And then CAS after that. This letter is intended to garner public support for Armstrong, not make any legal stand. The review panel will move this along to a hearing. The plain fact is, USADA has the testimony of Armstrong's closest 'friends' - Levi, George, Dave, Christian, and others. Hamilton and Landis are one thing, but trying to discredit the others is going to make Armstrong and his camp look really bad. Sorry, but we all know this plays out badly for Armstrong. And who really believes he's not guilty of these charges?


----------



## Chris-X

stevesbike said:


> A for effort, but that is a bunch of nonsense. The Armstrong letter is a PR move, not a legal one. Ruskin knows that the real moves won't begin until this process moves toward an arbitration hearing, which everyone knows is inevitable. And then CAS after that. This letter is intended to garner public support for Armstrong, not make any legal stand. The review panel will move this along to a hearing. The plain fact is, USADA has the testimony of Armstrong's closest 'friends' - Levi, George, Dave, Christian, and others. Hamilton and Landis are one thing, but trying to discredit the others is going to make Armstrong and his camp look really bad. Sorry, but we all know this plays out badly for Armstrong.* And who really believes he's not guilty of these charges*?


Jeez, don't ask. There's so many ah, uninformed,:idea: people out there it's mind boggling.

What are they going to say when Lance opts for a closed hearing though? Unless he's completely out of his mind himself and believes he can paint the dirty dozen or so, all as haters.


----------



## Chris-X

Nob said:


> Like the man says..."never tested positive".
> 
> Any time now....someone will show us differently. *NOT*


USADA is not going to argue LA's corticoid positive and 6 EPO positives from the '99 Tour anyway.


----------



## trailrunner68

Chris-X said:


> USADA is not going to argue LA's corticoid positive and 6 EPO positives from the '99 Tour anyway.


They might. They can use them as corroborative evidence. Vaughters, Hamilton, and Jemisen could testify that the whole team, including Armstrong, used EPO during the 1999 Tour. The B sample positives could then be used to corroborate their testimoney with Ashenden testifying that the amount of exogenous EPO in the positive samples as well as the borderline and negative samples match a pattern of EPO use during the race.


----------



## PaxRomana

Samadhi said:


> Not just money .....
> 
> The alledged irregularities in obtaining evidence via a federal grand jury could be handed over for criminal prosecution - a case for federal authorites. People could be going to jail.
> 
> LAs legal team could cut the nuts out of the USADA and cast a pall over the agency and set anti-doping efforts back to the stone age.


What an amazing amount on sheer nonsense.

USADA is going to put on multiple witnesses corroborating the charges against Armstrong. These are going to include many whose character Lance will be unable to challenge.

The "never tested positive" defense fails on multiple counts, not the least of which is that Marion Jones, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Alejandro Valverde all "never tested positive."

Good luck with that though.


----------



## Chris-X

Samadhi said:


> Simple. None of that matters. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. *LA is vindicated* and *Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower*. Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


He's vindicated? Tygart's going to prison? Are you listening to yourself?



trailrunner68 said:


> They might. They can use them as corroborative evidence. Vaughters, Hamilton, and Jemisen could testify that the whole team, including Armstrong, used EPO during the 1999 Tour. The B sample positives could then be used to corroborate their testimoney with Ashenden testifying that the amount of exogenous EPO in the positive samples as well as the borderline and negative samples match a pattern of EPO use during the race.


Ok, hadn't thought of that. Jemisen wasn't on the '99 Tour team btw and Frankie had done his injecting in private. I'm not sure the EPO doping was as much a communal affair as the blood doping later was revealed to be. So Vaughters might not be any help there and Hamilton has his obvious problems. Livingston will be crucial in backing up testimony Hamilton gives about Ferrari and Alpine traning camps.

I guess we'll see with Hincapie too. But if you say they can bring the positives in, I don't have anything to rebut that.


----------



## PaxRomana

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While that sounds nice to rally the troops it is not based on reality. If Lance does not like his sanction he can appeal to CAS.
> 
> As soon as Lance loses all his Tour titles he will have many other things to worry about. Like paying SCA $5 million
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/s...-lose-5-million-if-guilty-of-doping.html?_r=1
> 
> Tim Herman appears to not understand that settlements based on fraud can be set aside. Times of London will also be looking for their money, plus damages. Multiple Sponsors had doping clauses in their agreements, with claw back provisions.
> 
> Lance will spend the next few years paying lawyers and settlements.


That amount will be far more than $5M. The final settlement in the case was $7.5M. With interest, I would guess SCA will be going after more than that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance's lawyers gave their response document to the Associated Press 4 hours before they submitted it to USADA. 

Their priorities are public opinion....that only works for a little while


----------



## Nob

"The plain fact is, USADA has the testimony of Armstrong's closest 'friends' - Levi, George, Dave, Christian, and others. "

And that is pure speculation....


----------



## Chris-X

Nob said:


> "The plain fact is, USADA has the testimony of Armstrong's closest 'friends' - Levi, George, Dave, Christian, and others. "
> 
> And that is pure speculation....


It does give the cultists more time to do what they can to shore up the mythology and bask in the fantasy before LA speaks truth to power.ut::14::lol:


----------



## trailrunner68

Chris-X said:


> Ok, hadn't thought of that. Jemisen wasn't on the '99 Tour team btw and Frankie had done his injecting in private. I'm not sure the EPO doping was as much a communal affair as the blood doping later was revealed to be. So Vaughters might not be any help there and Hamilton has his obvious problems. Livingston will be crucial in backing up testimony Hamilton gives about Ferrari and Alpine traning camps.
> 
> I guess we'll see with Hincapie too. But if you say they can bring the positives in, I don't have anything to rebut that.


I don't know what they can do. I'm just saying that evidence that might not stand on its own could be used to corroborate other evidence.


----------



## gordy748

PaxRomana said:


> What an amazing amount on sheer nonsense.
> 
> USADA is going to put on multiple witnesses corroborating the charges against Armstrong. These are going to include many whose character Lance will be unable to challenge.
> 
> The "never tested positive" defense fails on multiple counts, not the least of which is that Marion Jones, Jan Ullrich, Ivan Basso, Alejandro Valverde all "never tested positive."
> 
> Good luck with that though.


The problem with all the witnesses is the counter-witnesses that LA can call on. Remember that saline IV drips and vitamin syringes were legal through 2005. LA was on those and so was everyone else. The other riders could say that, yes, they all saw LA hooked up to IV drips and he told them he was taking stuff. They could be right. 

LA could equally call up the team doctors and soigneurs to say that, yes, he was on IV drips, but no, there was no illegal drugs in them. He could also call up other riders to say that they believe he never took drugs; Chris Horner is one who has already said that. 

The result is a bizarre form of trump cards played out in court. One particular problem that USADA has is the way they appear to have coerced riders like Landis to give evidence on LA. If LA's lawyers can prove that any of these were gathered outside USADA's own regulations, then their testimony is compromised.

What USADA are hoping for (or perhaps have) is evidence from one of the doctors who would have clear knowledge of the Bruyneel/ LA doping regime, and who has evidence that LA not only doped per se but also was involved in running the operation. The trouble is getting clear evidence that LA was involved in this. And while I have no doubt for a second that LA doped and there simply isn't the results to show the world he did, I find it very far fetched that he would actually be involved in running the doping in his team.

I've got no doubt that what USADA is doing is morally right. Equally, I have no doubt that in doing so they've contravened their own rules in obtaining what evidence they have. I also have no doubt their evidence, as is, doesn't add up to conclusive proof. USADA has a track record of doing this before, though; they're known for bullying athletes they think, but not know, are on drugs. In most circumstances the athletes are faced with a body of enormous resources and accept the consequences.

But against LA and his resources? I'll bet on USADA to lose. And to lose badly, unless they can get the doctors to testify. The consequences are grim, and they're risking millions of dollars and, worse, ruining their own reputation and the pursuit of drugs free sport in the USA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gordy748 said:


> The problem with all the witnesses is the counter-witnesses that LA can call on. Remember that saline IV drips and vitamin syringes were legal through 2005. LA was on those and so was everyone else. The other riders could say that, yes, they all saw LA hooked up to IV drips and he told them he was taking stuff. They could be right.
> 
> LA could equally call up the team doctors and soigneurs to say that, yes, he was on IV drips, but no, there was no illegal drugs in them. He could also call up other riders to say that they believe he never took drugs; Chris Horner is one who has already said that.
> 
> The result is a bizarre form of trump cards played out in court. One particular problem that USADA has is the way they appear to have coerced riders like Landis to give evidence on LA. If LA's lawyers can prove that any of these were gathered outside USADA's own regulations, then their testimony is compromised.
> 
> What USADA are hoping for (or perhaps have) is evidence from one of the doctors who would have clear knowledge of the Bruyneel/ LA doping regime, and who has evidence that LA not only doped per se but also was involved in running the operation. The trouble is getting clear evidence that LA was involved in this. And while I have no doubt for a second that LA doped and there simply isn't the results to show the world he did, I find it very far fetched that he would actually be involved in running the doping in his team.
> 
> I've got no doubt that what USADA is doing is morally right. Equally, I have no doubt that in doing so they've contravened their own rules in obtaining what evidence they have. I also have no doubt their evidence, as is, doesn't add up to conclusive proof. USADA has a track record of doing this before, though; they're known for bullying athletes they think, but not know, are on drugs. In most circumstances the athletes are faced with a body of enormous resources and accept the consequences.
> 
> But against LA and his resources? I'll bet on USADA to lose. And to lose badly, unless they can get the doctors to testify. The consequences are grim, and they're risking millions of dollars and, worse, ruining their own reputation and the pursuit of drugs free sport in the USA.


So when George says he got EPO from Lance he was actually getting vitamins? When George, and others, talk about the entire team getting transfusions on the bus Lance was the only one getting a Saline drip? 

10+ people, irregular blood values, and much more. This is a AAA case. That means no jury of groupies but experts and a lower burden of proof. Smoke and mirrors only works with press releases


----------



## Local Hero

So much speculation in this thread. I'm entertained. And kudos (rep) to gordy there for his even-keeled response. 

I'll say this of Lance's legal team: I'm impressed by their PR response. Well done. From what I've seen in that letter I predict that they are going to do their damnedest to tear the USADA case apart. Any irregularity in testing protocol will be blown completely out of proportion. Contradictory testimony by witnesses will be brought up ad naseum. They will make mountains out of molehills. Evidence will be confused, things will become convoluted, and the USADA will be in for a uphill battle.


----------



## King Arthur

zigmeister said:


> The USDA is a non profit group that has zero civil or criminal authority to do a single thing except work with the UCI to possibly take some victories away.
> 
> It is a complete waste of time, resources and money with a predetermined outcome already in place.


Actually USADA is a taxpayer funded group, and while they have zero criminal authority, they can recommend a ban for activities related to cycling and triathlons.
From there the UCI can pick things up and act on his 7 x TDF stuff.
USADA is subject to US laws and therefore can be sued in federal courts.


----------



## MarkS

Local Hero said:


> So much speculation in this thread. I'm entertained. And kudos (rep) to gordy there for his even-keeled response.
> 
> *I'll say this of Lance's legal team: I'm impressed by their PR response*. Well done. From what I've seen in that letter I predict that they are going to do their damnedest to tear the USADA case apart. Any irregularity in testing protocol will be blown completely out of proportion. Contradictory testimony by witnesses will be brought up ad naseum. They will make mountains out of molehills. Evidence will be confused, things will become convoluted, and the USADA will be in for a uphill battle.


Armstrong has been lawyered up for a long time with top flight legal and PR talent. They are going to battle both in the USADA and in the court of public opinion. The only thing about which anyone can be certain right now is that whether Armstrong wins or loses before the USADA or in the court of public opinion he will be spending millions of dollars before everything is concluded. 

The USADA may be in for an uphill battle, but even the best lawyering and PR flacking can only go so far to counter the facts.


----------



## badge118

Dr. F, absolutely, this is definitely a PR thing. That said here they MAY have a technical point. In the Hellebuyck case the AAA panel tossed a charge because the USADA violated one of the supplemental rules. They stated that to permit them to do so would be to give the impression one side controlled the arbitration process and thus destroy the appearance of impartiality of the panel. In another decision the AAA rules that if there is not a specific rule, the Federal rules of Civil proceedures apply. 

Now the only rules regarding discovery I could find involved lab reports and it said the laboratory documentation and results needed to be given to both the USADA panel AND the accused when the case is given to the panel to decide if a case will go forward. This could well cover the allegation that lab tests showed Armstrong's levels were indicitive of doping. So if the USADA has sent the case to the panel Armstrong's team should have the documents showing this. They claim to not have them. As there is nothing about non-analytic evidence (statements etc) then Federal Civil Procedures apply. In Federal actions you need to go through a complex procedure to keep witness statements and names secret due to the right to confront ones accusers, the plaintiff can't unilaterally keep them secret claiming possible intimidation. 



> Initial Disclosure.
> 
> (A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties:
> 
> (i) the name and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have discoverable information—along with the subjects of that information—that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
> 
> (ii) a copy—or a description by category and location—of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment....
> 
> {edit, the rest was ommitted because it involves disclosures relating to insurance documentation, damages and the like}
> 
> (3) Pretrial Disclosures.
> 
> (A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and (2), a party must provide to the other parties and promptly file the following information about the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment:
> 
> (i) the name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number of each witness—separately identifying those the party expects to present and those it may call if the need arises;
> 
> (ii) the designation of those witnesses whose testimony the party expects to present by deposition and, if not taken stenographically, a transcript of the pertinent parts of the deposition; and
> 
> (iii) an identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence—separately identifying those items the party expects to offer and those it may offer if the need arises.


I omitted (2) because that goes to expert testimony and reports. That is actually stipulated in the USADA rules so the Federal Rules do not apply. It needs to be submitted due to their own rule though.

26 a1B was ommitted because it refers to forfeiture actions relating to federal statutes, habeus corpus motions to challenge criminal convictions, actions brought by people in the custody of the Untied States or state subdivisions etc so they would not be applicable in this case.

So to keep the information from the Armstrong camp they basically need to get an order from someone permitting it. Since there is no mechanism for such an order who the heck knows how the hell these two arguments will turn out. Why the USADA doesn't turn it over in order to avoid the following being added to this case...(page 23 of the Hellebuyck ruling.)



> All parties before an AAA Tribunal must be treated equally. All parties should follow the rules. No party should be left with the impression that one party controls the hearing process. USADA's failure to follow the Supplementary Procedures cannot be tolerated by this panel. Such action by the Panel could negate the appearance of impartiality.


This was in response to bring new charges and without proper discovery on said charges. The Panel even noted...



> Such a request would come in the form of a motion that would be fully briefed by both sides unless the addition is stipulated to. In most circumstance, the Panel would likely approve such a request provided the athlete is given the opportunity to request a continuance of the hearing and allowed additional time to adequately investigation the new charges and conduct a fair defense.


Now here of course we are not dealing with new charges but the principle of discovery and investigation for a fair defense is pretty clear.

So while I agree that this is definitely a PR stunt these two issues do not appear to be completely without merit either.

The one issue that I think will end up as more smoke than substance is the fact that Tygart participated in parts of the federal investigation. Now in a regular court his knowledge of statements etc would definitely be questionable and could well invalidate the claim of "we are not using Federal Investigators statements or reports". They really don't need them because of his participation, they already have the info via him. However this is not a Federal Court so in the end this may just turn into a point of spin. I do wonder though how much the recent case in Armstrong's back yard that I noted in the other thread had to do with this tactic.

Now the "bribery" comment is almost definitely spin. They can probably rationalize it by saying that the USADA is not a Criminal Prosecutor, and so does not have over 2 centuries of precedent in the US using plea bargains, but in 1999 the full 10th Circuit over rules a 10th circuit 3 judge panel (9-3 vote what a shock) in saying plea bargains do not = bribery in relation to a case of drug trafficking...

The Case That Challenged Leniency Deals | Snitch | FRONTLINE | PBS


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While that sounds nice to rally the troops it is not based on reality. If Lance does not like his sanction he can appeal to CAS.



Nobody's rallying anyone. That letter strikes me as being a legal team setting it's sites on where the real fight will be. 

Sadly, the USADA procedings seem like they'll be a kangaroo court. It would be pointless to exert any legal effort there. Why even show up?


----------



## PaxRomana

gordy748 said:


> The problem with all the witnesses is the counter-witnesses that LA can call on. Remember that saline IV drips and vitamin syringes were legal through 2005. LA was on those and so was everyone else. The other riders could say that, yes, they all saw LA hooked up to IV drips and he told them he was taking stuff. They could be right.
> 
> LA could equally call up the team doctors and soigneurs to say that, yes, he was on IV drips, but no, there was no illegal drugs in them. He could also call up other riders to say that they believe he never took drugs; Chris Horner is one who has already said that.


I hate to break this to you, but it only takes 1 witness to a murder. The murdered can call up 1,000 people who say they never saw him do it, but it won't matter.

Nobody cares what Chris Horner says since he wasn't on Armstrong's team in 1999-2005 and was only on the Tour team in 2010. Plus, he has a vested interest in playing the game.

Guys like Hincapie, VdV, Leipheimer, etc. have no interest in going against Lance. Plus, I don't think Lance is going to find many people willing testify under oath on his behalf for no good reason, especially if that testimony involves lying.


----------



## zero85ZEN

Thanks for taking the time to summarize.



Local Hero said:


> They flipped the script, basically alleging that the USADA is the omerta.
> 
> Also the response:
> 
> -Challenged the USADA's authority on multiple fronts.
> -Said that Lance cannot be expected to respond when the evidence is not described and the witnesses are not named.
> -Said that the review board cannot be expected to review evidence that has not been described or the unknown testimony of unknown witnesses.
> -Claims the 11 year old sample from the Tour de Swiss is gone. The guy who tested it said that he wouldn't go forward with it as a positive.
> -Claims the 2009/2010 blood doping charges have no expert analysis. They are just empty charges that the UCI chose not to pursue.
> -Accuses the USADA of committing a federal offense in their dealing with Landis and attempts to get him to testify against Armstrong.
> -Claims that the USADA is attacking Armstrong because they are big meanies.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> At what?


As I say further below in a little more detail. At PR, and to a lesser extent finding two potential violations on the part of the USADA, one of them elaborated on in Hellebuyck case that the USADA is using to try and bust the SOL. The two arguments that basically boil down to discovery actually seem to be pretty good BUT they are ones the USADA can recover from. The USADA will have to suck up one thing to recover though. They will have to give Armstrongs team the witness statements and list as well as the relevant lab info regarding his abnormal readings. If they do this with enough time for the Armstrong team to review and make any possible counter arguments, before the Panel rules, then Armstrong I think is stuck sucking it up and/or appealing to CAS. 

The rules are pretty clear that in order to be able to form a defense and make a case for their not to be a ban that the athlete gets all relevant info. The AAA is actually more or less the first appeal, because as far as the rules are concerned the USADA group that sent him the 15 page letter is the "police" and the USADA Panel is "the judge". The AAA is then like a Circuit Court of appeals if you chose to not accept the initial verdict. Then of course you have CAS, the SCOTUS. As of now at least his team hasn't had full discovery. The USADA is saying that it is to protect witnesses from intimidation BUT there is a problem with this idea.

As I stated below where there is not a rule (WADA, USADA etc) then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. There the rule is pretty clear cut. The USADA just needs to swallow a little bit of pride and release the stuff and I think they will be golden.


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when George says he got EPO from Lance he was actually getting vitamins? When George, and others, talk about the entire team getting transfusions on the bus Lance was the only one getting a Saline drip?
> 
> 10+ people, irregular blood values, and much more. This is a AAA case. *That means no jury of groupies but experts* and a lower burden of proof. Smoke and mirrors only works with press releases


Key point, the experts will not appreciate the "ad nauseum" shoveling of bs.



Local Hero said:


> So much speculation in this thread. I'm entertained. And kudos (rep) to gordy there for his even-keeled response.
> 
> I'll say this of Lance's legal team: I'm impressed by their PR response. Well done. From what I've seen in that letter I predict that they are going to do their damnedest to tear the USADA case apart. *Any irregularity in testing protocol will be blown completely out of proportion. Contradictory testimony by witnesses will be brought up ad naseum. They will make mountains out of molehills.* Evidence will be confused, things will become convoluted, and the USADA will be in for a uphill battle.


You're impressed? You realize "Lance's" team had to respond with something, anything? Evidently shameless liars are very expensive. He would have been served better by a lawyer from the strip shopping center who wasn't accustomed to selling bogus legal services to ego maniacs..

You don't think professionals and experts will get tired of stupid, intentionally confusing arguments that sometimes work with the people who are on juries? Many of whom did their darndest to not be on the jury in the first place?

Armstrong is now the one fighting the uphill battle and being that ALL of the evidence is against him, he's not going to want it to take place in public, because THAT would be a PR disaster.

The only things anyone is arguing about now are the legal "theory crafting" and PR positioning. Even though people like Clemens and Bonds got off for the most part, find me a person who didn't think they were jacked.After this silliness is over, Armstrong will be in the same position both of them are in and his whole career and income is based on PR. 

Of course there will be dead enders and conspiracy theorists, so what?.


----------



## badge118

> The only things anyone is arguing about now are the legal "theory crafting" and PR positioning. Even though people like Clemens and Bonds got off for the most part, find me a person who didn't think they were jacked.After this silliness is over, Armstrong will be in the same position both of them are in and his whole career and income is based on PR.


The thing is all the law is, ultimately, is theory crafting. It is about looking at what is written and seeing if you can make it fit your argument. I have gone through a few suppression hearings (when people are looking at State time they will argue everything and anything). You will have the defense point out case law and then the judge will say something like "in that case the defendant was found 25 minutes later over 1 mile away from the initial incident. Here we have a subject found mere minutes after the incident 3 blocks away." While I will whole heartedly agree that it is INSANELY frustrating that Western Legal tradition works this way, the little stuff does matter and to call it theory crafting is to minimize just how integral these types of mental gymnastics are to the entire system.


----------



## stevesbike

badge118 said:


> As I say further below in a little more detail. At PR, and to a lesser extent finding two potential violations on the part of the USADA, one of them elaborated on in Hellebuyck case that the USADA is using to try and bust the SOL. The two arguments that basically boil down to discovery actually seem to be pretty good BUT they are ones the USADA can recover from. The USADA will have to suck up one thing to recover though. They will have to give Armstrongs team the witness statements and list as well as the relevant lab info regarding his abnormal readings. If they do this with enough time for the Armstrong team to review and make any possible counter arguments, before the Panel rules, then Armstrong I think is stuck sucking it up and/or appealing to CAS.
> 
> The rules are pretty clear that in order to be able to form a defense and make a case for their not to be a ban that the athlete gets all relevant info. The AAA is actually more or less the first appeal, because as far as the rules are concerned the USADA group that sent him the 15 page letter is the "police" and the USADA Panel is "the judge". The AAA is then like a Circuit Court of appeals if you chose to not accept the initial verdict. Then of course you have CAS, the SCOTUS. As of now at least his team hasn't had full discovery. The USADA is saying that it is to protect witnesses from intimidation BUT there is a problem with this idea.
> 
> As I stated below where there is not a rule (WADA, USADA etc) then the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. There the rule is pretty clear cut. The USADA just needs to swallow a little bit of pride and release the stuff and I think they will be golden.


But the USADA code does provide rules and procedures for the review panel stage. Nowhere does it state that the athlete is to provide evidence to rebut the USADA evidence. The athlete is allowed to provide his own evidence that may be pertinent to whether or not the review panel recommends proceeding with the case - like a tainted supplement, a piece of Spanish beef. The arbitration hearing is where discovery would apply.


----------



## badge118

stevesbike said:


> But the USADA code does provide rules and procedures for the review panel stage. Nowhere does it state that the athlete is to provide evidence to rebut the USADA evidence. The athlete is allowed to provide his own evidence that may be pertinent to whether or not the review panel recommends proceeding with the case - like a tainted supplement, a piece of Spanish beef. The arbitration hearing is where discovery would apply.


Ahh but...(page 9 of the USADA Protocol)



> ii. The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any
> additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information
> shall be provided simultaneously to the Athlete or other Person
> and the Athlete or other Person shall be entitled to file a response with the
> Review Board. The Athlete’s or other Person’s name will not be provided
> to the Review Board by USADA and will be redacted from any documents
> submitted to the Review Board by USADA.


Now as I said this the only thing in the protocol regarding evidence and discovery and the USADA is required to provide copies of the lab documentation (here it would be the analysis of his Bio-passport). I hope they get around eventually to detailing non-analytical findings. So we are where I said we are before it goes before the AAA. The basic rationale being that it is impossible to file a response to charges to the panel without knowing the basis of the charges. 

Now you could maybe try to argue that since the AAA panel has not formed there is no one to ask for permission to keep the witness names and statements secret but that is walking on thin ice considering the AAA's response to a charge in Hellebuyck case. Not a death knell mind you, but it seems to be a risk I sure as hell wouldn't want to take. If I was the USADA here I would be going out of my way to give the appearance of a fair and impartial hearing because any questions in a high profile case like this are going to result in major head aches.


----------



## Chris-X

*You*



badge118 said:


> The thing is all the law is, ultimately, is theory crafting. It is about looking at what is written and seeing if you can make it fit your argument. I have gone through a few suppression hearings (when people are looking at State time they will argue everything and anything). You will have the defense point out case law and then the judge will say something like "in that case the defendant was found 25 minutes later over 1 mile away from the initial incident. Here we have a subject found mere minutes after the incident 3 blocks away." While I will whole heartedly agree that it is INSANELY frustrating that Western Legal tradition works this way, the little stuff does matter and to call it theory crafting is to minimize just how integral these types of mental gymnastics are to the entire system.


called it "theory crafting" which I find to be a humorous turn of phrase.

I didn't know that defense attorneys are compelled to make ludicrous arguments and that those arguments are "integral" to the entire system.

The ONLY thing integral to the entire system is the aspiration to "establish Justice." Are lawyers going to argue stupidity and see what they can get away with? Of course.

What you're doing is finding anecdotes that justfiy your apparent desire to "lose the forest for the trees."

What I find odd is that in your profession you're often confronting this ridiculousness, and bemoaning it here, yet you continually engage in it yourself, and seem to enjoy it. Don't you think that even if YOU as a police officer enjoys the baloney, a defense attorney only sees this as license to keep perpetuating this frustrating behavior?

If this behavior was widely ridiculed, we might see a shift in public opinion as to the nonsense defense attorney's argue. What's to stop them when even people in the LE function see this shenanigans as meriting anything other than laughter?:lol:

PS, I love the way you don't include my name so you can act like you are ignoring me. It just shows that you care about the kind of silly little issues that make no difference whatsoever. In the legal system, the bottom line, guilty or not is what matters. Getting all caught up in side issues is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> called it "theory crafting" which I find to be a humorous turn of phrase.
> 
> I didn't know that defense attorneys are compelled to make ludicrous arguments and that those arguments are "integral" to the entire system.
> 
> The ONLY thing integral to the entire system is the aspiration to "establish Justice." Are lawyers going to argue stupidity and see what they can get away with? Of course.
> 
> What you're doing is finding anecdotes that justfiy your apparent desire to "lose the forest for the trees."
> 
> What I find odd is that in your profession you're often confronting this ridiculousness, and bemoaning it here, yet you continually engage in it yourself, and seem to enjoy it. Don't you think that even if YOU as a police officer enjoys the baloney, a defense attorney only sees this as license to keep perpetuating this frustrating behavior?
> 
> If this behavior was widely ridiculed, we might see a shift in public opinion as to the nonsense defense attorney's argue. What's to stop them when even people in the LE function see this shenanigans as meriting anything other than laughter?:lol:


When I do it yes, it is often theory crafting. I got the impression from your statement however that you were also referring to the attorney at work. If I was in error there, my bad.

Also, as I said, I do find it frustrating, even insanely so, and do I bemoan it? Sometimes yeah. At the same time such tactics have resulted in decisions like Brown v Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other land mark decisions that are applauded by many a legal scholar and many people at large. You have to take the good with the bad. We can not allow those "fighting the good fight" to use interesting legal analysis and then say that those "on the dark side" (a slang term used in jest for ADA's that resign and then go on to be defense attorneys) can't. The point of the system is that, in theory, the good and the dark are only determined by the judges or the jury at the end.

As I said though, the first two arguments actually appear, on their face, to have some merit. The rest don't and are full of crap imo. Again though you have to take the good with the bad in order to protect people's rights and even criminals have them. In my job you either accept that or get an ulcer. I prefer to avoid getting an ulcer thank you. /shrug.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> When I do it yes, it is often theory crafting. I got the impression from your statement however that you were also referring to the attorney at work. If I was in error there, my bad.


I only left you with the Impression? I AM referring to the attorney at work. You quoted my statement but didn't understand I was talking about defense attorneys in addition to you?



badge118 said:


> Also, as I said, I do find it frustrating, even insanely so, and do I bemoan it? Sometimes yeah. At the same time such tactics have resulted in decisions like Brown v Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and other land mark decisions that are applauded by many a legal scholar and many people at large..


Roe v. Wade was based on pragmatism as much as anything but it's not staring into the sun. Are you really suggesting that Brown v Board of Education wasn't decided based on it's obvious merits? I believe that those who make a big deal out of Brown and what a landmark case it is,just illustrate how effed up the USA has been in the not so distant past. Brown was an obvious case.



badge118 said:


> You have to take the good with the bad. We can not allow those "fighting the good fight" to use interesting legal analysis and then say that those "on the dark side" (a slang term used in jest for ADA's that resign and then go on to be defense attorneys) can't. The point of the system is that, in theory, the good and the dark are only determined by the judges or the jury at the end..


That's a strawman. No one is saying that the defense attorneys shouldn't be allowed to argue what they argue however nuts it may be. We are on a cycling forum though and have no constraints for calling out nonsense.



badge118 said:


> As I said though, the first two arguments actually appear, on their face, to have some merit. The rest don't and are full of crap imo. Again though you have to take the good with the bad in order to protect people's rights and even criminals have them. In my job you either accept that or get an ulcer. I prefer to avoid getting an ulcer thank you. /shrug.


No one is saying that criminals don't have rights. I think the argument is that just because high powered, expensive lawyers make idiotic arguments, doesn't mean they are any more legitimate than the arguments of run of the mill fools.

Your argument is that just because the arguments are made, they are therefore legitimate/formidable?

Because we're so far afield I'll mention the terrible consequences this kind of hypnotism can have for prosecutions.

OJ Simpson made a highly incriminating taped statement to the two detectives on the case, Lange and Vannatter, in which he made all kinds of dumb statemens about where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murders. Johnnie Cochran knew how damaging the tape was and made all kinds of poker like comments about how OJ had denied the murders on the tape. He bluffed the prosecutors into not introducing the highly incriminating tape because as the prosecutors put it, "they didn't want the jury to hear OJ denying he murdered anyone."

What!!!!!! OJ Simpson had plead not guilty to the murders! Of course he was denying them on the tape.

The same thing with Armstrong. He said he didn't do anything at all. What the hell are his attorneys going to say or write with a client insisting on his innocense despite a mountain of evidence against him? They have to say something. So what?

People, many of them here, seem to infuse any recriminations by Armstrong's attorneys with legitimacy and merit when there is absolutely none. Armstrong is insistent on fighting these charges and that the attorneys take the huge sum to come up with something in proper English which supports his delusions.

A decent, smart attorney, with a rational client would advise his client that he is screwed and to save his money. Both of those are absent in this case.


----------



## badge118

Goodness you have an axe to grind. I used to term "impression" because of your response when you referred to me using the term theory crafting. Since you called me on that and I was referring only to myself, i assumed I misread but apparently you were just engaging in an ad hominem attack. My bad. 

In terms of the cases I am referring to the nature of the arguments used. All cases are ultimately decided on their merits, however the arguments and examples used are often novel, especially when in the case of Brown you are going after almost a century of written law and a previous SCOTUS decision. The Clark Doll experiment used in Brown is a good example. 

Also you can keep calling ALL of the tactics a joke but when the USADA rules themselves say that certain evidence should be given to the Armstrong camp, and it apparently has yet to be, well there is one argument at least that does not appear to be a joke. As such my other comment is not a straw man argument in the least, because it is ONLY the argument(s) related to discovery that I am making that comment about. I have been pretty clear that the others are little more than spin doctoring.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> Nobody's rallying anyone. That letter strikes me as being a legal team setting it's sites on where the real fight will be.
> 
> Sadly, the USADA procedings seem like they'll be a kangaroo court. It would be pointless to exert any legal effort there. Why even show up?


If they are a kangaroo court why did lance sign the WADA code for 10 years? Why didn't he take it up with his agent Bill Stapleton who wrote the code? 

"setting it's sites on where the real fight will be" Could you point these out exactly? I read the letter and see a rambling mess of lies and obfuscation. What surprises me is it does not even focus on the weakest part of USADA's case

It is a media play. An effort to get yet another silly nickname into the media. Travis, the "Mafia Don" Absurd


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If they are a kangaroo court why did lance sign the WADA code for 10 years? Why didn't he take it up with his agent Bill Stapleton who wrote the code?
> 
> "setting it's sites on where the real fight will be" Could you point these out exactly? I read the letter and see a rambling mess of lies and obfuscation. What surprises me is it does not even focus on the weakest part of USADA's case
> 
> It is a media play. An effort to get yet another silly nickname into the media. Travis, the "Mafia Don" Absurd


What do you think the weakest bit is. I still think it is the SOL issue and that takes up the smallest bit. In Hellebuyck it was a no brainer. He lied at a USADA arbitration and then admitted to doping in a media interview. With this case they are saying he perjured himself before they have proved he doped, forget about whether alleged perjury outside their process counts or not. It seems that, to an extent at least, the USADA has the plough before the horse. I think from a procedural stand point they should go for the time within the SOL. If they get that THEN come back with a second case using the civil suit deposition for the rest. At least that would seem more tidy.


----------



## Cpk

Local Hero said:


> They flipped the script, basically alleging that the USADA is the omerta.


Huh? He's alleging they are a code of silence?


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> *Goodness you have an axe to grind. I used to term "impression" because of your response when you referred to me using the term theory crafting. Since you called me on that and I was referring only to myself, i assumed I misread but apparently you were just engaging in an ad hominem attack. My bad.
> *
> In terms of the cases I am referring to the nature of the arguments used. All cases are ultimately decided on their merits, however the arguments and examples used are often novel, especially when in the case of Brown you are going after almost a century of written law and a previous SCOTUS decision. The Clark Doll experiment used in Brown is a good example.
> 
> Also you can keep calling ALL of the tactics a joke but when the USADA rules themselves say that certain evidence should be given to the Armstrong camp, and it apparently has yet to be, well there is one argument at least that does not appear to be a joke. As such my other comment is not a straw man argument in the least, because it is ONLY the argument(s) related to discovery that I am making that comment about. I have been pretty clear that the others are little more than spin doctoring.


No clue as to wth the bolded means.

You were confused as to whether I meant "theory crafting" by attorneys? Of course I think it's stupid, however permissible, should just be blown out of the water.

I'll only say that much of this back and forth only strengthens the significance of literature like _The Emperor's New Clothes._

People have a lot of difficulty seeing what's right in front of their faces and obvious to children because for some reason our socialization requires that we must learn a sophisticated form of lying.

The injustice and outright stupidity of Plessy v Ferguson is clear as day to any normal person.

A child could argue it. Instead imbeciles like Rehnquist were trying to insinuate their views on people like Robert Jackson.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> What do you think the weakest bit is. I still think it is the SOL issue and that takes up the smallest bit. In Hellebuyck it was a no brainer. He lied at a USADA arbitration and then admitted to doping in a media interview. With this case they are saying he perjured himself before they have proved he doped, forget about whether alleged perjury outside their process counts or not. It seems that, to an extent at least, the USADA has the plough before the horse. I think from a procedural stand point they should go for the time within the SOL. If they get that THEN come back with a second case using the civil suit deposition for the rest. At least that would seem more tidy.


SOL and the conspiracy. 

USADA would have a good chance with SOL with a normal athlete who hires a normal legal team.....but that isn't Lance. As they only have one case a precedent I expect they will focus on it. 

While there clearly was a conspiracy to use drugs, and cover up the use of drugs, on the team this is the first time USADA has brought a conspiracy case. In the Federal system they are notoriously hard to prove. While I think they will be successful I think this is the direction Armstrong's legal will focus. 

Of course Luskin's 15 pages barely focuses on either. Instead it is filled with talking points that are designed to inflame a gullible public into thinking Lance is getting railroaded....he is not


----------



## Local Hero

badge118 said:


> Goodness you have an axe to grind.


You noticed too?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

What puzzles me the most about Armstrong's response is how little real tactics they have in it. They have known this was coming for a long time and that was the best they could do? 

Luskin is the best in the business. If you are going to tangle with the Government he is your guy. USADA is not the government. It appears he does not know how to deal with this animal/


----------



## Nob

I find it interesting everyone assumes LA is guilty. But no one here has seen the evidence or has first hand knowledge that he is. Speculation...simply speculation.

I suspect even fewer know what LA is/was capable as an athelete, with or without doping.

My wife and I shook hands with Floyd while he calmly proclaimed his innocence. Then, as we all know, admitted he used drugs. 

When it was common place in the peleton and *LEGAL* to be hanging IV bags off of every rider, how in hell would anyone know what goes into the IV bags? No one here would that is for sure. As damn few riders would. Those poor naive souls

Even more interesting I find that LA team mates when offered a place as a GC rider and the money to go with it were quite quickly *BUSTED*. Before that even with some stellar rides they stayed under the radar...or may be even clean.

Hamilton and Landis...

I've lived off TPN and IVs for months, unable to swallow water let alone food. What can be done with just an IV bag (which was legal at one time in the Peleton) is simply amazing.

No one is going to change their mind about LA no matter what the USADA decision. And not a single person here and damn few else where will ever know the real story of LA's use of drugs in general (be happy you don't) let alone performance enhancing drugs.

LA won the TdF from 1999 to 2005. He is arguably the most tested athelete in history and never a legitimate positive test in all that time. Easy to pick holes in that comment but not a single "legitimate positive test in all that time". If there were we wouldn't be were we are now with USADA.

LAs main competition in his TdF victories:
1999-Alex Zülle, Jan Ullrich, Marco Pantani 
2000-Ullrich and Pantani 
2001 Ullrich 
2002 Joseba Beloki
2003 Ullrich 
2004 Klöden, Ullrich 
2005 Ivan Basso, Ullrich, Andreas Kloden and Alexandre Vinokourov

Go down the list. Busted for drugs or admitted to drug use in the same races:

Zulle-doper
Ullrick-doper
Pantini-doper
Beloki -Beloki and Alberto Contador inditted in Operación Puerto, both cleared
Kolden- team withdrew from TdF on drug charges in 2007-doper? 
Basso-doper
Vinokourov-doper 

Contador? - doper

Only Beloki and Kloden might be considered non dopers. Giving LA the same benefit of the doubt...but then his team has never withdrawn from the TdF for a positive test either.

1990 Lemond - baby ass clean 
1991 Indurian- likely the last clean rider..but not for his entire career imo
1992 Indurain
1993 Indurain
1994 Indurain- tested positive for salbutamol in 1994, but both the IOC and UCI allowed Indurain and asthma sufferers to use Salbutomol at the time
1995 Indurain
1996 Riis--doper 
1997 Ullrick--doper
1998 Pantini--doper

It is now 2012 not 2005. The 2005 leader board, with retrospect, was an obvious disgrace. Time to move on and put the time and effort into the future imo.


----------



## Local Hero

Cpk said:


> Huh? He's alleging they are a code of silence?


And it gets worse from there.


----------



## PaxRomana

There seems to be an endless amount of garbage from the Armstrong fanboys, mostly in an attempt to muddle the issue.

There is nobody who knows anything about cycling who thinks even for a second that Armstrong won his races clean. Nobody. Everybody knows what happened. We all know Lance did what he had to do to win. And he won. He dragged the sporting world back into the doping ages, when things could have been different after the Festina affair. This is essentially what the allegations state, and what has been claimed by many people with knowledge of Armstrong thus far.

The only issues left are a) statute of limitations, and b) proof.

The latter are addressed with witness testimony. The "500" test stuff is just garbage. We all know that. Question is, why did he never fail a test? Well, the simple answer is that, for the same reason Marion Jones and a whole slew of other dopers never failed one. Was there a test for HGH? No. Was there a test for autologous blood doping? No again. Was there a test capable of detecting microdosing? No. 

Look, you want to like Lance, great. You want to hide you head in the sand and pretend he was clean, fine. Just don't expect the rest of the world to ignore the facts.


----------



## Local Hero

Chris-X said:


> A decent, smart attorney, with a rational client would advise his client that he is screwed and to save his money.


How do we know that Luskin didn't say exactly that? A client can ignore such advice and ask to be represented as if he were not guilty. Then it is up to the attorney to proceed zealously with whatever theory he can concoct. 

Put yourself in Luskin's shoes. Pretend that Armstrong admitted his guilt but wants to be defended as if innocent. What would you say?


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> Armstrong dragged the sporting world back into the doping ages


You give the man too much credit.


----------



## Nob

PaxRomana said:


> He dragged the sporting world back into the doping ages



Hillarious... it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance....

....that made *Riis, Zulle, Ullrick, Pantini, Contador, Basso, Vinokourov, Landis, Hamilton, Zabel, into dopers over the last 16 years.* If he did, and I doubt it, he certainly had *LOTS* of help!

Lance may have doped. Let's see if USADA can prove it. Like I said no one is going to change their opinion no matter the out come of this accusation and the conclusion. (trial? nope. not in anyway we experience them anyway in our justice system)

In the bigger picture LA and his teams were small players compared to the entire Peleton.


----------



## PaxRomana

Nob said:


> Hillarious... it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance,it was Lance....
> 
> ....that made *Riis, Zulle, Ullrick, Pantini, Contador, Basso, Vinokourov, Landis, Hamilton, Zabel, into dopers over the last 16 years.* If he did, and I doubt it, he certainly had *LOTS* of help!
> 
> Lance may have doped. Let's see if USADA can prove it. Like I said no one is going to change their opinion no matter the out come of this accusation and the conclusion. (trial? nope. not in anyway we experience them anyway in our justice system)
> 
> In the bigger picture LA and his teams were small players compared to the entire Peleton.


Come back when you can spell "peloton". You have no idea who is going to change their opinion or not. As long as Lance's BS fanboys are called out for their nonsense, there is still hope that people will see Lance for the fraud he is.


----------



## Nob

So you can't defend your comments with any clarity so like most cyber bullies you turn to a personal attack on my spelling. Weak dude, weak. 

Some how you think I should be embarrassed because I'll wait till Lance is convicted of being a doper. But I am sure being able to spell peloton, means you are ready know for a fact LA is guilty.

No matter what Lance has done with drugs he had done more for cycling in the US than anyone before or sense and continues to. You on the other hand just want to complain about him and in truth actually know *nothing* about the subject. Just like the rest of us.


----------



## Handbrake

Local Hero said:


> You give the man too much credit.


That is a persistent theme. 

Lance singlehandely dragged cycling back into the doping ages. 
Lance finagled the US Justice Department into dropping its investigation. 
Lance hoodwinked millions by taking their money under the guise of support cancer research. 
Lance won 7 TdFs by the power of doping alone.
Lance bullied poor Tyler Hamilton. 
Lance beat cancer. 
Lance beat hundreds of doping controls. 
Lance was mean to Simeoni. 
Lance went up Alpe D'Huez too fast. 
Lance defrauded the government. 
Lance defrauded a TV station.
Lance made Hincapie dope, and Flandis, and Ekimov, and all those others.
Lance looks too strong. 
Lance looks too skinny. 

To a lot of people the guy is a seemingly all powerful boogeyman, capable of superhuman feats not only on the bike but it a wide variety of other areas of life. By now you'd think the mafia would've kidnapped him to see what exactly he has that has allowed him to continually engage in obvious criminal activity since childhood without ever having been convicted of anything by any court, or arbitration panel, or enforcement agency or anyone. 

He of course did dope, but the level of hyperbole present in the jeering section is ridiculous. Maybe the lack a US podium presence means you have to find your entertain where you can, but most everyone else can't give this thing more than a passing glance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> How do we know that Luskin didn't say exactly that? A client can ignore such advice and ask to be represented as if he were not guilty. Then it is up to the attorney to proceed zealously with whatever theory he can concoct.
> 
> Put yourself in Luskin's shoes. Pretend that Armstrong admitted his guilt but wants to be defended as if innocent. What would you say?


Sometimes, when your client is a pain in the ass, the best thing to do is give him exactly what he wants.....and give yourself a lot of billable hours. 

Lenny on the fanboys
Dustin Hoffman in Lenny - YouTube


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

PaxRomana said:


> Come back when you can spell "peloton". You have no idea who is going to change their opinion or not. As long as Lance's BS fanboys are called out for their nonsense, there is still hope that people will see Lance for the fraud he is.


1999 was the year after Festina. Most riders were scared to bring drugs into France. Teams were scared to have team administered doping programs. It showed when they retro tested the samples from 99 and compared them to the retro testing of 98, less then 1/3 the number of EPO positives. The retro testing of the samples also had Lance being the majority of the positives. Things had changed, but not Lance and USPS. They showed up with every rider on the team at 50% hct

Hard to lay the blame on lance. France addressed the issue by introducing longitudinal testing and criminalizing doping. The rest of the sport just ignored it and pretended nothing had happened. UCI looked the other way when lance tested positive for Cortisone in 1999. They allowed him to submit a back dated TUE and escape a sanction. That sent a clear message that they did not care about doping

Hard not to see that teams like Once, Telekom, and USPS took doping to a new level of sophistication. 

Lance was certainly an ingredient but the majority of the blame lays with the UCI and the gullible public who swallowed the myth


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> fanboys





PaxRomana said:


> fanboys





Doctor Falsetti said:


> fanboys


It's not the most persuasive argument...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> It's not the most persuasive argument...


Like "haters"?

If Lance is so innocent why is he scared to submit a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped?


----------



## PaxRomana

Nob said:


> No matter what Lance has done with drugs he had done more for cycling in the US than anyone before or sense and continues to. You on the other hand just want to complain about him and in truth actually know *nothing* about the subject. Just like the rest of us.


LOL @ this post. Ends justify the means, huh? Lance has enriched himself based on a fraud, that is the allegation. Many of his teammates will testify that he doped and encouraged and strong-armed others to dope. The UCI under Verbruggen and McQuaid were and are certainly complicit. 

Just because you know nothing about the subject doesn't mean others share your lack of knowledge. But thanks for at least admitting that you don't know anything.

And pointing out the fact that you know virtually nothing about cycling just makes it clear that you're not here to defend or promote the sport but rather to defend an individual.


----------



## vandalbob

*Please explain*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Lance is so innocent why is he scared to submit a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped?


Just curious, 'cuz I haven't heard this before. When has he been asked to make a statement under oath?


----------



## Chris-X

vandalbob said:


> Just curious, 'cuz I haven't heard this before. When has he been asked to make a statement under oath?


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20120623,0,2851391.story

An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped.


----------



## Nob

> Many of his teammates will testify that he doped and encouraged and strong-armed others to dope. The UCI under Verbruggen and McQuaid were and are certainly complicit.


The obvious Internet speculation. We'll see *if* teamates actually testify along those lines or *if* Verbruggen and McQuaid can be implicated. 

I like facts to base my opinions on. You of course can base your opinions on anything you like, including your own over active imagination. I was wrong about Floyd. Could be wrong about LA. But I am willing to wait and see the out come and keep an open mind till then.

After all it has only been 13 or 14 years since this all started. I can wait a couple more.


----------



## trailrunner68

Nob said:


> No one is going to change their mind about LA no matter what the USADA decision.


Sure they will. The press is already turning on him. The day the press does not have legal counsel and editors forcing all articles to include Armstrong's denials is the day that Armstrong's reputation goes the way of John Edwards. Over time Armstrong's credibility continues to get chipped away. The number of people who believe his lies gets smaller and smaller. In the end he will be the butt of jokes.


----------



## trailrunner68

Nob said:


> TI was wrong about Floyd.


LOL. A cyclists who actually believed Landis? That says a lot right there.

How could anyone who follows professional racing or is even vaguely aware of it believe Landis or Hamilton or Armstrong? It boggles the mind.


----------



## Nob

My wife and I spent a day with Landis. You?


----------



## gearsnspokes

It's probably ludicrous to speculate at this point, but how much do they estimate this whole thing (leaving out damage to reputation) will cost Armstrong? Whatever it is, I wouldn't have thought it would even make a dent in his net worth, no?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Nob said:


> The obvious Internet speculation. We'll see *if* teamates actually testify along those lines or *if* Verbruggen and McQuaid can be implicated.
> 
> I like facts to base my opinions on. You of course can base your opinions on anything you like, including your own over active imagination. I was wrong about Floyd. Could be wrong about LA. But I am willing to wait and see the out come and keep an open mind till then.
> 
> After all it has only been 13 or 14 years since this all started. I can wait a couple more.


You forget this case is more then just lance. Del Moral told riders to take a shot or they do not start the next day. Should he be in the sport? This was not a rumor, or internet speculation, but something told to me by several former USPS riders many years ago

How could this have started 14 years ago? The first race of Armstrong's that WADA controlled with in 2005.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If Lance is so innocent why is he scared to submit a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped?


Because he has the right to remain silent? 


Here is my prediction: The longer the trial, the higher the likelihood that Armstrong will be acquitted.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gearsnspokes said:


> It's probably ludicrous to speculate at this point, but how much do they estimate this whole thing (leaving out damage to reputation) will cost Armstrong? Whatever it is, I wouldn't have thought it would even make a dent in his net worth, no?


If he fights it? Legal $4-5 million. Then add in another $1,000,000 to the London Sunday Times. $7.5 million+ to SCA. Various sponsor bonuses and contract breaches, $5-10 million.

He spent close to $4 Million getting the Criminal investigation stopped. His exposure on the Qui Tam case is close to $20 million. 

No wonder he is selling his jet
http://www.leas.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uNT+Kl6bmk8=&tabid=142
And his ranch
Lance Armstrong's Luxury Home For Sale


----------



## gearsnspokes

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If he fights it? Legal $4-5 million. Then add in another $1,000,000 to the London Sunday Times. $7.5 million+ to SCA. Various sponsor bonuses and contract breaches, $5-10 million.
> 
> He spent close to $4 Million getting the Criminal investigation stopped. His exposure on the Qui Tam case is close to $20 million.
> 
> No wonder he is selling his jet
> http://www.leas.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uNT+Kl6bmk8=&tabid=142
> And his ranch
> Lance Armstrong's Luxury Home For Sale


Holy Bejesus....

Nice house, but 12Mil? "Been on the market since 2007..." I hope his attorneys are better than his realtor. :lol:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

gearsnspokes said:


> Holy Bejesus....
> 
> Nice house, but 12Mil? "Been on the market since 2007..." I hope his attorneys are better than his realtor. :lol:


It finally sold after a 35% price cut


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> add in another $1,000,000 to the London Sunday Times. $7.5 million+ to SCA. Various sponsor bonuses and contract breaches, $5-10 million.


Can you give a breakdown on those numbers and how you reached them?


----------



## PaxRomana

Local Hero said:


> Can you give a breakdown on those numbers and how you reached them?


Not sure about the others, but the $7.5M was the amount of the settlement with SCA. Armstrong would be liable for that PLUS the interest accrued since then.


----------



## MikeBiker

Chris-X said:


> Lance Armstrong's lawyer pushes back against doping allegations - latimes.com
> 
> An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped.


Maybe he should just swear on his dead dog.


----------



## gearsnspokes

Nob said:


> My wife and I spent *a day *with Landis. You?


:lol:


----------



## Mulowe

I think the Armstrong defense is best titles as "Don't hate the player, Hate the game".
What ever happened to I never doped and I cant ever prove I did, because I DIDDNT !
......Crickets


----------



## Mulowe

Sorry YOU cant ever prove it, because I didn't !


----------



## Mulowe

Floyd is a man who in the End did the right thing. For many that will never be good enough but for me it puts him well on the right path. LA will likely lie till his grave. He may be found guilty he may not but he is hardly innocent.


----------



## C6Rider

*Are you bragging or complaining?*



Nob said:


> My wife and I spent a day with Landis. You?


I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> Not sure about the others, but the $7.5M was the amount of the settlement with SCA. Armstrong would be liable for that PLUS the interest accrued since then.


Please explain how a USADA finding would make Armstrong liable for an out of court settlement.

I would be interesting in hearing about the legal grounds on which SCA would proceed.


----------



## Local Hero

Same goes for the sponsors and contract breaches. I would like to hear how those sponsors would get their money back. What, specifically, would the complaints allege? And what would they provide as evidence?


----------



## Local Hero

Armstrong has denied doping countless times. That's why I find the following peculiar: 


_An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped._​

Did the original charges call for such a response? Is a sworn statement under oath customary in these circumstances?

If no sworn statement under oath was required, I cannot understand why the lack of a sworn statement under oath is in any way noteworthy. 

The only thing noteworthy here is that USADA individuals familiar with the case who are unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter tend to attack Armstrong through backdoor channels at the Times. 

(And guys on message boards like Doctor Falsetti parrot these attacks.) 

There's no doubt that Armstrong's lawyers will decry such a transparent attempt to smear Armstrong. It's pathetic that the USADA thinks they can win a PR war here. Such nonsense will surely backfire. 

Of course, I'm writing under the belief that no such statement was required by Armstrong.


----------



## PaxRomana

Local Hero said:


> Please explain how a USADA finding would make Armstrong liable for an out of court settlement.
> 
> I would be interesting in hearing about the legal grounds on which SCA would proceed.


The previous settlement would have been based on fraud. Texas law wouldn't protect Armstrong there.


----------



## PaxRomana

Local Hero said:


> Armstrong has denied doping countless times.


So did Marion Jones. So did Ivan Basso, Barry Bonds, Clemens, Valverde, Ullrich, Landis, Hamilton, etc.

At this point, Armstrong has already testified under oath that he never doped. It now remains to be seen whether perjury will be added to the charges against him.

With regard to the breaches of contract, this is speculation at this point, since we are not privy to the details of the contracts. Any sponsor lawsuit would be based on evidence brought forth by USADA.


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> The previous settlement would have been based on fraud. Texas law wouldn't protect Armstrong there.


I know you think this is cut and dry. I don't. Please, spell it out for me. 

How will they prove fraud?

Do you think a USADA finding is binding on TX courts? How will they get the USADA evidence into court? 

And how will they overturn a settlement? Was this a poorly drafted settlement? How will someone file the case here?

I'm not kidding.


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> Any sponsor lawsuit would be based on evidence brought forth by USADA.


Oh so it's just that easy? 

Can they go back on a voluntary settlement? 

If so, do you think that the USADA follows the same rules of evidence and uses the same burden of proof as TX?


----------



## Local Hero

PaxRomana said:


> It now remains to be seen whether perjury will be added to the charges against him.


Do you believe that the USADA has the authority to bring perjury charges against Armstrong?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local, 

You may not be kidding but you are asking a lot of silly questions

The SCA case is pretty simple. They pay Lance if he wins the Tour. After USADA sanctions him he is not winner of the Tour. Lance lied in order to get the SCA settlement. It was based on fraud. I doubt he will have many issues getting a judgement

Lance has bragged in his books that his sponsorship deals have doping clauses that allow sponsors to get their money back if he dopes. Of course he may just have been bragging

London Sunday Times was a libel case. They essentially said he doped. UK courts are very friendly to people who sue for libel, but if you lose the case the exposure is large. IIRC 10X plus fees. I expect he would reach a settlement with them

The Qui Tam case allows for treble damages or $125 million total. Armstrong was a 13% owner of the entity which means his exposure is about $16 million. It could be more if the judgement is base not on the percentage ownership but the contribution to the fraud

USADA cannot bring perjury charges against Lance. Perjury charges are very rare in civil cases.


----------



## OldChipper

At the very least, could people PLEASE stop confusing the USADA, a voluntary, administrative organization and process with the US Legal system? 

If the USADA finds grounds to ban Lance based on their belief that he has doped, that does NOT constitute "evidence" that would necessarily be admissible or stand up in a court of law. Also, anybody can lie to an administrative body (just like you can lie to your spouse, your boss, and the person sitting across the poker table) 'til the cows come home and it ain't perjury. From the font of all knowledge aka Wikipedia: "Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a ***judicial proceeding.***" (emphasis added)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong's media team has done a good job of representing USADA's process. One of the more comical is the claim that they do not know the witnesses or the evidence. 

So far Armstrong has received the equivalent of a target letter. Shortly he will be charged. Once charged he will be presented with all the evidence, just like a normal court. 

FAQs | U.S. Anti-doping Agency (USADA)



> R-18. Exchange of Information
> a. At the request of any party or at the discretion of the arbitrator, consistent with the expedited nature of arbitration, the arbitrator may direct (i) the production of documents and other information, and (ii) the identification of any witnesses to be called.


As usual he is trying obfuscation as the truth is not on his side


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance lied in order to get the SCA settlement. It was based on fraud. I doubt he will have many issues getting a judgement.


Your confidence is not convincing. 

There are two main issues here. The first is reopening the voluntary settlement. Can you show me the TX law that would permit it to be revisited? 

Next, if the courts entertain a trial to toss the settlement, there are many evidentiary hurdles; if it is a fraud theory, the fraud must still be proved in TX court. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> As usual he is trying obfuscation as the truth is not on his side


Obfuscation, like when a USADA attacks Armstrong through backdoor channels at the Times, claiming that it is noteworthy that Armstrong has not made a sworn statement under oath denying doping? 

How can you claim this is anything but obfuscation on the part of the USADA individual? You've said that the USADA has done nothing more than write the equivalent of a target letter. 

Why is the USADA making unauthorized statements to the press, saying it is noteworthy that Armstrong did not make a sworn statement under oath? Why would Armstrong be expected to make a sworn statement under oath to the equivalent of a target letter? In a way it is suggesting that Armstrong's reply is some sort of implicit admission of guilt.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Your confidence is not convincing.
> 
> There are two main issues here. The first is reopening the voluntary settlement. Can you show me the TX law that would permit it to be revisited?
> 
> Next, if the courts entertain a trial to toss the settlement, there are many evidentiary hurdles; if it is a fraud theory, the fraud must still be proved in TX court.
> 
> Obfuscation, like when a USADA attacks Armstrong through backdoor channels at the Times, claiming that it is noteworthy that Armstrong has not made a sworn statement under oath denying doping?
> 
> How can you claim this is anything but obfuscation on the part of the USADA individual? You've said that the USADA has done nothing more than write the equivalent of a target letter.
> 
> Why is the USADA making unauthorized statements to the press, saying it is noteworthy that Armstrong did not make a sworn statement under oath? Why would Armstrong be expected to make a sworn statement under oath to the equivalent of a target letter? In a way it is suggesting that Armstrong's reply is some sort of implicit admission of guilt.


Could you show me the Texas law that says settlements based on fraud cannot be revisited? Thanks

You may want to look up Obfuscation. Sworn statements are fairly common in USADA cases, wonder why Lance is scared to do one? (I already know the answer)


----------



## Kliemann53

PaxRomana said:


> So did Marion Jones. So did Ivan Basso, Barry Bonds, Clemens, Valverde, Ullrich, Landis, Hamilton, etc.
> 
> At this point, Armstrong has already testified under oath that he never doped. It now remains to be seen whether perjury will be added to the charges against him.
> 
> With regard to the breaches of contract, this is speculation at this point, since we are not privy to the details of the contracts. Any sponsor lawsuit would be based on evidence brought forth by USADA.


Clemens was acquitted.


----------



## atpjunkie

So if they pull his TdF victories whom do they give it to? let's examine his podium mates
Zulle? Doper 
Escartin? Doper 
Ullrich? Doper 
Beloki? Doper
Rumsas? Doper
Vino? Doper
Basso? Doper
Mancebo? Doper
Kloden? Doper

Did I miss any of Armstrong's fellow TdF podium mates? I don't think so. Every single one was involved in some bust or scandal


----------



## Chris-X

atpjunkie said:


> So if they pull his TdF victories whom do they give it to? let's examine his podium mates
> Zulle? Doper
> Escartin? Doper
> Ullrich? Doper
> Beloki? Doper
> Rumsas? Doper
> Vino? Doper
> Basso? Doper
> Mancebo? Doper
> Kloden? Doper
> 
> Did I miss any of Armstrong's fellow TdF podium mates? I don't think so. Every single one was involved in some bust or scandal


Would it make any difference if I said John Cena?.:sad:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> So if they pull his TdF victories whom do they give it to? let's examine his podium mates
> Zulle? Doper
> Escartin? Doper
> Ullrich? Doper
> Beloki? Doper
> Rumsas? Doper
> Vino? Doper
> Basso? Doper
> Mancebo? Doper
> Kloden? Doper
> 
> Did I miss any of Armstrong's fellow TdF podium mates? I don't think so. Every single one was involved in some bust or scandal


Most of those guys have been sanctioned. Why does Armstrong get a free pass?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SCA could get more then just the money they paid in the settlement. They also paid a total of $4.5 million for his first 5 wins. That was not part of a settlement so would be easier to claim


----------



## Nob

"Once charged he will be presented with all the evidence, just like a *NORMAL* court."

That is hilarious.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Nob said:


> "Once charged he will be presented with all the evidence, just like a *NORMAL* court."
> 
> That is hilarious.


I agree, the lengths Lance and his legal team have gone to creat confusion about USADA and their process are quite entertaining. He has to be laughing at those stupid enough to believe his talking points


----------



## atpjunkie

*I'm not saying he should get a free pass*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most of those guys have been sanctioned. Why does Armstrong get a free pass?


I'm saying everyone who stood on the TdF podium with him was doped and was actually caught and punished by the UCI.


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Could you show me the Texas law that says settlements based on fraud cannot be revisited? Thanks


I have not looked at Texas law of the subject (assuming that Texas law applied). But, the first place that any court is going to look if it is asked to undo a settlement agreement is the language of the agreement itself. Release language of the sort quoted below is pretty typical in settlement agreements:

_The Parties, including their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, hereby remise, release and forever discharge each other, their respective shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, and independent contractors, of and from all and all manner of actions, causes of actions, suits, proceedings, debts, dues, contracts, judgments, damages, claims, demands, or obligations whatsoever *which any Party ever had or now has, known or unknown, *with respect to any other Party. _

Empahsis added. If the settlement agreement has this kind of language regarding unknown claims, Lance could be protected even if the basis for the agreement was fraudulent. Of course, if all comes down to the terms of the settlement agreement, which to the best of my knowledge, are not public (at least yet).


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Could you show me the Texas law that says settlements based on fraud cannot be revisited? Thanks


As I asked earlier, do we think this was a poorly drafted settlement agreement? 


> You may want to look up Obfuscation. Sworn statements are fairly common in USADA cases, wonder why Lance is scared to do one? (I already know the answer)


Let's not get it twisted. 

Claiming it is noteworthy that Armstrong did not provide a sworn statement under oath is obfuscation. Doing so through backdoor channels at the times is an underhanded PR move. I've clearly spelled this out earlier in the thread. Why continue with the back and forth on this point? (Maybe we can agree that it is a minor point with no import on the overall issues and move forward.)

I have a question for you: Why are you repeatedly making ridiculous claims, that Armstrong is *scared* to make such a statement, in response to what you claim is merely a target letter? It's a rhetorical question. I don't think you need to answer it. Let's not let emotions get the best of us here. Let's try to keep our analyses objective.


----------



## Chris-X

*Irony!*



Local Hero said:


> Let's not get it twisted.


You're the one who has it all twisted.



Local Hero said:


> Claiming it is noteworthy that Armstrong did not provide a sworn statement under oath is obfuscation..


Obfuscation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You evidently don't know what the word means.

Armstrong could shine the brightest sunlight on this case that cycling has ever seen.

Why won't he do that? That's a rhetorical question by the way.




Local Hero said:


> Doing so through backdoor channels at the times is an underhanded PR move...


He's never doped! Q.Why not just up the ante, call their bluff, and provide a sworn statement? A. You know why as does Armstrong and everybody else.

I just asked a rhetorical question.



Local Hero said:


> I've clearly spelled this out earlier in the thread....


Thanks for the clarity!




Local Hero said:


> Why continue with the back and forth on this point? (Maybe we can agree that it is a minor point with no import on the overall issues and move forward.)


Because it cuts to the matter of the ONLY point regarding Armstrong.



Local Hero said:


> I have a question for you: Why are you repeatedly making ridiculous claims, that Armstrong is *scared* to make such a statement, in response to what you claim is merely a target letter? It's a rhetorical question. I don't think you need to answer it. Let's not let emotions get the best of us here. Let's try to keep our analyses objective.


Rhetorical questions about stuff you're obviously wrong about?????

Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only rhetorical question, which Dr. Falsetti correctly asks is, "Why won't Armstrong provide a sworn statement?" 

That's a rhetorical question. 

Your analysis is the one that's emotional and not objective. You know yourself that Armstrong is a doper and that by the rules should not be allowed to compete.

Why are you so anxious to see him be allowed to compete? 

Do you understand that I just asked ANOTHER rhetorical question.:idea:


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most of those guys have been sanctioned. Why does Armstrong get a free pass?


They were all caught or admitted. Armstrong has yet to be caught or admit he doped. Before you lose your anymore of your marbles obviously the USADA has him in their sights with what appears to be a very strong case, but it's all floating in the air until the gavel hits the desk. All those other guys were straight up busted. Even Basso though he never fessed up to doping.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Like "haters"?
> 
> If Lance is so innocent why is he scared to submit a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped?


Because he's not stupid. If he is not legally bound to submit a sworn statement why would he. None of this is about him being innocent it's 100% about him beating whatever sanctions USADA throw at him.


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> You're the one who has it all twisted.
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> You evidently don't know what the word means.
> 
> Armstrong could shine the brightest sunlight on this case that cycling has ever seen.
> 
> Why won't he do that? That's a rhetorical question by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's never doped! Q.Why not just up the ante, call their bluff, and provide a sworn statement? A. You know why as does Armstrong and everybody else.
> 
> I just asked a rhetorical question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it cuts to the matter of the ONLY point regarding Armstrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetorical questions about stuff you're obviously wrong about?????
> 
> Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The only rhetorical question, which Dr. Falsetti correctly asks is, "Why won't Armstrong provide a sworn statement?"
> 
> That's a rhetorical question.
> 
> Your analysis is the one that's emotional and not objective. You know yourself that Armstrong is a doper and that by the rules should not be allowed to compete.
> 
> Why are you so anxious to see him be allowed to compete?
> 
> Do you understand that I just asked ANOTHER rhetorical question.:idea:


Your style of making an argument is so similar to the good Doc's. Let's see if you'll submit a sworn statement that you are not one and the same person.


----------



## Local Hero

I don't see anything worthy of a response in Chris X's latest post.


----------



## Chris-X

SicBith said:


> Your style of making an argument is so similar to the good Doc's. Let's see if you'll submit a sworn statement that you are not one and the same person.


Doctor Falsetti has so much more cycling knowledge than I do it's ridiculous..

I, Chris-X, do solemnly swear, that Doctor Falsetti and myself are two entirely different people.

He's much less annoying than I am. The funny thing is that I still don't think Local Hero understands the point of my last argument, hence his continued desire to see Armstrong compete.

Doctor Falsetti is a very big fan of cycling. Me, not so much at this point in time.

What really amazes me is that people continue to dispute the fact that the guy actually is a cycling insider.. I believe one of his recent posts concerned his friendship with former Postal riders who had to take a shot from Celaya or Del Moral before a race or they wouldn't ride.

Here it is.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You forget this case is more then just lance. Del Moral told riders to take a shot or they do not start the next day. Should he be in the sport? This was not a rumor, or internet speculation, but something told to me by several former USPS riders many years ago
> 
> How could this have started 14 years ago? The first race of Armstrong's that WADA controlled with in 2005.




Someone mentioned that I have an axe to grind. Fair enough, the idolatry of people that don't understand elite athletes annoys me to no end. They're just like everyone else, except for the sporting aspect. Also the illogic of people who want to continue the myth and idolize another person is both odd and also annoying.

Obviously Armstrong is a badass but knowing his history we have no idea whatsoever if he was a better rider than the other pros in thetop 20%.. He has himself to blame for that. He doesn't even know.


I don't mind the Dr. comparison but I don't think he would feel the same way.

His posts have tons of content while mine are more about how the apologists come to the conclusions they do and how their positions are completely untenable.. Two completely different styles if you're paying attention.

Oh I also try to back him up because many here would like to see his comeuppance.

edit. If you're that concerned, why don't you just pm the moderators. They know we're not the same person. Falsetti probably would have told you to do this now that I think about it. That's the difference between us.


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> Fair enough, the idolatry of people that don't understand elite athletes annoys me to no end. They're just like everyone else, except for the sporting aspect. Also the illogic of people who want to continue the myth and idolize another person is both odd and also annoying.



Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that your spin at the gene pool wheel came up a little short.


----------



## Chris-X

88 rex said:


> Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that your spin at the gene pool wheel came up a little short.


It's an anonymous forum so you really haven't the slightest idea about the situation of anyone but nice attempt at a personal shot.

My "spin at the gene pool wheel came up" where it came up as did yours and everyone else's.

I honestly answered a question posed by a forum member. I have no idea what your problem is.

What would a person like you say to someone with Down's syndrome?

edit, Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote using the word "you." So I'll say that everyone needs to accept what their abilities are and apologize if you weren't taking a shot at me.

Armstrong could not accept his limitations which lead to the predicament he's in now. As Dirty Harry noted, "a man's got to know his limitations." Why anyone is a fan of his at this point in time is beyond me.


----------



## Local Hero

Sounds personal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> As I asked earlier, do we think this was a poorly drafted settlement agreement?
> Let's not get it twisted.
> 
> Claiming it is noteworthy that Armstrong did not provide a sworn statement under oath is obfuscation. Doing so through backdoor channels at the times is an underhanded PR move. I've clearly spelled this out earlier in the thread. Why continue with the back and forth on this point? (Maybe we can agree that it is a minor point with no import on the overall issues and move forward.)
> 
> I have a question for you: Why are you repeatedly making ridiculous claims, that Armstrong is *scared* to make such a statement, in response to what you claim is merely a target letter? It's a rhetorical question. I don't think you need to answer it. Let's not let emotions get the best of us here. Let's try to keep our analyses objective.


MarkS makes a good point on the SCA agreement, it does depend on how the settlement was written. SCA seems rather confident that they can get their $ back. They likely are also thinking of the other $4.5 million they paid Lance. 

A good example of obfustication would be Lance crying about not getting witnesses or evidence when he knows when and how he will receive this info. The goal is to confuse the public into thinking he is getting railroaded. He is not.

Sworn statements are a common ingredient of an athletes response to USADA. It is normal to point this out that Lance did not send one. Lance is indeed scared to sign one, not because of the USADA case but because of multiple Federal cases he still has exposure to.


----------



## Coolhand

*moderators note*



88 rex said:


> Sometimes you just need to accept the fact that your spin at the gene pool wheel came up a little short.


Enjoy the posting vacation.


----------



## Coolhand

Quick question- why would Johan Bruyneel be subject to USADA sanctions? Are they claiming his doping activities took place in the US?


----------



## atpjunkie

*and only 1 of them (Ullrich for one year)*



SicBith said:


> They were all caught or admitted. Armstrong has yet to be caught or admit he doped. Before you lose your anymore of your marbles obviously the USADA has him in their sights with what appears to be a very strong case, but it's all floating in the air until the gavel hits the desk. All those other guys were straight up busted. Even Basso though he never fessed up to doping.


was DQ'd from their Tour placing

the rest still are listed as second and third so none lost their tour finishing position


----------



## trailrunner68

Coolhand said:


> Quick question- why would Johan Bruyneel be subject to USADA sanctions? Are they claiming his doping activities took place in the US?


Due to some weird WADA rules, non-anayltical cases are treated differently than analytical positives. The agency that uncovers the violations has jurisdiction instead of the person's national anti-doping agency. At least this is what some news reports have said.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Because he has the *right to remain silent?*
> 
> Here is my prediction: The longer the trial, the higher the likelihood that Armstrong will be acquitted.


But why should any of that matter to you? You know he's guilty! 

Normally people are perplexed when innocent parties don't loudly proclaim their absolute innocense at every possible opportunity. Especially when the innocent party has become very wealthy from their public relations efforts.



SicBith said:


> Because he's not stupid. * If he is not legally bound to submit a sworn statement why would he. * None of this is about him being innocent it's 100% about him beating whatever sanctions USADA throw at him.


I think you left out the question mark but if you answered your own rhetorical question it might go a long way towards your complete understanding of the entire Armstrong era of professional cycling.

You understand that Armstrong is claiming absolute innocense?


----------



## CSquare43

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when George says he got EPO from Lance he was actually getting vitamins? When George, and others, talk about the entire team getting transfusions on the bus Lance was the only one getting a Saline drip?


Can someone direct me to the source of this statement? I've often heard that George has incriminated Lance, but I've never seen the proof of it...

Is there anything (other than speculation) that covers this?

I'm not throwing stones or trolling, just seriously wanting to know if this is factual...


----------



## trailrunner68

Chris-X said:


> Normally people are perplexed when innocent parties don't loudly proclaim their absolute innocense at every possible opportunity. Especially when the innocent party has become very wealthy from their public relations efforts.


A funny thing about this is that anyone who knows anything about Armstrong's personality can deduce that Armstrong was doping by his reactions to others who were caught. Can anyone imagine a clean Armstrong keeping silent while he thought others were cheating him? He would have been in everyone's face, twenty-four seven, screaming about it. 

Instead he spent his time forcing clean riders like Christophe Bassons out of cycling.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> MarkS makes a good point on the SCA agreement, it does depend on how the settlement was written. SCA seems rather confident that they can get their $ back.


SCA's confidence is meaningless. 

After all, SCA's confidence cost them $2.5 million in legal fees last time they tangled with Armstrong. 


> Sworn statements are a common ingredient of an athletes response to USADA.


At what stage? 

Can you provide some instances when athletes have responded with sworn statements, under oath, in response to what you have described as a USADA target letter? 


?




Given that Lance is being prosecuted by these people and they did not request a sworn statement, why would he ever do anything that he does not have to do? What is the point? 

Do you think the USADA would be convinced by such a statement by Armstrong? Would they say, "Oh well I guess we were wrong here. Lance made a sworn statement under oath. Case closed!"?



Let's call a spade a spade here. The USADA's backdoor attempt to smear Amrstrong was pathetic and improper.

Making such a claim is tantamount to a prosecutor saying that _it is noteworthy that the defendant did not take the stand_ during a criminal proceeding. 

In a criminal proceeding, such a statement is cause for a mistrial. But why? I offer rep points for the first person to answer this question: 

*Why is it improper to mention that the defendant failed to testify? *


----------



## Local Hero

trailrunner68 said:


> Instead he spend his time forcing clean riders like Christophe Bassons out of cycling.


At worst Armstrong rode up next to Bassons and made a comment. The entire exchange took less than two minutes, by both riders' accounts. This was after Bassons made a comment about Armstrong. 

If we want to talk about Bassons leaving cycling, we should look at how his teammates treated him. Or his director. Or the media. Let's not give Armstrong too much credit. He beat cancer but he's not teh Jesus.


----------



## OldChipper

Local Hero said:


> SCA's confidence is meaningless.
> 
> After all, SCA's confidence cost them $2.5 million in legal fees last time they tangled with Armstrong.
> At what stage?
> 
> Can you provide some instances when athletes have responded with sworn statements, under oath, in response to what you have described as a USADA target letter?
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Lance is being prosecuted by these people and they did not request a sworn statement, why would he ever do anything that he does not have to do? What is the point?
> 
> Do you think the USADA would be convinced by such a statement by Armstrong? Would they say, "Oh well I guess we were wrong here. Lance made a sworn statement under oath. Case closed!"?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's call a spade a spade here. The USADA's backdoor attempt to smear Amrstrong was pathetic and improper.
> 
> Making such a claim is tantamount to a prosecutor saying that _it is noteworthy that the defendant did not take the stand_ during a criminal proceeding.
> 
> In a criminal proceeding, such a statement is cause for a mistrial. But why? I offer rep points for the first person to answer this question:
> 
> *Why is it improper to mention that the defendant failed to testify? *


Ooh ooh, I know this one! Because the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution 
Must prove guilt. The defense doesn't even have to PRESENT a case if the prosecution can't establish theirs.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> SCA's confidence is meaningless.
> 
> After all, SCA's confidence cost them $2.5 million in legal fees last time they tangled with Armstrong.
> At what stage?
> 
> Can you provide some instances when athletes have responded with sworn statements, under oath, in response to what you have described as a USADA target letter?
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that Lance is being prosecuted by these people and they did not request a sworn statement, why would he ever do anything that he does not have to do? What is the point?
> 
> Do you think the USADA would be convinced by such a statement by Armstrong? Would they say, "Oh well I guess we were wrong here. Lance made a sworn statement under oath. Case closed!"?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's call a spade a spade here. The USADA's backdoor attempt to smear Amrstrong was pathetic and improper.
> 
> Making such a claim is tantamount to a prosecutor saying that _it is noteworthy that the defendant did not take the stand_ during a criminal proceeding.
> 
> In a criminal proceeding, such a statement is cause for a mistrial. But why? I offer rep points for the first person to answer this question:
> 
> *Why is it improper to mention that the defendant failed to testify? *


You're very funny with the non rhetorical, rhetorical questions. Do you want me to provide answers for them? Answers that you haven't considered or are ignoring like the proverbial elephant in the room.

You think there will be a misarbitration here? That's not even a word, is it?


----------



## blackhat

Local Hero said:


> Let's call a spade a spade here. The USADA's backdoor attempt to smear Amrstrong was pathetic and improper.


That's quite a rant. What "proper" and "frontdoor" means would you have had them pursue with the knowledge they now have?


----------



## a_avery007

*saw*

a funny little poll here and out of 466 people on a bicycling road site, with dedicated riders that 12% believe the gov will prevail, 24% dont, and 64% dont really care. 

Think about the implications of this little poll; expand that to the general populous and you can deduce that people really don't care.

if the gov ever went to trial there would be no jury that would ever convict. hell, the gov could not even get a jury to convict on clemens and they had a needle, dna and dope..

put this horse out of it's misery.


----------



## Chris-X

a_avery007 said:


> a funny little poll here and out of 466 people on a bicycling road site, with dedicated riders that 12% believe the gov will prevail, 24% dont, and 64% dont really care.
> 
> Think about the implications of this little poll; expand that to the general populous and you and deduce that people really don't care.
> 
> if the gov ever went to trial there would be no jury that would ever convict. hell, the gov could not even get a jury to convict on clemens and they had a needle, dna and dope..
> 
> put this horse out of it's misery.


When Armstrong appeals he'll get to pick one out of the 3 arbitrators?

I think your poll shows there will be a lot of surprised people.


----------



## Handbrake

Luckily the proceedings will not require anyone other than the participants to care about their outcome. But even among those who do care, what are the possible outcomes?

1a - the review board doesn't let the case go forward
1b - it does go forward and Armstong wins

The jeering section will add yet another notch to Armstrong's lurid legacy of an all conquering juggernaut. Once the eyes dry some other angle will pop up that we will be assured, by those in the know, that 'big things' will be coming in the unspecified near future that will surely topple the guy. 

2 - Armstrong loses and his doping is finally logged in the official record

The jeering section will be right for once, which they richly deserve after having poured so many keystrokes into this thing. Sure, for all their knowledge no one ever trusted then to actually do any actual thing to bring the conclusion about, but that shouldn't stop them from participating in a virtual victory lap. Full in Armstrong supporters will simply fade away. Supporters of the process of finding dopers will maybe be happy that even if it ridiculously long, at least it eventually works. TdF titles will be handed to no one, so we will all be happy Armstrong was a specialist.


----------



## a_avery007

*only*



Chris-X said:


> When Armstrong appeals he'll get to pick one out of the 3 arbitrators?
> 
> I think your poll shows there will be a lot of surprised people.


a few on here will be suprised and it wont be the 64%, i'll let you do the math.


----------



## Local Hero

OldChipper said:


> Ooh ooh, I know this one! Because the defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution
> Must prove guilt. The defense doesn't even have to PRESENT a case if the prosecution can't establish theirs.


Repped for an answer. But it goes beyond shifting the burden. 



blackhat said:


> That's quite a rant.


It's fine that you characterized my response a rant. Just don't overlook that it was a response to two things. First, in the Times article we read that: 

_An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped.​_
Next, posters like Doctor Falsetti have repeatedly parroted the line. 



> What "proper" and "frontdoor" means would you have had them pursue with the knowledge they now have?


Perhaps the USADA can limit their communications to individuals who are authorized to speak of the case publicly, rather than try to sway public opinion via unauthorized comments to the media.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Repped for an answer. But it goes beyond shifting the burden.
> 
> 
> It's fine that you characterized my response a rant. Just don't overlook that it was a response to two things. First, in the Times article we read that:
> 
> _An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped.​_
> Next, posters like Doctor Falsetti have repeatedly parroted the line.
> 
> Perhaps the USADA can limit their communications to individuals who are authorized to speak of the case publicly, rather than try to sway public opinion via unauthorized comments to the media.


Rhetorical question, why doesn't Armstrong give a sworn statement under oath?

For the only reason that matters. :nonod::sad:


----------



## Tomahawk

I thought this was good 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EweOE29IFAw&feature=player_embedded

"I think he lien, but whenever he talks - I sure do believe him."

Top Comment - "There are three possibilities with Lance. 1. He is the greatest cyclist off all time and clean (doubtful) 2 The testing for PHD's is in dire need for an upgrade. 3. Lance is one of the greatest criminal masterminds of our time and﻿ he's wasting his talent winning bicycle races."



I think that Lance will probably win this one as he has done with other legal cases in the past. Did he dope? I don't know. If he did, it doesn't take away from his achievements in my mind as all his top competitors were doping as well. It's the conspiracy and dishonesty that hurts. He's the most convincing liar of all time in that instance.

That said when people bring up the "unfairness" of him getting away with doping whilst others were sanctioned in his era - I think it's best for USADA and everyone else to leave him alone already. He as opposed to the others is a real inspiration for millions of people facing cancer or adversity, he leads a fantastic organization for fighting cancer and has done more for cycling than any other individual in the sport's history. What would be the point of taking his victories away, putting all that good work to waste and then just give them to another doper like Ullrich or Basso?


----------



## Local Hero

Tomahawk said:


> I thought this was good
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EweOE29IFAw


Hilarious. 

He had me rolling. And he has a point. How can you beat this? 
Lance Armstrong Cancer - Rare Nike Commercial - YouTube

or this

Lance Armstrong Racing Against Cancer - YouTube


----------



## Handbrake

#1 is not a possibility, even if he had done it all clean.
#2 is obvious to everyone involved and always has been.
#3 is how he already appears in the collective imagination of the jeering section.

Pertinent to #3 and a rhetorical question for the jeering section: how did Armstrong get himself a 4/10 on the UCI's 2010 Suspicion list?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Handbrake said:


> : how did Armstrong get himself a 4/10 on the UCI's 2010 Suspicion list?


Same way he got out of the positive for Cotisone in 99, EPO in 01, and EPO in 99. 

Don't look to the UCI solve anything


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Almost a week since Lance's response to USADA and still little real strategy to fight the charges. While the talk of an imaginary smear campaign, internet polls, and the "everyone was doing it" defense are all entertaining they have no effect on the 3 independent arbitrators who will decide the case. 

The lack of a real defense points to a Armstrong being stuck in wide range of legal entanglements for the next few years.


----------



## Chris-X

*Conflicted?*



Tomahawk said:


> I thought this was good
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EweOE29IFAw&feature=player_embedded
> 
> "I think he lien, but whenever he talks - I sure do believe him."
> 
> Top Comment - "There are three possibilities with Lance. 1. He is the greatest cyclist off all time and clean (doubtful) 2 The testing for PHD's is in dire need for an upgrade. 3. Lance is one of the greatest criminal masterminds of our time and﻿ he's wasting his talent winning bicycle races."
> 
> 
> 
> I think that Lance will probably win this one as he has done with other legal cases in the past. Did he dope? I don't know. If he did, it doesn't take away from his achievements in my mind as all his top competitors were doping as well. *It's the conspiracy and dishonesty that hurts. He's the most convincing liar of all time in that instance.*
> 
> That said when people bring up the "unfairness" of him getting away with doping whilst others were sanctioned in his era - I think it's best for USADA and everyone else to leave him alone already. *He as opposed to the others is a real inspiration for millions of people facing cancer or adversity,* he leads a fantastic organization for fighting cancer and has done more for cycling than any other individual in the sport's history. *What would be the point of taking his victories away, putting all that good work to waste* and then just give them to another doper like Ullrich or Basso?


So we ignore the conspiracy and dishonesty of the most convincing liar of all time and listen to the out of touch kool aid drinkers who are inspired?

Good work? Conspiracy and dishonesty? Maybe you should really think hard on the last bolded rhetorical question you ask?

Use the two lines above as a hint.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> At worst Armstrong rode up next to Bassons and made a comment. The entire exchange took less than two minutes, by both riders' accounts. This was after Bassons made a comment about Armstrong. .


Two minutes! How long does it take to threaten someone's career?.

Bassons was writing a newspaper column and did not name Armstrong, but Armstrong's performance was so ridiculous everyone knew he was doping.



Local Hero said:


> If we want to talk about Bassons leaving cycling, we should look at how his teammates treated him. Or his director. Or the media. Let's not give Armstrong too much credit. He beat cancer but he's not teh Jesus.


Bassons' teammates and director got Armstrong's message. The point, which you completely miss for unknown reasons, was that Armstrong seized power in cycling very decisively and even silenced a reporter from _Le Monde_ when he asked about Armstrong's non existent TUE for cortisone after his positive.

Armstrong even had the UCI in his pocket this early. Here is part of a statement they released in response to LA's cortisone positive.


We should like to ask all press representatives to be aware of the complexity of issues and the related aspects of the rules and the law before producing their publications. This will allow considerations of a rather superficial, not to say unfounded, nature to be avoided.​

Then Armstrong went on the attack against Le Monde calling it the "gutter press."

Armstrong was asked why he had twice denied he had a TUE and now was claiming he had one. His response;

"Mr. _Le Monde_, are you calling me a liar or a doper?" A bunch of journalists laughed and no one followed up.

Funny how 13 years later it's revealed for all to see that Armstrong is BOTH a liar, and a doper.


----------



## Handbrake

Reliably vague prediction. 

Do you have a definitive list of the Members of the Armstrong Conspiracy? I assume those named in the USADA letter, and the 10 teammates. Certainly some employees of the US Justice Department but names would lend credibility. As much as it strains the imagination that a clean rider could dominate a doped field 7 straight times, it strains it even more that a written off as nearly dead rouleur from Texas could perpetrate a vast international conspiracy to conceal an outrageously effective doping program that extends to cycling's highest levels of authority, that vaulted him to the top of the sport among his contemporaries, and continue to do so for 15+ years. 

With that much necessary proximity to that much doping paraphernalia for 7 (9?) years you'd probably want someone with some authority in the National Gendarmerie. Certainly that person or people needs to answer for their involvement. 

Probably customs employees somewhere on the continent. 

Craig Nichols and other members of the staff at IU Medical Center. 

Emile Vrijma, Martial Saugy, various maids and massage therapists and similar. 

Who at the UCI? McQuaid and Verbruggen?


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> While that sounds nice to rally the troops it is not based on reality. If Lance does not like his sanction he can appeal to CAS.
> 
> As soon as Lance loses all his Tour titles he will have many other things to worry about. Like paying SCA $5 million
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/s...-lose-5-million-if-guilty-of-doping.html?_r=1
> 
> Tim Herman appears to not understand that settlements based on fraud can be set aside. Times of London will also be looking for their money, plus damages. Multiple Sponsors had doping clauses in their agreements, with claw back provisions.
> 
> Lance will spend the next few years paying lawyers and settlements.



I don't know if anyone has brought this question yet:

I thought Lance was done fighting  ???


----------



## Chris-X

cda 455 said:


> I don't know if anyone has brought this question yet:
> 
> I thought Lance was done fighting  ???


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/lance-gives-up-280124.html


----------



## cda 455

Chris-X said:


> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/doping-forum/lance-gives-up-280124.html



Thanks for the link.



But it looks like he's still fighting it  .


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> 
> 
> But it looks like he's still fighting it  .


I think the multiple interviews he gave saying he was done fighting were attempt to send a message to USADA. He was willing to not fight if they took just one of his Tours. 

USADA is taking everything. He may have to fight that


----------



## trailrunner68

cda 455 said:


> But it looks like he's still fighting it  .


Armstrong's Men's Journal interview was an attempt to influence the USADA. He knew the USADA was preparing to charge him. He said he was prepared to lose one or two titles. At the same time he warned he was a fighter when his back was against the wall, which was a way to signal the USADA not to go further. He did not expect the USADA to go after everything. He also did not expect to be charged as a member of a conspiracy.

At the moment he is in a position that he was not prepared for. Instead of running a PR campaign to blame the USADA for taking one of his TdF titles, he is in a fight to the death to prevent everything from 1999 onward being stripped.

The conspiracy charges probably really stunned him. While he might be able to make headway against witnesses who say they saw him inject or ingest drugs, it will be hard going to show that so many witnesses are wrong about being doped themselves by Postal's doctors and trainers.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Almost a week since Lance's response to USADA and still little real strategy to fight the charges. While the talk of an imaginary smear campaign, internet polls, and the "everyone was doing it" defense are all entertaining they have no effect on the 3 independent arbitrators who will decide the case.
> 
> The lack of a real defense points to a Armstrong being stuck in wide range of legal entanglements for the next few years.


Since you said that it is common for athletes to provide a sworn statement under oath in response to a target letter, and repeatedly parroted the line that it was noteworthy that Armstrong did not provide such a statement... 

Can you provide examples of athletes responding in such a way? 

I'm not just talking about sworn statements down the line or depositions just prior to trial. I'm talking about such a response at this stage in the investigation. 


If you were blowing smoke and just trying to smear Armstrong you will not be able to find any examples. If that's the situation, go ahead and change the subject or talk about something else. We'll move on.


----------



## HikenBike

trailrunner68 said:


> They might. They can use them as corroborative evidence. Vaughters, Hamilton, and Jemisen could testify that the whole team, including Armstrong, used EPO during the 1999 Tour. The B sample positives could then be used to corroborate their testimoney with Ashenden testifying that the amount of exogenous EPO in the positive samples as well as the borderline and negative samples match a pattern of EPO use during the race.


I wonder what Vaughters current position is on his chat message with Frankie. Will he lie for Lance at this point?

Cycle of denial: The dirty world of cycling | CBC Sports Online

Two ex-teammates chatting online freely without ever thinking that anyone else would ever read the exchange.


----------



## Local Hero

One of them thought that people might read the exchange...


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I think the multiple interviews he gave saying he was done fighting were attempt to send a message to USADA. He was willing to not fight if they took just one of his Tours.
> 
> USADA is taking everything. He may have to fight that



Ah; A double meaning statement. 


Wow, just like politics.


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> One of them thought that people might read the exchange...


Because everyone is out to get Lance, right? Even his own teammates. Or is it easier to believe that Lance doped his way to 7 yellow jerseys?


----------



## Local Hero

HikenBike said:


> Because everyone is out to get Lance, right?


You can't very well believe that two people are "chatting online freely without ever thinking that anyone else would ever read the exchange" when one of them saves the chat.


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> You can't very well believe that two people are "chatting online freely without ever thinking that anyone else would ever read the exchange" when one of them saves the chat.


It wasn't "saved", but subpoenaed by SCA Promotions.

Once it became public, Vaughters balked because he was trying to start up a new team = Slipstream. Frankie was soon fired for undisclosed reasons.

Neither guy had any reason to put that chat out in the public. The doping omerta was still very strong in 2005/2006.


----------



## Local Hero

HikenBike said:


> It wasn't "saved"


what?


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> what?


Saved on purpose as you insinuated


----------



## Local Hero

Where do you think chats are saved? Do you think they are on AOL/Y! servers? They are on the individual computers? Are they automatically saved? 

Do you think SCA was allowed to go on a fishing expedition, and blindly subpoena all chats on the private computers of these individuals? 

How exactly do you think this went down?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Since you said that it is common for athletes to provide a sworn statement under oath in response to a target letter, and repeatedly parroted the line that it was noteworthy that Armstrong did not provide such a statement...
> 
> Can you provide examples of athletes responding in such a way?
> 
> I'm not just talking about sworn statements down the line or depositions just prior to trial. I'm talking about such a response at this stage in the investigation.
> 
> 
> If you were blowing smoke and just trying to smear Armstrong you will not be able to find any examples. If that's the situation, go ahead and change the subject or talk about something else. We'll move on.


This imaginary smear campaign is become a bit of an obsession for you eh? Trevor Graham and Marion Jones both had no problems with signing one but for them it was early, they still thought they could lie their way out of it. Lance knows he is exposed and is not that stupid. 

I see you use the normal tactic of attacking the messenger when it comes to the conversation between Vaughters and Frankie. Yeah, yeah, we get it. They are just bitter haters who conspired to smear lance.


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> Where do you think chats are saved? Do you think they are on AOL/Y! servers? They are on the individual computers? Are they automatically saved?
> 
> Do you think SCA was allowed to go on a fishing expedition, and blindly subpoena all chats on the private computers of these individuals?
> 
> How exactly do you think this went down?


The chats are automatically saved on the servers, which can be accessed via the web (individual computers).

How it went down? Betsy Andreu printed it off and gave it to the SCA lawyers.

Back to your suggestion that the chat was fabricated? Why would Vaughters implicate himself when he is trying to sign on sponsors? Andreu was soon fired for an undisclosed reason. These guys wanted to stay employed in the cycling world, so why p-off the powers that be?

Why implicate Hincapie, Floyd, and Johan if it was fabricated? And why fabricate it at 4 AM (CO time).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

HikenBike said:


> The chats are automatically saved on the servers, which can be accessed via the web (individual computers).
> 
> How it went down? Betsy Andreu printed it off and gave it to the SCA lawyers.
> 
> Back to your suggestion that the chat was fabricated? Why would Vaughters implicate himself when he is trying to sign on sponsors? Andreu was soon fired for an undisclosed reason. These guys wanted to stay employed in the cycling world, so why p-off the powers that be?
> 
> Why implicate Hincapie, Floyd, and Johan if it was fabricated? And why fabricate it at 4 AM (CO time).


The most obvious answer is they are bitter haters who hate excellence and love cancer


----------



## Local Hero

I did not suggest that the chats were fabricated. 

I challenged the assertion that it was "[t]wo ex-teammates chatting online freely without ever thinking that anyone else would ever read the exchange."

Chats are saved on PCs, not servers. They are saved when one of the people chatting intends to save them.


----------



## HikenBike

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The most obvious answer is they are bitter haters who hate excellence and love cancer


LOL...and they hate America and are part of the French conspiracy


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This imaginary smear campaign is become a bit of an obsession for you eh?


I stopped responding to Chris X because he's more interested in talking about other posters and their motivation than the facts of the case (I find this tiresome and boring). I can easily ignore you too if you don't let go of the personal comments. 



Is it a smear campaign? Well, the very nature of prosecution is to accuse someone else of breaking the rules. Prosecutors in murder cases regularly call defendants murderers. They are publicly accusing Armstrong of breaking several laws here. Of course it's going to tarnish his reputation. 

So what's the beef? 

It's the shift of burden, obfuscation, and ethical misconduct of individuals at the USADA, who are unauthorized to speak publicly on the matter, who make anonymous comments to the media. It's backdoor PR maneuvering. 



> Trevor Graham and Marion Jones both had no problems with signing one


Depositions? At what point in the investigation did they sign such statements?


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> I stopped responding to Chris X because he's more interested in talking about other posters and their motivation than the facts of the case (I find this tiresome and boring). I can easily ignore you too if you don't let go of the personal comments.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it a smear campaign? Well, the very nature of prosecution is to accuse someone else of breaking the rules. Prosecutors in murder cases regularly call defendants murderers. They are publicly accusing Armstrong of breaking several laws here. Of course it's going to tarnish his reputation.
> 
> So what's the beef?
> 
> It's the shift of burden, obfuscation, and ethical misconduct of individuals at the USADA, who are unauthorized to speak publicly on the matter, who make anonymous comments to the media. It's backdoor PR maneuvering.
> 
> Depositions? At what point in the investigation did they sign such statements?


If you talk about the facts of the case you lose.

I talk about logic. Some are devoid of it.

They are the ones who insinuate themselves and their opinions onto the Armstrong issue, you know, they think 'he should get off because everyone else did it.'

Isn't that the proverbial argument of a child?

Why is your hero Armstrong engaging in Public Relations which have nothing to do with the facts of the case?

You'll argue anything to avoid the most important facts of the case, which btw, you already acknowledge. Like he's guilty?

I wonder why Armstrong hasn't given any interviews lately?

Reporters might pose uncomfortable questions for which he only has idiotic answers?

How do you like my rhetorical questions?


----------



## Mr. Felt

Last Updated Thurs., Jan. 3, 2006

An instant message between Frankie Andreu (FDREU) and Jonathan Vaughters (Cyclevaughters) the morning of July 26, 2005.

Cyclevaughters: frankie - hey - thanks for talking the other day 

FDREU: no problem, where are you 

Cyclevaughters: back in CO 

FDREU: nice, I just got home, isnt' it like 5AM 

Cyclevaughters: sometimes i think i'm going to go nuts 

Cyclevaughters: yeah 

Cyclevaughters: it's 5am 

FDREU: I agree, I came home and the air conditioning is broken 

Cyclevaughters: ouch 

FDREU: did your kid grow twice it's size in the two weeks you were gone 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, his feet look bigger for some eason 

FDREU: funny 

Cyclevaughters: anyhow, i never can quite figure out why i don't just play along with the lance crowd - i mean **** it would make my life easier, eh? it's not like i never played with hotsauce, eh?

FDREU: I know, but in the end i don't think it comes back to bite you 

FDREU: I play along, my wife does not, and Lance hates us both 

FDREU: it's a no win situation, you know how he is. Once you leave the team or do soemthing wrong you forever banned

Cyclevaughters: i suppose - you know he tried to hire me back in 2001... he was nice to me... i just couldn't deal with that whole world

FDREU: I did not know that 

FDREU: look at why everyone leaves, it's way to controlling 

Cyclevaughters: once I went to CA and saw that now all the teams got 25 injections every day

Cyclevaughters: hell, CA was ZERO 

FDREU: you mean all the riders 

Cyclevaughters: Credit Agricole 

FDREU: it's crazy 

Cyclevaughters: So, I realized lance was full of **** when he'd say everyone was doing it

FDREU: You may read stuff that i say to radio or press, praising the Tour and lance but it's just playing the game

Cyclevaughters: believe me, as carzy as it sounds - Moreau was on nothing. Hct of 39%

FDREU: when in 2000-2001 

Cyclevaughters: so, that's when you start thinking... hell, kevin was telling me that after 2000 Ullrich never raced over 42%--- yeah moreau in 2000-2001

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - whtever 

FDREU: After 1999, you know many things changed. lance did not 

FDREU: I believe that's part of whey kevin left, he was tired of the stuff 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, i could explain the whole way lance dupes everyone 

FDREU: what abut GH climbing the mountains better than azevedo and the entire group

Cyclevaughters: from how floyd described it, i know exactly the methos 

FDREU: explain that, classics to climber 

FDREU: when did you talk with floyd 

Cyclevaughters: i don't know - i want to trust George 

Cyclevaughters: but the thing is on that team, you think it's normal 

Cyclevaughters: or at least i did 

FDREU: i guess. anything with blodd is not normal 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's very complex how the avoid all the controls now, but it's not any new drug or anything, just the resources and planning to pull of a well devised plan

Cyclevaughters: it's why they all got dropped on stage 9 - no refill yet - then on the rest day - boom 800ml of packed cells

FDREU: they have it mastered. good point 

Cyclevaughters: they draw the blood right after the dauphine 

FDREU: how do they sneak it in, or keep it until needed 

FDREU: i'm sure it's not with the truck in the frig 

Cyclevaughters: motorcycle - refridgerated panniers 

Cyclevaughters: on the rest day 

Cyclevaughters: floyd has a photo of the thing 

FDREU: crazy! it' just keep going to new levels 

Cyclevaughters: yeah, it's complicated, but with enough money you can do it 

FDREU: they have enough money. Floyd was so pissed at them this entire tour 

Cyclevaughters: anyhow - i just feel sorry for floyd and some of the other guys 

Cyclevaughters: why would lance keep doing the **** when he clearly has nothing to prove - it's weird

FDREU: I know. me to. they all get ripped into for no reason 

FDREU: he's done now, thank god. but they will prove next year for Johan's sake that they are the greatest

Cyclevaughters: and then lance says " this guy and that guys are pussies" 

FDREU: they won't stop 

FDREU: I agree


----------



## terzo rene

I think Astana finally bought his ranch, 35% off, on the condition the refrigerator was included.


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> Chats are saved on PCs, not servers. They are saved when one of the people chatting intends to save them.


I had to do some research since I've never used Yahoo IM. Apparently Yahoo IM saves chats to the hard drive. (Browser-based IM was developed @ 2005) I also read that the chats can be set up to be saved automatically. So who knows if it was saved deliberately or not.

I can't find any article stating that it was Yahoo or some other IM application. But to me that doesn't matter. Vaughters reaction tells me that he did not want the heat that it brought down on him. FWIW - Vaughters started the chat and it was saved on Andreu's computer.


----------



## Local Hero

HB - My challenge was to the comment that the chat was made with neither person thinking it would ever be repeated. Obviously one of them knew that it might be revealed. That much is obvious.



Things are getting super serious in this thread. I have to go race now. (Do you guys ride?) 

While I'm gone, can anyone lighten the mood and photoshop Lance

https://i49.tinypic.com/so8egg.jpg

on this bike

https://i49.tinypic.com/2lm9z80.jpg

and then take the image of Lance on the bike and photoshop that onto a pile of dead bodies? Maybe running over cyclists on the champs elysees?


----------



## Samadhi

Local Hero said:


> I stopped responding to Chris X because he's more interested in talking about other posters and their motivation than the facts of the case (I find this tiresome and boring).


It gets really personal - I put him on ignore cos it was just too much.

And who can actually argue facts on this board? The subject matter is so shot-through, with hyperbole, obfuscation, personal opinion and ad hominems as to make the discerning of facts in the matter virtually impossible.


----------



## Chris-X

*Of course you did*



Samadhi said:


> It gets really personal -* I put him on ignore cos it was just too much.
> *
> And who can actually argue facts on this board? The subject matter is so shot-through, with hyperbole, obfuscation, personal opinion and ad hominems as to make the discerning of facts in the matter virtually impossible.


because you don't want this bubble penetrated..



Samadhi said:


> I* should condemn a man because I happen to think he's perpetrated a fraud?
> *
> This is a great country we live in, ain't it, Chris?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, but I'm quite sure you have exactly zero idea about what you're saying. Being "sorry" for someone who has cancer, means absolutely dick. Sorry doesn't cut it. You're not even half as sorry as we are.
> 
> Show me how much empathy you have by DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Show us how sorry you are and put your pedals where your mouth is. Sign up for charity rides that support organizations helping cancer survivors and their families. Doesn't have to be Livestrong. Raise some money, help some people and then come back and tell us how sorry you are.
> 
> That's what LA did, and quite frankly a lot of cancer survivors don't gove a damn about where the money came from. We live in a world where spending money on blowing up god-forsaken $hi+-holes in a desert somewhere or hounding people over what is, in the big picture about as important as what I ate for lunch today is far more important than helping people who really need help. We live in a world where a president came to office on bottlegging money and many people count him among the greatest men to sit behind that desk. People don't care about cheating. People don't care about fraud. All people care about is who wins. The end justifies the means. It isn't how you play the game. Look around you Chris, it's a world where rules are for the loosers.
> 
> 
> 
> And don't presume to to put yourself in my shoes until you've actually been there in your own.
> 
> 
> 
> Then put your man-pants on, go find the guy and frikkin tell him.
> 
> False hope? Gimme a break. Have a doctor tell you that you have cancer and that there is nothing to be done about it, then I want you to think about that after you leave the doctors office for lets say a week so it REALLY sinks in that you've just come face-to-face with the agent of your demise and we'll see what you have to say then. Mean while don't presume. False hope? False hope is better than none and what's so false about telling people with cancer that they can still have a reasonable quality of life while it lasts and showing them how to do it? I got back into cycling because of cancer. Cycling has not only improved many aspects of my physical health, it's improved my mental health as well. And I'm not the only one. I know someone whose fight with cancer is way harder than mine and she survives because of what she read by LA, because she saw that the fight for survival is actually worth it. Now, in my friends case, the cervical cancer will take her soon enough and that will be a sad day for those of us who know her, but she'll go out kicking and screaming. The cancer will kill her, but it will not defeat her and we can thank Lance Armstrong for that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not an apologist at all. I *simply don't care about what he's done,* if he's done it at all. On top of that, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt is not based on what a bunch of armchair jurists think will happen when he has his hearing. Guilt is established after that and not before.
> 
> 
> 
> No Chris, he's helping them - he's helping _survivors_, not victims and don't you forget that.


You think he's perpetrated a fraud and you don't care what he's done but you go on say this?



Samadhi said:


> Simple. None of that matters. Let the USADA do their worst. The day after it's "over" civil suits will be filed and federal investigations and prosecutions begin. * USADA ends up broke, defunded, principals facing prison and essentially out of business. LA is vindicated and Tygart lives in fear of dropping his soap in the shower.* Anti-doping efforts in the US essentially end until a new agency can be formed. Even so, anti-doping efforts will suffer due to a complete lack credibility and will probably have to find private funding because when the dust settles the chances of the feds funding an anti-doping agency will be just about null.


So you believe Lance is a fraud but because you had cancer and Lance has created a myth which helps you and some of your friends cope with their disease you don't care about any of the fraud and in spite of being guilty, Lance should be vindicated. Got it!

On top of that, USADA, which is doing it's job which is to protect clean sport, should face civil suits and Tygart, the head of USADA should end up in prison just because they are carrying out the mission of USADA??

You do recognize that as a condition of his employment/competing as a professional cyclist LA agreed to compete under the rules and regulations of USADA and signed off on that and that the rules of USADA were actually created in part by Bill Stapleton, LA's long time agent and lawyer?

And you're the one ignoring me????ut:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> While I'm gone, can anyone lighten the mood and photoshop Lance
> https://i49.tinypic.com/2lm9z80.jpg


You need a different picture. The moto used by Philippe, the guy from Nice Lance hired to deliver the blood on the motorcycle with refrigerated panniers, was far less obvious. 

No need to try to find another picture, USADA already has one


----------



## Local Hero

*(I got fourth in the 1/2/3 omnium)*

Philippe of Nice sounds mysterious.

What else do we know about the guy?


----------



## HikenBike

Local Hero said:


> HB - My challenge was to the comment that the chat was made with neither person thinking it would ever be repeated. Obviously one of them knew that it might be revealed. That much is obvious.


I see your point, but I'll take the view that Vaughters knew that it was possible, but not probable. To me, it doesn't make his statements any less valid.

Back to the Thread: I just wonder what Vaughters does know (first hand), and if he went on record with it. If the team was getting 25 injections a day, surely he and the other riders knew it wasn't all vitamin B.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The board "has expressed concern about the potential for intimidation and retaliation against USADA's witnesses"

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/28/4597734/landis-and-hamilton-part-of-armstrong.html#storylink=cpy


----------



## Axe

badge118 said:


> Goodness you have an axe to grind.


More like blind hate.


----------



## Chris-X

Axe said:


> More like blind hate.


Blind hate? There are volumes, literally, written on Armstrong's fraud.

I'd ask you, what is your excuse for your position?

I hate excellence and love cancer?ut::nonod:


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The most obvious answer is they are bitter haters who hate excellence and love cancer





HikenBike said:


> LOL...and they hate America and are part of the French conspiracy





Axe said:


> *More like blind hate*.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> The board "has expressed concern about the potential for intimidation and retaliation against USADA's witnesses"
> 
> Landis and Hamilton part of Armstrong doping case - Wire Other - The Sacramento Bee


The board's concern? Are you sure they don't hate him? Doesn't the board ride their bikes?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong: Anti-Doping Agency Starts Formal Proceedings Against Tour de France Cycling Champion - ABC News

*



USADA officials have reason to believe that Armstrong and his team have hired private investigators to follow them

Click to expand...

*Armstrong's strategy is starting to take shape. It is clear he cannot win so he chooses to harass and smear the participants. 

Yeah, that will work


----------



## Dwayne Barry

HikenBike said:


> I had to do some research since I've never used Yahoo IM. Apparently Yahoo IM saves chats to the hard drive. (Browser-based IM was developed @ 2005) I also read that the chats can be set up to be saved automatically. So who knows if it was saved deliberately or not.
> 
> I can't find any article stating that it was Yahoo or some other IM application. But to me that doesn't matter. Vaughters reaction tells me that he did not want the heat that it brought down on him. FWIW - Vaughters started the chat and it was saved on Andreu's computer.


That exchange was very damning at the time. It would seem incredible to claim it was somehow a fabrication. How could they have known there would be a lawsuit in the future and it would be revealed to the public at some future date?


----------



## cda 455

Chris-X said:


> Blind hate? There are volumes, literally, written on Armstrong's fraud.



Despite being a big LA fan, even I can't deny that this is very true.


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong: Anti-Doping Agency Starts Formal Proceedings Against Tour de France Cycling Champion - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> Armstrong's strategy is starting to take shape. It is clear he cannot win so he chooses to harass and smear the participants.
> 
> Yeah, that will work



The beginning of the beginning of the end?


Very sad, and pathetic for the LA Team.


----------



## 88 rex

Chris-X said:


> It's an anonymous forum so you really haven't the slightest idea about the situation of anyone but nice attempt at a personal shot.
> 
> My "spin at the gene pool wheel came up" where it came up as did yours and everyone else's.
> 
> I honestly answered a question posed by a forum member. I have no idea what your problem is.
> 
> What would a person like you say to someone with Down's syndrome?
> 
> edit, Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote using the word "you." So I'll say that everyone needs to accept what their abilities are and apologize if you weren't taking a shot at me.
> 
> Armstrong could not accept his limitations which lead to the predicament he's in now. As Dirty Harry noted, "a man's got to know his limitations." Why anyone is a fan of his at this point in time is beyond me.



Your edited interpretation is on point. My posting should have at least had a chance to be clarified before Coolhand jumped the gun and sent me on a multiday vacation without warning. Coolhand is more than welcome to see my rep comments and see who is actually calling who names though if he really wants to send people on posting vacations. I'm sure calling people "idolators" quailfies as a personal insult. The ignore feature will now be in full effect.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong - CNN.com



> We will laugh. Then we will shrug. Then — nothingness.
> Lance Armstrong will be invisible.
> As he should be.


Irrelevant


----------



## Samadhi

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong: Anti-Doping Agency Starts Formal Proceedings Against Tour de France Cycling Champion - ABC News
> 
> 
> Armstrong's strategy is starting to take shape.


I'm sure. I'm also sure that there's absolutely no way you will know what that is. Part of having a strategy is making damn sure noone knows what it is.



> It is clear he cannot win so he chooses to harass and smear the participants.


No, it's not clear, except perhaps in dreams. Hiring a PI is not harassing or smearing. It's intelligence gathering. According to some, LA's team has no direct access to who the USADA is going to be using against them or what they will say. Having a PI dig up that info makes perfect sense. A good PI will do his/her job without anyone knowing they're on the case. If the PI is looking for one thing but finds something else useful, why not use it? A lot of people seem to have no reservations about smearing LA, so if his team chooses to smear back, well, turn-about is always fair play.

Having "reason to believe" something doesn't make it so.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Samadhi said:


> I'm sure. I'm also sure that there's absolutely no way you will know what that is. Part of having a strategy is making damn sure noone knows what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not clear, except perhaps in dreams. Hiring a PI is not harassing or smearing. It's intelligence gathering. According to some, LA's team has no direct access to who the USADA is going to be using against them or what they will say. Having a PI dig up that info makes perfect sense. A good PI will do his/her job without anyone knowing they're on the case. If the PI is looking for one thing but finds something else useful, why not use it? A lot of people seem to have no reservations about smearing LA, so if his team chooses to smear back, well, turn-about is always fair play.
> 
> Having "reason to believe" something doesn't make it so.


Wrong. 

Armstrong has a long history of harassing and smearing people who tell the truth. You will see in a few months that he has continued this with multiple people connected to this case. Digging up dirt on the participates personal lives is a sign of desperation. It has nothing to do with the facts of the case, that Lance is a doper. 

You appear to be confused about what is a smear. Telling the truth about Armstrong doping for decades is not a smear. Inventing a false story that painted Floyd is a mentally unstable drunk who tried to blackmail Lance and Johan is a smear. 

Harassment is what happened to Mike Anderson. He was harassed until he had a seizure and had to move to New Zealand to escape it. 

Don't worry, when it comes out in a few months that multiple participants in this case, and their families, where followed, threatened and harassed I will accept your apology with class


----------



## Local Hero

88 rex said:


> Your edited interpretation is on point. My posting should have at least had a chance to be clarified before Coolhand jumped the gun and sent me on a multiday vacation without warning. Coolhand is more than welcome to see my rep comments and see who is actually calling who names though if he really wants to send people on posting vacations. I'm sure calling people "idolators" quailfies as a personal insult. The ignore feature will now be in full effect.


 I see no reason to respond to the guy -- I find him boring. Boring people get ignored. That said, it seems odd that the mods let Chris X's ridiculous comments and arguments slide, as the mods should be paying attention. Chris X seems solely interested in arguing against other posters personally, saying that he is most interested in "their motivation" and morality. 

It's strange that the mods let this creepiness continue unchecked. Oh well, message board mods are unpaid and make subjective determinations. I don't expect too much but would like to see some level of fairness. 

The entire debate over Armstrong is a silly thing anyway. I rather take a lighthearted approach while debating the minutia. It's not going to have any impact on any lives here, even if posters pretend to have insider knowledge or to have been around cycling for a long time. At best, this is a trifling matter which should be taken lightly. That's why I joked about Bobbke being on HGH and Phil Liggett being the mysterious Philippe from Nice who delivered blood to Armstrong while riding a motorcycle with refrigerated panniers.


----------



## 88 rex

Local Hero said:


> I see no reason to respond to the guy -- I find him boring. Boring people get ignored. That said, it seems odd that the mods let Chris X's ridiculous comments and arguments slide, as the mods should be paying attention. Chris X seems solely interested in arguing against other posters personally, saying that he is most interested in "their motivation" and morality.
> 
> It's strange that the mods let this creepiness continue unchecked. Oh well, message board mods are unpaid and make subjective determinations. I don't expect too much but would like to see some level of fairness.
> 
> The entire debate over Armstrong is a silly thing anyway. I rather take a lighthearted approach while debating the minutia. It's not going to have any impact on any lives here, even if posters pretend to have insider knowledge or to have been around cycling for a long time. At best, this is a trifling matter which should be taken lightly. That's why I joked about Bobbke being on HGH and Phil Liggett being the mysterious Philippe from Nice who delivered blood to Armstrong while riding a motorcycle with refrigerated panniers.


I responded more so to anyone who had been following this thread and to somewhat clarify what I said. I don't wany anyone to think I'm some insensitive moreon in regards to those with chromosomal abnormalities. Far from it. Looking back at my response I can understand the initial knee jerk of confusion, but the swiftness in which action was taken was a little uncalled for. I can understand maybe a temporary ban until I could explain myself, but an all out multi day ban was a little 

Such is life on the interwebs.

What I'm curious to know is if there is so much insider info on this forum, then why haven't "users in the know" been subpoenaed yet?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You will see in a few months that he has continued this with multiple people connected to this case. Digging up dirt on the participates personal lives is a sign of desperation.
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't worry, when it comes out in a few months that multiple participants in this case, and their families, where followed, threatened and harassed I will accept your apology with class


Two things have happened so far: 

1) A participant was identified as someone who has been formally charged with sexual misconduct. It was a national story from March of this year. No digging was required; .04 seconds of google search yields the same result. The guy unzipped his pants and guided a young lady's hand towards his pecker. It's not the best judgment for a 70 year old man holding a position of power over the girl. But who among us hasn't done that under different circumstances?!

2) USADA individuals have made unsubstantiated claims that someone may be going through their garbage. How hilarious is it that they are being investigated for a change? Welcome to the real world. On this, there are two responses: If they are concerned that it is their personal rubbish then this is likely paranoia. Nobody cares about their household trash. If they are worried about documents from USADA's HQ (more likely) then then USADA needs to invest in shredders and harden up.


----------



## a_avery007

*yes that is how*

[It's strange that the mods let this creepiness continue unchecked. Oh well, message board mods are unpaid and make subjective determinations. I don't expect too much but would like to see some level of fairness. 

here is a sample of what Cool let slide, "STFU you stupid taking it up the ass shithead,"
after he had already insulted my wife and family directly. So, I mildly retaliated and he banned me for a week. I called him on it and he just let it slide, and he lost all my respect as a moderator in my book. He should have put that guy on indefinite exile in my lousy opinion.

I did not even take sides in this whole diversion, just pointed out some facts, hopefully this will just come to pass and cycling will be done with it. Unfortunately, the USADA is about efffective as the NCAA or any other agency in trying to clean up business disguised as enterntainment..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Two things have happened so far:
> 
> 1) A participant was identified as someone who has been formally charged with sexual misconduct. It was a national story from March of this year. No digging was required; .04 seconds of google search yields the same result. The guy unzipped his pants and guided a young lady's hand towards his pecker. It's not the best judgment for a 70 year old man holding a position of power over the girl. But who among us hasn't done that under different circumstances?!
> 
> 2) USADA individuals have made unsubstantiated claims that someone may be going through their garbage. How hilarious is it that they are being investigated for a change? Welcome to the real world. On this, there are two responses: If they are concerned that it is their personal rubbish then this is likely paranoia. Nobody cares about their household trash. If they are worried about documents from USADA's HQ (more likely) then then USADA needs to invest in shredders and harden up.


You make the misguided assumption that everything has been reported in the media. 

USADA's statement was not an attempt at spin but based on the experience of the key participants. It was a message


----------



## OldChipper

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong has a long history of harassing and smearing people who tell the truth.


OK, so people publicizing their opinion or experiences that Lance doped and lied about it (the "truth" in your world; yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the actual world) is cool, but publicizing that the one review board member has been charged with sexual misconduct (actual, provable truth in the real world) is harassment. Cuts both ways. 

If they're got the evidence, cool, get after him. Don't try it in the press and don't impair his earnings until you HAVE proven it. 

This kind of reminds me of the Penn Gillette's discussion about atheism and agnosticism in his book "God No!" Did Lance dope? I don't know. It's yet to be proven either way by a competent body. Do I believe Lance doped? Yes. But my *belief* doesn't mean crap in the real world and shouldn't affect anyone else until it's proven one way or another. 

You need to be careful about conflating your *belief* with *truth* that can be verified by multiple dis-interested observers, or you'll start wanting to legislate that school kids must be taught that the cavemen rode dinosaurs. 



Doctor Falsetti said:


> You will see in a few months that he has continued this with multiple people connected to this case. Digging up dirt on the participates personal lives is a sign of desperation. It has nothing to do with the facts of the case, that Lance is a doper.
> 
> You appear to be confused about what is a smear. Telling the truth about Armstrong doping for decades is not a smear. Inventing a false story that painted Floyd is a mentally unstable drunk who tried to blackmail Lance and Johan is a smear.
> 
> Harassment is what happened to Mike Anderson. He was harassed until he had a seizure and had to move to New Zealand to escape it.
> 
> Don't worry, when it comes out in a few months that multiple participants in this case, and their families, where followed, threatened and harassed I will accept your apology with class


If there was so much long term, obvious, rampant harassment and witness tampering, it just blows my mind that there have not been many, many successful suits and convictions against Lance and those associated with him. You can't put it all down to one judge on whom Lance "had something." There are (allegedly) too many cases and Lance's pockets are too deep for someone not to have gone after a payday - and the justice system to have gone after a conviction. This could really have made some ambitious, young, talented lawyer's career.


----------



## David Loving

Looks to me like USADA is dreaming that it can get to Lance in a forum where the burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence or perhaps even substantial evidence, where presumptions do not matter - I am no arbitration expert, and where they think they have stroke. An arbitrator chooses one side or the other. Lance's lawyer is properly pointing out that USADA is not obeying the law by refusing discovery, disregarding the 8 year statute of limitations, offering bribes, getting evidence illegally, and not operating within statutory law. They do not want to play by the rules. USADA says string him up right after the trial. The question is, why is USADA acting this way? My second question is how is the committee member, lawyer from Minnesota?, doing with his indecent exposure inclinations. I'd say that the membership on the USADA committee of a known, proven pervert is an apt illustration of the quality of this corrupt outfit. Finally what's in it for them? USADA is no more interested in justice than is the ayatollah, nor are they interested in the truth. They just have an axe to grind. Another note- good defenses are not crafted on theories; they're based on facts that are grounded in common sense. Case law that fits the facts of a case does matter. It's not frustrating, it's how things work.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> OK, so people publicizing their opinion or experiences that Lance doped and lied about it (the "truth" in your world; yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the actual world) is cool, but publicizing that the one review board member has been charged with sexual misconduct (actual, provable truth in the real world) is harassment. Cuts both ways.
> .


Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. I think it is absurd that USADA put that guy on the review board. Lance pointing it out is not harassment, it is obfuscation. 

People have been followed. People have been harassed. You like to pretend that people did not sue Lance for his harassment but at least two have and got cash. Simeoni pocketed $100,000 from Lance. 

A couple years from now when you look back at this mess the efforts lance and his team went to cover up the truth will be a key theme


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> People have been followed. People have been harassed.


Who and who?

Journalists have called Armstrong the embodiment of cancer. Armstrong is followed regularly. When he was on tour, do you think anyone ever looked through the garbage from his hotel rooms? Do you think they did it regularly? 

Talk all you want about paranoid USADA members. A good defense attorney employs private investigators. We should not be surprised to find out that Armstrong's team is doing everything they can to clear his name from this harassment. 

That's right. He's being harassed right now by this ridiculous prosecution. The full weight of the USADA is focused on Armstrong. Let's not forget that the USADA was created to control doping in Olympic sports, this is an Olympic year, and Lance is retired from any sport that may be in the Olympics. So why waste time persecuting the man? 

Please, no crocodile tears for those who have a vendetta against Armstrong. If they face blowback from this investigation, they brought it on themselves. 



> A couple years from now when you look back at this mess the efforts lance and his team went to cover up the truth will be a key theme


I hope the USADA's evidence is better than an optimistic promise of how people will look back on things.


----------



## trailrunner68

Uh-oh. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, and Vaughters all testified against Armstrong. Six month bans and they won't miss next year's Tour de France.

Report: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters Give Evidence Against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com

It will be interesting to see how Armstrong tries to smear these riders.

The struggle will have nearly every American cyclist of note on one side. The other side will consist of Armstrong and Baghdad Bob.


----------



## kbwh

Ah, we have an epic. 
Sporting justice aside, this will be more exiting than any of those seven Tours, maybe except for the 2003.
Bring it on. It's not my tax money, but if it was I'd still welcome it.


----------



## 88 rex

trailrunner68 said:


> Uh-oh. Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, and Vaughters all testified against Armstrong. Six month bans and they won't miss next year's Tour de France.
> 
> Report: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters Give Evidence Against Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> It will be interesting to see how Armstrong tries to smear these riders.
> 
> The struggle will have nearly every American cyclist of note on one side. The other side will consist of Armstrong and Baghdad Bob.


Vaughters: No Slipstream Sports USADA Suspensions | Cyclingnews.com

Uh-oh is right.


----------



## trailrunner68

88 rex said:


> Vaughters: No Slipstream Sports USADA Suspensions | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Uh-oh is right.


Still clinging to that last bit of hope, eh?

Vaughters has only said his boys won't be getting a suspension. He never said they did not testify. JV himself wrote on another forum that he told the USADA everything in 2004.

As per my post in the other thread, JV's riders are outside the statute of limitations except for Zabriskie, who is six months from being outside the SOL. His riders get off completely in exchange for not lying in service of the USPS conspiracy.


----------



## David Loving

You got to love a good fight...especially law...I always did and still do! [I retired this year]


----------



## OldChipper

trailrunner68 said:


> Still clinging to that last bit of hope, eh?
> 
> JV himself wrote on another forum that he told the USADA everything in 2004.


So why the HELL did they wait EIGHT YEARS before doing anything???!!! This goes to my whole point about all the governing bodies tacitly endorsing what was going on by not doing a damn thing about it (except in a few egregious and/or "fig leaf" cases).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> So why the HELL did they wait EIGHT YEARS before doing anything???!!! This goes to my whole point about all the governing bodies tacitly endorsing what was going on by not doing a damn thing about it (except in a few egregious and/or "fig leaf" cases).


Because he was only one guy. Everyone had see what happens when you tell the truth. It was not until Landis and Tyler came forward that 10 other riders felt comfortable telling the truth. 

Also the UCI withheld lance's Biopassport testing numbers for several years. 

If you want to blame someone for the delay focus on the UCI and Lance


----------



## Mulowe

Can we just stop shooting the messenger.
The DONT HATE THE PLAYER HATE THE GAME defense is all smoke and mirrors.
This is about LA.
The dream is over and it's just that simple.


----------



## Local Hero

100 riders could say they saw Lance with a needle in his arm...and it wouldn't prove doping.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong lawsuit tries to block USADA hearing

Lance files a lawsuit to try to stop USADA from doing their job. Many other dopers have tried the same, they all failed. 

Lance thinks the process is unfair because he is unable to corrupt it.


----------



## Chris-X

:lol:

Armstrong sues to block doping charges - NYPOST.com

:lol: Lance looks different here! :lol:


----------

