• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

1999 TdF Samples: moving to the Feds?

Apr 19, 2009
190
0
0
Visit site
Based on what I have been reading it sounds like the FDA is going after Armstrong as a way to get to others. Apply enough pressure to Lance and he might crack to give up some bigger fish; especially if it is done in a manner which preserves his wins and Livestrong foundation.

I don't seem him getting the jail time but i don't see him coming out of this without some scars.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
I caught this story on Google News this morning. It's an AP story that's hitting all over the US, but I can't spot any non-English stories. I wonder who Bordry spoke to?

It seems (could be wrong) like he's floated the offer to Novitsky via the media, in a way that will have a lot of people watching to see what happens. Novitsky accepting the samples might be even more motivation for people in the know to get their stories in order.

I could imagine Bordry flying along with the samples himself, along with an expert in transporting samples. But would it be wise to use a USADA lab at this point?

Still, it's good news if Novitsky accepts. And the AP story about the '99 samples is hitting publications of all sizes across America.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
More quotes from the Bordry press conference:

"If U.S. prosecutors or the U.S. Agency asked us something in the context of mutual legal assistance we will of course", said President of the AFLD, at a press conference.

«Nous avons une collaboration étroite avec l'Agence, et cela ne date pas d'hier. "We have close cooperation with the Agency, and it does not date from yesterday. Aujourd'hui, nous sommes en relation quasi-permanente avec eux», at-il dit, sans vouloir en dire plus. Today, we are semi-permanent relationship with them, "he said, without wanting to say more.

«Je suis très impressionné par la qualité du travail des Américains en la matière, en particulier de l'agence américaine», at-il simplement ajouté. "I am very impressed by the quality of working Americans in this area, especially the American agency," he added simply.

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/au...e-francaise-antidopage-tres-impressionnee.php
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
will novitzky take up the afld’s offer, who can it help ?

how significant and relevant can it become if novi follows up on the offer and the test comes up positive ?

personally, I feel a singular retest of the 1999 sample (in 2010 or 2011) even if confirming the 2005 six positives would be of limited value.

but…

if we are to follow the investigative logic emerging from the leaks so far it appears that novi is interested in exploring a much bigger question - was doping part of Armstrong’s professional career since the very beginning ?

when the 1999 positives are plotted along the ‘hospital room admission in 1996, the 2001-02 uci-suppressed positives, the anderson gerona steroid findings…and the other numerable doping facts dated to 1999-2005 (from the sca and lemond/track arbitration) a very damming picture of a committed, long-term user can be built.

another important point can be gleaned from the retest - was there a conspiracy ?

as i understand it, there is enough urine left to run both the latest super duper epo test (with all the bells and whistles required by the very latest wada epo techdocument) and the dna test.

hence the picture of a long-running fraud and lies can be uncovered conclusively.
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
Pretty slick. The AFLD has no right to do retests, but Bordry thinks the FDA can make it happen. If I read the translation right, he's willing to have a lab do the testing if it's preferred to sending the samples. It would give the FDA and grand jury a really good line of questioning for guys who claim doping hasn't taken place. It would definitely put Armstrong on a hot seat if questioned under oath.

"We can ask anything, and we will do ... We can order samples or to test ourselves," said Bordry.

El truco está en que Bordry dice que a su organización no se le permite pedir una nueva prueba de las muestras, debido a la limitación que impone la ley de la AMA de ocho años, pero que, a su entender, los fiscales federales de los EE.UU. The trick is that Bordry said that his organization is not allowed to ask for a new test samples due to restrictions imposed by the law of the AMA eight years, but, in his view, federal prosecutors U.S. no estarían sujetos a esta regla, ya que no están trabajando en un caso disciplinario. would not be subject to this rule, since they are not working on a disciplinary case.
http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias-ficha.asp?id=30554
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
the main advantage of the retesting, as i explained above, is not just confirming the positive result from 1999 but in applying the latest positivity criteria that were d welled upon by vrijman and the likes as lacking in 2005.

the epo test has come a long way since 2005 and the 'research criteria' they used then.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
Visit site
python said:
will novitzky take up the afld’s offer, who can it help ?

how significant and relevant can it become if novi follows up on the offer and the test comes up positive ?

personally, I feel a singular retest of the 1999 sample (in 2010 or 2011) even if confirming the 2005 six positives would be of limited value.

but…

if we are to follow the investigative logic emerging from the leaks so far it appears that novi is interested in exploring a much bigger question - was doping part of Armstrong’s professional career since the very beginning ?

when the 1999 positives are plotted along the ‘hospital room admission in 1996, the 2001-02 uci-suppressed positives, the anderson gerona steroid findings…and the other numerable doping facts dated to 1999-2005 (from the sca and lemond/track arbitration) a very damming picture of a committed, long-term user can be built.

another important point can be gleaned from the retest - was there a conspiracy ?

as i understand it, there is enough urine left to run both the latest super duper epo test (with all the bells and whistles required by the very latest wada epo techdocument) and the dna test.

hence the picture of a long-running fraud and lies can be uncovered conclusively.


What was the UCI covered positive in 2001-02 ?
 
python said:
will novitzky take up the afld’s offer, who can it help ?

how significant and relevant can it become if novi follows up on the offer and the test comes up positive ?

personally, I feel a singular retest of the 1999 sample (in 2010 or 2011) even if confirming the 2005 six positives would be of limited value.

but…

if we are to follow the investigative logic emerging from the leaks so far it appears that novi is interested in exploring a much bigger question - was doping part of Armstrong’s professional career since the very beginning ?

when the 1999 positives are plotted along the ‘hospital room admission in 1996, the 2001-02 uci-suppressed positives, the anderson gerona steroid findings…and the other numerable doping facts dated to 1999-2005 (from the sca and lemond/track arbitration) a very damming picture of a committed, long-term user can be built.

another important point can be gleaned from the retest - was there a conspiracy ?

as i understand it, there is enough urine left to run both the latest super duper epo test (with all the bells and whistles required by the very latest wada epo techdocument) and the dna test.

hence the picture of a long-running fraud and lies can be uncovered conclusively.

The key here is that is puts pressure on the UCI. It’s the AFLD handing over samples not the UCI. With the 1999 samples handed over the calls will come for the UCI to do the same with remaining samples. Once the tests come back with a positive then the Tour de Swizterland samples will be requested to be retested. If the UCI say no then the pressure will mount. I say Pat will through Armstrong under a bus.

At some point here as the pressure mounts Armstrong will have to admit.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The key here is that is puts pressure on the UCI. It’s the AFLD handing over samples not the UCI. With the 1999 samples handed over the calls will come for the UCI to do the same with remaining samples. Once the tests come back with a positive then the Tour de Swizterland samples will be requested to be retested. If the UCI say no then the pressure will mount. I say Pat will through Armstrong under a bus.

At some point here as the pressure mounts Armstrong will have to admit.
imo, novitzky would waste his time if putting pressure on the uci. paddy and his ilk (the 4 full time lawyers working for him) can stonewall any samples that are outside the usada and the afld labs. the uci simply will not cooperate but play pr games. that much is clear.

in stead, novi can go directly to the swiss criminal authorities via wada mediation and intepol. it's far more productive than wasting time on paddy.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
The key here is that is puts pressure on the UCI. It’s the AFLD handing over samples not the UCI. With the 1999 samples handed over the calls will come for the UCI to do the same with remaining samples. Once the tests come back with a positive then the Tour de Swizterland samples will be requested to be retested. If the UCI say no then the pressure will mount. I say Pat will through Armstrong under a bus.

At some point here as the pressure mounts Armstrong will have to admit.

As I understand it, the government's interest ends with the US Postal sponsorship... they aren't looking to clean up cycling, their investigating to see if the US government was defrauded in some way.

I don't think they have interest in if Lance was doping while sponsored by Radioshack, Astana, Discovery, Cofidis or Motorola. Just the 6 year stretch from 1998 to 2004.

I may not be up to speed though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestoned said:
Bordry - Born to lose

Another terriffic contribution, thanks for that.

Does anybody know statute of limitations on the '99 samples? Even if they are tested and turned over will Novitsky be able to use the results (assuming they are positive for EPO)?
 
May 13, 2009
692
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
Bordry - Born to lose

??? Is that cobblestone stuck in your brain?:p

Realize that if FDA were to accept and re-test the samples and confirm the French positives, which back in the day were even considered a "witch hunt" fraud by angry envious french officials it would have huge consequences.

Now we know that the 2008 UCI investigation was a major fraud since Armstrong has been bribing them for quite a bit of time.

Although, I am not sure, but I don't think this will stick in court. But it would be a big surprise to a lot of Americans. Hero is taking a big fall.:D
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,136
4
0
Visit site
euphrades said:
Based on what I have been reading it sounds like the FDA is going after Armstrong as a way to get to others. Apply enough pressure to Lance and he might crack to give up some bigger fish; especially if it is done in a manner which preserves his wins and Livestrong foundation.

I don't seem him getting the jail time but i don't see him coming out of this without some scars.

In terms of doping Lance is the biggest fish they can catch. Lance did everything on his own with Bruyneel, no other sports involved as it was way too risky. Cycling was already majorly exposed with doping before even Lance started winning the tour.

When they want to catch him for taxfraud I don't know.
 
euphrades said:
Based on what I have been reading it sounds like the FDA is going after Armstrong as a way to get to others. Apply enough pressure to Lance and he might crack to give up some bigger fish; especially if it is done in a manner which preserves his wins and Livestrong foundation.

I don't seem him getting the jail time but i don't see him coming out of this without some scars.

bigger fish? than Lance? WHo?
TGBM?
the pope?
thats about it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
@fakebruyneel
Novitsky is taking the p*ss!
less than 5 seconds ago via web
 
Jan 27, 2010
921
0
0
Visit site
screaming fist said:
The article doesn't stare the samples are actually moved. It's only about Bordry being ready to hand them over.

True but that is what was implied.

Could the moderators please add a questionmark to the end of the Thread title. Thank you.

NW
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Visit site
Scott SoCal said:
Does anybody know statute of limitations on the '99 samples? Even if they are tested and turned over will Novitsky be able to use the results (assuming they are positive for EPO)?

It's 8 years for doping - that's part of the reason Bordry's hands have been tied from testing the B samples. But if they're looking at perjury, past or future, having proof that Armstrong doped could come into play.

Bordry said he's been working closely with the FDA, so I doubt there's any chance he hasn't mentioned it to them before. Making the offer at a press conference with quotes going to wire services was big, though.

He also said in the press conference that they'll have problems with costs and tester availability that might keep them from doing as many out of competition tests as WADA wants, so this wasn't a presser about Armstrong, that's just what the media are running with.

"If U.S. prosecutors are asking something in the context of mutual legal assistance, we will of course," said Pierre Bordry Thursday, adding that he is ready to analyze the B samples of urine taken from the Armstrong Tour 1999.

On n'aurait pas "forcément (à) envoyer les échantillons (aux Etats-Unis), on peut les analyser nous-mêmes", at-il dit à propos de cette possible collaboration avec la justice américaine, à l'occasion d'une conférence de presse présentant les résultats de l'AFLD au premier semestre 2010. It would not "necessarily (to) send the samples (United States), we can analyze ourselves," he said about this possible collaboration with American justice, on the occasion of a press conference presenting the results of the AFLD the first half of 2010.

The eight-year rule "is not valid" in this case, said Pierre Bordry. "Dans sa démarche, le procureur américain ne va pas rechercher le dopage, il va rechercher les fraudes, les choses comme ça. Ses limites ne sont pas les mêmes que les nôtres. Je crois qu'il en a moins que nous (des limites)", estime-t-il. "In its approach, the U.S. Attorney will not seek doping, it will search for fraud, things like that. Its boundaries are not the same as ours. I think it has less than us (limits ), "said he.

"Si on a gardé les échantillons anciens d'une personne dénommée (Armstrong), c'est parce qu'il y avait des procédures judiciaires en cours. Il ya eu dans le passé des procédures judiciaires qui se sont développées, qui ont abouti ou pas abouti, mais qui ont fait qu'il ya eu des réquisitions au laboratoire depuis très longtemps. Ce qui fait que le laboratoire a pu garder sous certaines conditions, sous contrôles du juge, sous scellés, les échantillons", rappelle Bordry. "If we kept the old samples to a specified person (Armstrong) because there was litigation pending. There has been spent in legal proceedings that have been developed, which led or unsuccessful, but have there been in the lab requisition for a very long time. The result is that the laboratory was kept under certain conditions, under control of the judge, sealed samples, "recalls Bordry.
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actu...queteurs-americains-concernant-armstrong.html
 
kurtinsc said:
As I understand it, the government's interest ends with the US Postal sponsorship... they aren't looking to clean up cycling, their investigating to see if the US government was defrauded in some way.

I don't think they have interest in if Lance was doping while sponsored by Radioshack, Astana, Discovery, Cofidis or Motorola. Just the 6 year stretch from 1998 to 2004.

I may not be up to speed though.

I agree with you. But I think its just a way of proving the doping then the rest will come from that. I know they're not looking to apply sporting sanctions but it’s a way and means to get to the fraud. If the 99 samples come back (again) with EPO then I think pressure would mount to test other samples. If 2002 TdS sample proves positive then Floyd story about the pay-off looks more and more to be true.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Hmm, I thought we were told by the Public Strategies interns that the hospital room,. the 99 Samples, etc, did not matter. They would never stand in a court of law.....were they lying to us or just stupid?

Don't get caught up in the statue of limitation. It is very easy and common to waive this. A good example is when Strock sued Rene, Chris, and USA Cycling.

The French have been working with the Feds since prior to this years Tour. They are sharing information and look for them to file their own, expanded, charges shortly after the Feds file theirs in the next 3-4 months.

Is there enough sample left? Plenty, it does not take much

2njfudu.jpg
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
I agree with you. But I think its just a way of proving the doping then the rest will come from that. I know they're not looking to apply sporting sanctions but it’s a way and means to get to the fraud. If the 99 samples come back (again) with EPO then I think pressure would mount to test other samples. If 2002 TdS sample proves positive then Floyd story about the pay-off looks more and more to be true.

Ah... it was the 2002 TDS. For some reason I thought he was talking about this year's event.

I think they'd possibly go after anything from 1998-2004... so that would fit. I can't see them caring about anything outside of that range though.
 

TRENDING THREADS