Armstrong claims to have been tested over 500 times

[frenchfry]

Don't forget positive #8 at the 2001 (and not 2002!) Tour de Suisse.

Too bad Verdruggen isn't a US citizen, it would be interesting to see him lie to Federal prosecutors and do a little time in the big house.

So that make 8 positives, official or unofficial, out of 500 tests. If my math is correct, that is a positive rate of only 1.6% which I think proves that Lance is clean.

 

[VeloCity]

and from what I have seen so far, it is far from that.

Please, we have zero idea of what evidence Novitsky has accumulated - none of us have any idea what he has in hand re: paper/money trail, witness testimony, etc etc. "What I have seen so far" is as meaningless as a doping test.

 

[powerste]

Too bad Verdruggen isn't a US citizen, it would be interesting to see him lie to Federal prosecutors and do a little time in the big house.

Amen! It's easy to get sick of all the athletes lying: Hamilton, Basso, Landis, Valverde, Armstrong, etc etc. But what really makes me want to puke is the unbelievable crap that Verbruggen and McQuaid spew every time they speak on the subject. The UCI seems to see its job as engaging in pi$$ing matches with WADA, race organizers, national federations, etc, all the while doing nothing material to combat doping due to fear over the fallout. Heinie and Paddy, as leaders of our utterly spineless and self-serving "governing" body are the real cancer here.

 

[Realist]

Firstly because they had already been tested once and found by the lab to be okay.

Not with the relevant test

Secondly, because the rules do not allow for historical retesting of samples

'The rules' regarding the very specific process required to get a doping positive are not relevant in a criminal case.

Thirdly because in a civil case the standard of proof is far lower than that required of the prosecution in a criminal case.
Fourthly and leading on from that, the defense would have a field day with raising issues of the possibility of tampering with the evidence.

There is always the technical possibility that evidence has been doctored or tampered with, but the probability goes in the other direction. This is unlikely.

Fifthly: The US investigators have no jurisdictional access to the samples.

Sixth: for reasons I have already spoken to, the French would not release them.

You wanna bet? You have no backbone... never taking my bets...

I think that in a criminal setting, that would be more than enough from a defence perspective.

I'm just grateful your not my (a) lawyer.

 

[Realist]

Spartacus Rox:

Prejudicial vs Probative

 

[MacRoadie]

Never mind, this is pointless.

 

[velosopher54]

So now our country has decided to spend millions trying to prove what the French could not. This is an insult to the US cycling community and an overstatement of authority by the FDA. Novitsky is simply looking for headlines and a job promotion though I would hope this witch hunt comes back to bite him.

Sorry if this has already been addressed...

Doping is a serious offense. It not only cheats the clean riders, it has cost many riders their life or their good health. The doping alleged to have been done by LA and Co. involved entire teams(1999-2005)(2009-2010)which is pretty large scale. LA and Co. are also suspected of defrauding the US Postal service, i.e. federal funding. This doping conceivably involved hundreds of thousands of dollars, dare I say millions over the years? LA called this a 'witch hunt' so you do, too. Hardly. Fraud at this level is a serious crime.

And look at it this way: This case is employing hundreds of Americans and is helping the economy.

Also, I doubt Novitsky is looking for fame. He was given a job to do and he's doing it to his best ability. Good to see an American really doing it right.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Atty Herman now says it is about 300 times.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/floyd-landis-nightline-interview/story?id=11226456

Plenty of amazing comments from Lance's counsel.

 

[velosopher54]

Not really, a pretty ridiculous analogy actually

The guy is subjected to tests the same as everyone else. I know that all and sundry hang on the alleged 1999 failed tests. But moving on from them for a second, he has failed no test in the last ten years. You can attribute all sorts of conspiratorial crapola you like to that but it remains a fact. All an athlete can do is abide by the tests prescribed by their sport and LA has done that. That fact is a powerful defense in any hearing involving doping allegations. As I have said ad nauseum it it up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The lawyers LA has employed merely have to raise a doubt for the prosecution to be kicked. The fact that he has not 'officially' failed any test is more than enough to refute those allegations.

His argument will be: I have never doped, I have never tested positive for doping, I have met all of the sports governing bodies doping controls, I have never been banned from my sport for doping. Given that, how could I have possibly wanted or needed to be involved in a fraudulent drug programme. That is all the doubt he would need to raise.

Before someone spouts on about 1999 tests as being evidence, they would never be admissable and would not be even presented as possible evidence.

That is why this will never reach the level of proof to deliver a guilty verdict or even come close. At the end of the case, if it even goes to trial, LA will crank up the PR machine and play the vindicated innocent man who was the focus of a witch hunt. And some of you guys will cry into your soup. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

You bring up few points to hang a hat on. I see you are not an American. I can tell you that even IF what you say is true, you have forgotten all about the eye witnesses. Americans believe eye witnesses. If 3/4 of his fellow dopers from the teams 1999 to 2005, and 2009 and 2010, admit to seeing LA dope, LA is going down, and the other 1/4 will go to prison for perjury and perhaps obstruction of justice, both serious crimes. I really don't see anyone lying to save LA, besides the Hog, they are joined at the hip.

What it comes down to is what deal LA will cut and who he throws under the bus. And it's NOT A WITCH HUNT. Those are LA's words. It is a serious Federal investigation into fraud against the US Federal Government and sports doping. Hardly a witch hunt.

When are you and the other LA fanboys and fangirls going to get that what LA is facing is really really serious?

 

[Hugh Januss]

BS. Cancellara is a bigger doper than Armstrong.

I can't believe he has got away with mechanical doping for so long. He needs mechanical motors to be successful.

Oh... He bloody had better win the TT in tomorrow's stage. Hopefully he won't forget to recharge his battery pack.

You accuse Armstrong, look closer to home. Cheating ****.

I smell troll scat!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I smell troll scat!

Was it the "Lance is Great" user name? or the text?



A bit off topic but has anyone noticed a distinct reduction in Shack/Lance/Michelob/FRS banners on cyclingnews?

Trek and Giro still pulling through but the others have gone.

 

[alvynmcq]

No shack adverts on Velonews either.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

No shack adverts on Velonews either.

Just popped over to radioshack.com.... Only notice of Team RS is a very small bitty spot on the lower right of the main page.

Massive departure from just a few days ago, across the board. The tour is not over, and media buys probably not expired, though the distancing seems to already be happening. Very suspicious.

 

[SpartacusRox]

You bring up few points to hang a hat on. I see you are not an American. I can tell you that even IF what you say is true, you have forgotten all about the eye witnesses. Americans believe eye witnesses. If 3/4 of his fellow dopers from the teams 1999 to 2005, and 2009 and 2010, admit to seeing LA dope, LA is going down, and the other 1/4 will go to prison for perjury and perhaps obstruction of justice, both serious crimes. I really don't see anyone lying to save LA, besides the Hog, they are joined at the hip.

What it comes down to is what deal LA will cut and who he throws under the bus. And it's NOT A WITCH HUNT. Those are LA's words. It is a serious Federal investigation into fraud against the US Federal Government and sports doping. Hardly a witch hunt.

When are you and the other LA fanboys and fangirls going to get that what LA is facing is really really serious?

I was not inferring that it was a witch hunt from my perspective, I said that if a case is taken and fails, the LA PR machine will play the witch hunt card.

I also agree with you that if a large number of previous teammates come out in evidence against him he will be in trouble and I have said as much in a previous post.

Despite what others may say, I am not posting as a fanboy though I do admire what Lance has accomplished as a rider. I am just raising what I see as valid points. I also am well aware of the potential seriousness of some of the allegations. I say potential, because until such time there are charges laid, they remain just that.

Also the intense media speculation from some quarters that is repeated on these posts tends to be very much variations on the same theme. Nobody on here knows what witnesses have said to investigators and yet they are quick to jump to the conclusion that person X has spilled the beans. All I have done is point out that that is unsupported speculation. Speculation is fine, that is what forums are for but then you have people like Python who assert allegations are facts and that is wrong.

 

[SpartacusRox]

I smell troll scat!

Agreed. Now he has taken to sending me private posts that are quite abusive and offensive. He seems to have a major hangup with FC winning races.

I don't mind being abused through public posts but having morons like him abuse in private posts get a bit tiring.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I was not inferring that it was a witch hunt from my perspective, I said that if a case is taken and fails, the LA PR machine will play the witch hunt card.

I also agree with you that if a large number of previous teammates come out in evidence against him he will be in trouble and I have said as much in a previous post.

Despite what others may say, I am not posting as a fanboy though I do admire what Lance has accomplished as a rider. I am just raising what I see as valid points. I also am well aware of the potential seriousness of some of the allegations. I say potential, because until such time there are charges laid, they remain just that.

Also the intense media speculation from some quarters that is repeated on these posts tends to be very much variations on the same theme. Nobody on here knows what witnesses have said to investigators and yet they are quick to jump to the conclusion that person X has spilled the beans. All I have done is point out that that is unsupported speculation. Speculation is fine, that is what forums are for but then you have people like Python who assert allegations are facts and that is wrong.

You actually do not raise valid points. You make broad, generic statements like:

Firstly because they had already been tested once and found by the lab to be okay.
Secondly, because the rules do not allow for historical retesting of samples
Thirdly because in a civil case the standard of proof is far lower than that required of the prosecution in a criminal case.
Fourthly and leading on from that, the defense would have a field day with raising issues of the possibility of tampering with the evidence.
Fifthly: The US investigators have no jurisdictional access to the samples.
Sixth: for reasons I have already spoken to, the French would not release them.

...and you are roundly addressed on them, and then avoid direct questions elsewhere.

With your last post, you seem to be in full retreat from your previous posturing. Why?

 

[goober]

A bit off topic but has anyone noticed a distinct reduction in Shack/Lance/Michelob/FRS banners on cyclingnews?

Trek and Giro still pulling through but the others have gone.

Have you also noticed that Lance and George do not seem to be communicating through Twitter - might be nothing...

 

[Realist]

I think I know a bit actually, having been a prosecutor for four years. Lets just see how things pan out.

Well then you can tell us what the relevant legal test is for admissibility of evidence into a criminal trial is... and that can help us assess your statements about the French tests. Will be good to see how your deep legal knowledge relates to the arguments you raise here.

Preju-something and proba-whatsit?

Or is this too much to ask if you're not billing 6 minute blocks?

 

[MacRoadie]

Conspicuously absent on the home page:

 

[SpartacusRox]

Well then you can tell us what the relevant legal test is for admissibility of evidence into a criminal trial is... and that can help us assess your statements about the French tests. Will be good to see how your deep legal knowledge relates to the arguments you raise here.

Preju-something and proba-whatsit?

Or is this too much to ask if you're not billing 6 minute blocks?

Well you obviously know that admissible evidence has to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible. I have already made my views around the French tests clear. Why don't you just wait and see if things ever get that far.
Plus I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" and I certainly do not have that of the US Justice system. Having said that, the Laws of Evidence are reasonably generic across western justice systems.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Well you obviously know that admissible evidence has to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible. I have already made my views around the French tests clear. Why don't you just wait and see if things ever get that far.
Plus I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" and I certainly do not have that of the US Justice system. Having said that, the Laws of Evidence are reasonably generic across western justice systems.

Do you take us for fools?

Claims you are some sort of prosecutor, followed by refuting the idea you have "deep legal knowledge", seriously, you must take us for fools.

You've failed in this discussion.

 

[alvynmcq]

Well you obviously know that admissible evidence has to be relevant but not all relevant evidence is admissible. I have already made my views around the French tests clear. Why don't you just wait and see if things ever get that far.
Plus I never claimed "deep legal knowledge" and I certainly do not have that of the US Justice system. Having said that, the Laws of Evidence are reasonably generic across western justice systems.

Why don't you explain them then? You did claim a very deep legal knowledge when you claimed you had been a prosecuter for 4 years, which was not the best move on your part, considering you don't appear to have any legal knowledge, at least tell us what country you are from, then we can have a look at your countries legal system and see how it would differ from the US system.

 

[chambers]

think the yellow jersey in TDF is tested every day so thats a fair few as well.

500 tests is about 1 a week on average. Hardly seems out of the way to me.

Lance turned pro in 1992. Taking out time for his first retirement and when he was sick with cancer he was a active pro for 15 years. 15 (years) times 52 (weeks per year) would be 780 weeks. That would be a average of about 1 test every week and a half.

 

[top_tenz_finish]

Do you take us for fools?

Claims you are some sort of prosecutor, followed by refuting the idea you have "deep legal knowledge", seriously, you must take us for fools.

You've failed in this discussion.

Actually he said he had never claimed to have deep legal knowledge and has only denied not having any such knowledge of the US legal system. He may very welll have deep knowledge of the English, Scottish, French or wherever (and with regards to the next poster I don't think it is so relevant and will only lead to a 'sensational' put down or witch hunt) but he has just never said so, despite claiming to have been a prosecutor.

For the record I am not really 'taking sides' on this point though I am on the LA and it veers more towards the majority here and not the fanboys..

 

[Anonymous]

Attention, attention: Talking point revision- it was 300 times. 300. That is all.