Another U.S. Postal Rider confirms systematic doping within team - N.Y. Times

[jmax22]

Another New York Times article just posted reveals that in an interview with investigators today, another former teammate of Lance Armstrong's on the U.S. Postal Service team confirmed there was a systematic doping program there and detailed his own drug use. Wonder who... Zabriskie? George? Levi? Could be Levi after his former team manager revealed today that he was on a blood doping program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html

 

[hrotha]

The rider, who has never tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs or methods

Not Levi then.

(Seriously though, it could be Levi, since apparently his 1996 positive isn't that well known)

 

[tockit]

Not Levi then.

(Seriously though, it could be Levi, since apparently his 1996 positive isn't that well known)

Hincapie ???

 

[oldschoolnik]

Article says formal US Postal Rider that has "NOT been called to the Grand Jury"

So No Tyler, who else do we know was called to Grand Jury - we can rule them out here


PS - I hope this finally puts to rest that Julie Macur is no Kool-Aid drinker.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

That brings us to the question of why would they not call this rider to testify. I would think this is bad news for Armstrong. If the feds are at the point where they're already confirmed the Landis allegations and have enough to go to the GJ without such testimony, I wonder what else they have uncovered.

 

[Publicus]

I get the feeling that this is last call at the Feds leniency window. If you have something to say, you'd betterhave your lawyer reaching out to them now before the window is closed.

 

[Anonymous]

This is all pure speculation. Surely there cannot be another rider who rode with Armstrong who would corroborate what a rat like Landis said. Surely Landis was only trying to sell a book or something when he detailed his doping and that of the rest of USPS. Surely the only thing that helped the team ride so strongly was the genius of Bruyneel. Surely we can all agree on these things, no?

Things are starting to crumble around Mr Armstrong. I guess denying it until his death is all he has left, because everyone else in the world knows he's a junkie freak.

 

[jmax22]

Who knows, it could be anyone. There were plenty of people who rode on Postal those years who aren't even household names... Creed, Kluck, McCarty, Barry. I imagine once the feds hear a similar story from two, three, four, five people + those testifying under oath to the grand jury like George, Tyler, et al, the case will be pretty strong. It really is just a matter of time, isn't it?

 

[JimmyD]

[/quote]Toward the end of the Tour de France, Armstrong, a seven-time winner of the event, said he would deny any involvement in doping “as long as I live.”

That's a misquote. He said he would deny FORCING other riders to dope as long as he lives, not deny doping. Landis confirms this in his case by his admission that he first approached Bruyneel and volunteered to dope.

But now, prosecutors and investigators have more than Landis’s account to go on, according to the two people with knowledge of the investigation. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to sensitive information.

I don't know what their motivation is for leaking this information to the press, but they seem to have far more control over the media these days than public strategies. One would have to assume they are trying to keep the pressure on through the media.

 

[MacRoadie]

I don't know what their motivation is for leaking this information to the press, but they seem to have far more control over the media these days than public strategies. One would have to assume they are trying to keep the pressure on through the media.

When you're up against the Feds, you're running with the big dogs. This is the big leagues.

 

[JimmyD]

That brings us to the question of why would they not call this rider to testify. I would think this is bad news for Armstrong. If the feds are at the point where they're already confirmed the Landis allegations and have enough to go to the GJ without such testimony, I wonder what else they have uncovered.

The general view is they will try to get Armstrong and anyone else on perjury, not on sporting fraud since that is tenuous and open to wide interpretation. That's why they are waiting until last to call Armstrong to testify.

It's going to be interesting to see how he will handle it. I think he may call it a witch hunt and take the fifth. It maybe his best option.

Meanwhile...good to see he has helped bring a new UCI stage race event to the states. He's not all bad.

 

[MacRoadie]

The general view is they will try to get Armstrong and anyone else on perjury, not on sporting fraud since that is tenuous and open to wide interpretation. That's why they are waiting until last to call Armstrong to testify.

It's going to be interesting to see how he will handle it. I think he may call it a witch hunt and take the fifth. It maybe his best option.

Meanwhile...good to see he has helped bring a new UCI stage race event to the states. He's not all bad.

Since the point of the grand jury is to hand down an indictment, and Armstrong's testimony likely isn't necessary for that, is there any reason why he would even be called before the grand jury?

 

[JimmyD]

Since the point of the grand jury is to hand down an indictment, and Armstrong's testimony likely isn't necessary for that, is there any reason why he would even be called before the grand jury?

But the indictment will be for lying to a grand jury. He has to lie to the grand jury for that to happen.

 

[JimmyD]

When you're up against the Feds, you're running with the big dogs. This is the big leagues.

They have more powers and influence, yes. But as individuals I don't think they're any smarter or cunning than people involved in the the dark politics of pro-cycling.

 

[redtreviso]

But the indictment will be for lying to a grand jury. He has to lie to the grand jury for that to happen.

Even if no one else said anything in grand jury testimony it would be hard for Armstrong to survive it.. Actually it would be funny to watch him squirm thinking of who might have said what. The same kind of funny when a dope slinger is promptly released from arrest and then thanked publicly for their cooperation.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

The general view is they will try to get Armstrong and anyone else on perjury, not on sporting fraud since that is tenuous and open to wide interpretation. That's why they are waiting until last to call Armstrong to testify.

It's going to be interesting to see how he will handle it. I think he may call it a witch hunt and take the fifth. It maybe his best option.

Meanwhile...good to see he has helped bring a new UCI stage race event to the states. He's not all bad.

They won't be subpoenaing Lance. They will be charging him with a crime.

How he has handled all of this is interesting, from crashing on his face the morning the Landis emails broke, getting drawn and quartered in the press, and right up to floundering his way around France... In my estimation, he has not handled this well so far. How he handles getting arrested and indicted will be even more interesting, I agree. According to Lance, he is sleeping like a baby, likes his word, and will cooperate as long as it is not a "witch hunt".

As for who the rider is, I would guess it was one of the riders who the NYT has already talked to and did not want to draw retaliation at the Tour, meaning: DZ, GH or CVV (I think Levi is too close to the flame to have spoken to the NYT, even if he already talked to the US Feds).

 

[dbrower]

In the chess game, Armstrong is called and takes the 5th; is then offered , immunity, and is asked a lot of questions that carry a lot of factual weight, as bait to dissemble or lie. Unlike Bonds, there will be more than one person who has corroborated the facts, and and Armstrong will be offered the chance to deny and perjure himself, or tell the truth on the record.

The interesting legal question is, if he tells the truth, there are other charges that could be brought, and who they might be brought against, since Armstrong would have been granted immunity.

I'd be looking at involve folks with lots of money, like Wiesel, who makes Armstrong look like chump change.

-dB

 

[Colm.Murphy]

But the indictment will be for lying to a grand jury. He has to lie to the grand jury for that to happen.

All he has to do is lie to the US Feds at all, Grand Jury aside.

Ponder that.

Caught in a lie. Go to jail.

It is quite a simple thing.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Meanwhile...good to see he has helped bring a new UCI stage race event to the states. He's not all bad.

Oh yeah, he's an effing saint, BPC.

 

[MacRoadie]

But the indictment will be for lying to a grand jury. He has to lie to the grand jury for that to happen.

Respectfully, I don't think all this effort is being expended just to set a trap for Armstrong to lie under oath. That may be a secondary, lesser charge down the road, but they are investigating what they feel are crimes which have already been committed.

 

[Hugh Januss]

They won't be subpoenaing Lance. They will be charging him with a crime.

How he has handled all of this is interesting, from crashing on his face the morning the Landis emails broke, getting drawn and quartered in the press, and right up to floundering his way around France... In my estimation, he has not handled this well so far. How he handles getting arrested and indicted will be even more interesting, I agree. According to Lance, he is sleeping like a baby, likes his word, and will cooperate as long as it is not a "witch hunt".

As for who the rider is, I would guess it was one of the riders who the NYT has already talked to and did not want to draw retaliation at the Tour, meaning: DZ, GH or CVV (I think Levi is too close to the flame to have spoken to the NYT, even if he already talked to the US Feds).

Well he has already thrown the witch hunt card..............

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well he has already thrown the witch hunt card..............

Atty Daly is throwing the "Scientific Evidence" card....

That is one cul-de-sac of an argument Mr. Armstrong would be wise to avoid. Armstrong better get a leash on Daly, and have sober conversation about how the "science" works.

 

[NashbarShorts]

Respectfully, I don't think all this effort is being expended just to set a trap for Armstrong to lie under oath. That may be a secondary, lesser charge down the road, but they are investigating what they feel are crimes which have already been committed.

Agreed. If he perjures himself, all the more fun , but I would assume they are going after fraudulent use of federal funds (selling bikes for PEDs), and illegal distribution of controlled substances (PEDs).

This would explain why they are investigating Mr. Ball (Gag), and even the honorable Mr's. Gaggioli and Gerlach.. Who's supplying, who's distributing, who's funding it.

Still gonna be sitting on that beach laughing at all of us, Lance?

 

[Polish]

Out for blood

What does the NYTimes mean when they say "systematic doping"?

Blood transfusions? EPO? CERA? HGH? Testosterone? MicroDosing?

Would not suprise me if all 6 or more...

But if it is "only" blood transfusions, will Novitzsky have a case?

All rhetorical questions at this time....

 

[MacRoadie]

All rhetorical questions at this time....

Because you have nothing of substance to contribute but are still compelled to say something.