Anti doping world: not possible to cover up positive

[Susan Westemeyer]

I dedicate my sig to you Susan. TeamSkyFans came up with the idea, and I have to say that it is now my ode to the greatest woman on these forums. With love XOXOXOXOXOX

Oh oh, I'd better not let my husband see this.....

Susan

 

[drb716]

Sorry, you are looking at a colloquial usage of a legal term. Check Black's Law Dictionary.

Well of course Black's says it's a legal term! Are you kidding?
It only became a legal term 200 years after it was a non-colloquial, common English term.
Sheesh!
By the way, you might give the Landis questioners a bit of a break. They may be on the wrong side, but now you know how that feels. I'll give you a break too.

Thanks

 

[Anonymous]

Well of course Black's says it's a legal term! Are you kidding?
It only became a legal term 200 years after it was a non-colloquial, common English term.
Sheesh!
By the way, you might give the Landis questioners a bit of a break. They may be on the wrong side, but now you know how that feels. I'll give you a break too.

Thanks

The problem is that it has no relevance outside of a court room. You can say "that is hearsay" to a friend telling you a story about something someone said, but that has no real relevance. In a court room, it has a legally binding meaning, and in the way you used it initially, it was an incorrect usage because there is nothing binding Landis in his statements. He made them in general correspondence but was not bound by any standard one way or the other when he wrote and said them. Were he in a court of law, he would have been bound by the hearsay rule, and his statements would still have been admissible because Mr Armstrong's attorney would have been able to question him regarding those statements. Therefore, the whole premise that Landis' statements were hearsay is erroneous in terms of the discussion at hand.

I would also suggest you reference the term in question in regards to proving that the term was not a legal one in 1532. Simply because it predates Black's does not mean anything. I would venture to say that the term was indeed invented in court proceedings considering that there were courts in 1532.

Thanks

 

[Epicycle]

Susan, have you contacted Martial Saugy, the director of the Lausanne lab, to find out if they still have records from 2001? It would be nice to hear the lab tell us they had no EPO positives from the 2001 TdS, provided that was the lab which tested the samples. Apologies if CN has done this already, I'm avoiding the main page until I finish watching the Giro stage from this morning.

 

[gree0232]

So the UCI should be responsible for determining whether they received a bribe? Maybe we should let BP be the one to do the actual reports on the Gulf spill?

The fact is that Armstrong is the only rider to ever donate to the UCI, he donated a significant sum for no real apparent reason, the UCI had to "remind" him to pay up, and he agreed to the "donation" in 2002. I would suggest that those FACTS are not all that positive a thing for the UCI. But I can see how a fanboy with his head stuffed up his *** would see it differently.

Nope.

What I am saying, is rather than make blanket statements about who is and is not trustworthy, you actually look at what they are saying.

UCI Press Release

"Floyd Landis’s accusations: clarifications from the UCI

Due to the controversy following the statements made by Floyd Landis, the International Cycling Union wishes to stress that none of the tests revealed the presence of EPO in the samples taken from riders at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI has all the documentation to prove this fact.

Between 2001 and 2003, only the Paris, Lausanne, Cologne, Barcelona and Madrid laboratories, commissioned by the UCI, detected the presence of EPO in the samples that had been entrusted to them for analysis. During this period, the first laboratory carried out three positive analyses for EPO, the second 18 and the three last laboratories one each. None of the samples concerned had been taken at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

The International Olympic Committee received a copy of all the reports for the positive analyses mentioned above. Furthermore, in 2001, all the analysis reports carried out at the Tour of Switzerland were sent to Swiss Olympic.

Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result. WADA has not reported any abnormal analyses from any of its accredited laboratories that have not been duly dealt with by the UCI.

The UCI wishes to reassert the total transparency of its anti-doping testing and categorically rejects any suspicion in relation to the concealment of results from parties involved in this field."

So, it is reasonable to conclude that several major cycling institutions covered up a positive based on 'overheard' comment while out training?

Again, I think this is absurd. When do we fans get to look at a race and just be excited about the race without having all the nah sayers complain about possible dopipng without proof?

The guys that are cheating are getting nailed left and right, and that contrasts rather sharply with other sports. Cycling IS doing things right on the anti-doping front - 'over heard conversations' and interagency conspiracy theories aside.

 

[Anonymous]

Because, believe it or not, Blacks only compiled legal terms in its initial printing. They didn't make them up on the spot.

 

[4bidon]

Oh oh, I'd better not let my husband see this.....

Susan

Whoops, it's out on the Internet now. Time for a cover-up.

 

[Anonymous]

Nope.

What I am saying, is rather than make blanket statements about who is and is not trustworthy, you actually look at what they are saying.

UCI Press Release

"Floyd Landis’s accusations: clarifications from the UCI

Due to the controversy following the statements made by Floyd Landis, the International Cycling Union wishes to stress that none of the tests revealed the presence of EPO in the samples taken from riders at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The UCI has all the documentation to prove this fact.

Between 2001 and 2003, only the Paris, Lausanne, Cologne, Barcelona and Madrid laboratories, commissioned by the UCI, detected the presence of EPO in the samples that had been entrusted to them for analysis. During this period, the first laboratory carried out three positive analyses for EPO, the second 18 and the three last laboratories one each. None of the samples concerned had been taken at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

The International Olympic Committee received a copy of all the reports for the positive analyses mentioned above. Furthermore, in 2001, all the analysis reports carried out at the Tour of Switzerland were sent to Swiss Olympic.

Since 1st January 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) receives a copy of any analysis reports which show an abnormal result. WADA has not reported any abnormal analyses from any of its accredited laboratories that have not been duly dealt with by the UCI.

The UCI wishes to reassert the total transparency of its anti-doping testing and categorically rejects any suspicion in relation to the concealment of results from parties involved in this field."

So, it is reasonable to conclude that several major cycling institutions covered up a positive based on 'overheard' comment while out training?

Again, I think this is absurd. When do we fans get to look at a race and just be excited about the race without having all the nah sayers complain about possible dopipng without proof?

The guys that are cheating are getting nailed left and right, and that contrasts rather sharply with other sports. Cycling IS doing things right on the anti-doping front - 'over heard conversations' and interagency conspiracy theories aside.

So you believe that if there were a payment made to cover-up a doping positive (I am not certain of that), they would be stupid enough to not really cover it up. They would just leave the positive test around for everyone to see?

The fact is that Mr Armstrong's payment to the UCI is suspicious, and for you to believe that they would simply say "Yea, we did it" when the accusation surfaces is a bit naive, no? I think we can all agree that the paper trail regarding Mr Armstrong's payments to the UCI leaves many questions. Sorry you want to just sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone lives in the land of OZ.

 

[VeloCity]

Oh oh, I'd better not let my husband see this.....

Susan

Just remember that the cover-up always ends up making things far worse than admitting the crime

 

[thehog]

Again, I think this is absurd. When do we fans get to look at a race and just be excited about the race without having all the nah sayers complain about possible dopipng without proof?

The guys that are cheating are getting nailed left and right, and that contrasts rather sharply with other sports. Cycling IS doing things right on the anti-doping front - 'over heard conversations' and interagency conspiracy theories aside.

I’m with you.

There is no way there was any corruption or any improprieties going on at Swiss Olympic or the IOC around the 2001-2002 timeframe. None at all. These accusations are preposterous. I don’t know where they come from.

-

Accusations centred on lavish gifts and other inducements to IOC members in return for their votes in the contest to host the 2002 Winter Olympics. It involved several IOC members as well as Salt Lake City officials.

Hodler, who had been on the IOC's coordination committee for the Salt Lake City Games, caused shockwaves when he denounced what he called systematic buying and selling of votes in the host city selection for the 2002 games.

A subsequent investigation led to the expulsion of six IOC members and another four resigned. Several top Salt Lake City officials also resigned.

The scandal led to practices at the IOC coming under intense scrutiny and calls for change. A year later its assembly approved of a 50-point reform package. This included tightening up the rules surrounding inspection visits to bidding cities.

 

[Parbar]

Sorry, you are looking at a colloquial usage of a legal term. Check Black's Law Dictionary.

Yep. Let's say the FDA investigator comes up with enough to lead to a proceeding against Lance in US Federal Court. The Federal Rules of Evidence devote no less than 7 rules to "hearsay"--it is indeed technical. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/#article_viii. By definition, an admission by a party-opponent is NOT hearsay. So Floyd can testify "Lance admitted x to me."

Let's say USADA comes up with enough to open its own proceeding against Lance. Generally, administrative agencies follow a more relaxed evidentiary standard than the courts and are not bound by the hearsay rule. Here's a 2004 article indicating USADA had a hearsay rule and chose to relax it, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/athens/track/2004-06-13-jones-usada-burden_x.htm. Generally, with Floyd's testimony about Lance's admission being admissible under the FRE hearsay provisions, you can assume it would be admissible in a USADA hearing.

 

[4bidon]

Just remember that the cover-up always ends up making things far worse than admitting the crime

...heard the amount was only XOXOX, not XOXOXOXOXOX.

 

[Anonymous]

...heard the amount was only XOXOX, not XOXOXOXOXOX.

I don't remember.

 

[Digger]

Susan, I am here in Ireland, and I'm after getting a text from David Walsh from the side of a mountain about yourself and TFF. This could shock forums everywhere. But the again, a rumour has been circulating that TFF twitted that he wanted to rock internet forums everywhere. Now I know what he meant. It must be sour grapes.

 

[2beacoup]

So the UCI should be responsible for determining whether they received a bribe? Maybe we should let BP be the one to do the actual reports on the Gulf spill?

The fact is that Armstrong is the only rider to ever donate to the UCI, he donated a significant sum for no real apparent reason, the UCI had to "remind" him to pay up, and he agreed to the "donation" in 2002. I would suggest that those FACTS are not all that positive a thing for the UCI. But I can see how a fanboy with his head stuffed up his *** would see it differently.

If you'd dig deep enough, you'd find more "donating" riders/teams. Trust me.

 

[Publicus]

The delay between promising the "donation" and giving it looks like a ploy to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo.

That's precisely what I was thinking. Time the donation to occur after his retirement to avoid the natural implication that would be drawn by an active rider donating money to an organization responsible for conducting drug testing on said rider. It's called structuring.

 

[Anonymous]

If you'd dig deep enough, you'd find more "donating" riders/teams. Trust me.

Good point. I amend my statement, Armstrong is the only rider the UCI admits ever gave them money.

 

[santacruz]

I'm remembering the time when Lance didn't want to let the dope tester into his house in France. "uhh hey Pat... this guy doesn't look like YOUR guy, this guy looks REAL... Johan get on the phone and make sure this is a UCI guy!" of course he was worried about this dope tester showing up on foot and alone, his normal paid off dope testers drove cars and came in pairs or something... can someone fire the UCI?? what country do they make their base? I want them all put in prison for making a mockery of cycling.

 

[Oldman]

If you'd dig deep enough, you'd find more "donating" riders/teams. Trust me.

I'm embarrassed to say I didn't think of that. I had said previously that Lance and USA Cycling certainly didn't invent the culture of pre-testing, dumped tests or corrupt officials. At least the one part of the rich Euro-tradition of cycling would include the prudently direct payment of cash to the corrupt official by an unknown mule. Only a Texan would be stupid enough to try to make a "donation" out of it and get some tax credit. I wonder if LA's financial adviser also works for Halliburton?

 

[janus1969]

My gosh there are enough tin-foil hats here these days...and anyone who doesn't buy-in gets tarred and feathered...

The good news is that the tin-foil hat guys win no matter what...if nothing comes of this, it just shows the corruption...and if people are caught en masse, they can stand and loudly proclaim "I TOLD you so!"

 

[Oldman]

My gosh there are enough tin-foil hats here these days...and anyone who doesn't buy-in gets tarred and feathered...

The good news is that the tin-foil hat guys win no matter what...if nothing comes of this, it just shows the corruption...and if people are caught en masse, they can stand and loudly proclaim "I TOLD you so!"

pssst...don't stand there; the sky is falling.

 

[gree0232]

So you believe that if there were a payment made to cover-up a doping positive (I am not certain of that), they would be stupid enough to not really cover it up. They would just leave the positive test around for everyone to see?

The fact is that Mr Armstrong's payment to the UCI is suspicious, and for you to believe that they would simply say "Yea, we did it" when the accusation surfaces is a bit naive, no? I think we can all agree that the paper trail regarding Mr Armstrong's payments to the UCI leaves many questions. Sorry you want to just sweep it under the rug and pretend everyone lives in the land of OZ.

So, we can just argue possibilities and not probablities.

How about instead of the oft opined 'cover up', we actually take a minute to figure out what it would take to cover up a positive result.

1. The guy(s) that tested it have to be bought off, as they would be coming out now saying, "Yeah, there was 'one' positive during the '01 TdS? Funny."

2. Several officials in the UCI have to be bought of, including anti-doping administrators, regualr administrators with knowledge, and UCI leadership. The same UCI that brought down Ullrich and is gunning for Valverde was bought off because Armstrong is special?

3. WADA, who recieves test results and has access to numbers of tests, etc. and is filed with guys gunning for Armstrong were all bought off. And then came out with the 1999 'positives' because they weren't boight off?

4. The Swiss federation and its various officials?

5. And of course, non-of these guys are breaking under the strain placed upon them by the sudden spot light.

And in the opposing side.

1. A conversation 'overheard' during a ride.

2. And the most massive $100,000 cover up the world has ever seen.

Again, not saying Lance rode clean, but if this what we are using to accuse him we are simply not even being close to either rational or reasonable in our standards.

This of course leaves out all the other guys that Landis accussed and for some reason no onw wants to acknowlegde. Levi, Oscar and his other buddies, GH, and friggin Alan Lim .... but we'll ignore these ones and focus on Lance. Why exactly? What is the point?

 

[CMDiva]

I don't believe WADA "came out" with the 1999 positives. That was from a newspaper investigation

 

[Anonymous]

So, we can just argue possibilities and not probablities.

How about instead of the oft opined 'cover up', we actually take a minute to figure out what it would take to cover up a positive result.

1. The guy(s) that tested it have to be bought off, as they would be coming out now saying, "Yeah, there was 'one' positive during the '01 TdS? Funny."

2. Several officials in the UCI have to be bought of, including anti-doping administrators, regualr administrators with knowledge, and UCI leadership. The same UCI that brought down Ullrich and is gunning for Valverde was bought off because Armstrong is special?

3. WADA, who recieves test results and has access to numbers of tests, etc. and is filed with guys gunning for Armstrong were all bought off. And then came out with the 1999 'positives' because they weren't boight off?

4. The Swiss federation and its various officials?

5. And of course, non-of these guys are breaking under the strain placed upon them by the sudden spot light.

And in the opposing side.

1. A conversation 'overheard' during a ride.

2. And the most massive $100,000 cover up the world has ever seen.

Again, not saying Lance rode clean, but if this what we are using to accuse him we are simply not even being close to either rational or reasonable in our standards.

This of course leaves out all the other guys that Landis accussed and for some reason no onw wants to acknowlegde. Levi, Oscar and his other buddies, GH, and friggin Alan Lim .... but we'll ignore these ones and focus on Lance. Why exactly? What is the point?

It is not all of the evidence that he doped. It isn't even close to all of the evidence he doped.

Again, you seem to think that money going from a rider to the UCI that has no clear purpose, nor has been thoroughly tracked by anyone including (if you read the testimony) the guy who paid the money isn't the least bit curious. Again, that sand hole your head lives in really covers your it quite well. I am undecided about this issue, but I would like to know more about the money the UCI received from Armstrong. It appears you would rather not. Fine.

Lastly you seem to talk singularly about Armstrong. Like most fanboys, your sense of irony leaves a bit to be desired.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't believe WADA "came out" with the 1999 positives. That was from a newspaper investigation

Don't argue facts with him. He doesn't know the facts, and he isn't interested in the facts. He is interested in obfuscation only.