Armstrong claims to have been tested over 500 times

[SpartacusRox]

Brilliant

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.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Hey Spartacus, Your man ain't up too much without his battery pack, huh?.

Ha Ha!.

That get my vote as the dumbest post of the year...congratulations

 

[simoni]

A quick count shows that Armstrong won 99 stages or races as a pro (no, not all at the TDF). I assume that all pro races test the winner of stages so that is 99 in competition tests. That does not include any random tests that the race does.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

The guy is subjected to tests the same as everyone else. I know that all and sundry hang on the alleged 1999 failed tests. ........... 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.

Sparty, should you not be on the pro cycling threads talking up Cancellara's motorised TT bike...

Uniballer has not 'officially' failed a test, but that might all change if the evidence from '99 tests are introduced as evidence in Novitsky's case. He failed a test for which he produced a TUE, backdated.

Given that LA admitted in a hospital a room of 2 Doctor's, a girlfriend and the Andreu's that he took copious amounts of PEDs does not count.

Also if other evidence is produced to show he PED'd big time, official testing and it's results won't matter, except to those who love to worship false idols and there are a lot out there if the posts on this forum are anything to judge by.

He can't have been tested more than 500 times so again it is another lie to keep the myth going, but that is all about to crumble or have you been avoiding reading the newspaper articles about Uniballer and how they are all talking about the end of Liestrong.

At this stage if one did not know anything about cycling, but had a bit of cop on about them and read an unbiased story of LA and then heard what is coming out now, if would not take a genuis to realise the man is lying and that his PR machine are spewing desperate statements like sand walls made by a child to block the rising tide.....

Get with the flow Sparty or you risk drowning with all the other fanboys.

Hope the samaritans get some extra phone lines installed in texas, it sounds like they are gonna need them soon

 

[hrotha]

Spartacus, don't you think they will ask former US Postal riders about how they beat the tests? Wouldn't that render your whole argument invalid?

 

[badboygolf16v]

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

Is this really the case? Why would they not be admissable?

Obviously they cannot be used for sporting sanction, but why not in a court case. If Ressiot and Ashenden provided testimony on the tests I think they would form very credible evidence.

I always thought this was why Armstrong did not sue l'Equipe, as they would have stood up in court.

 

[Paco_P]

Armstrong claims to have been tested over 500 times.....is this possible?

9 TdF's since '99, say he got tested every day, that's 180-190 tests

when did all the others happen

He tested himself sometimes, just to be sure everything was working properly.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Sparty, should you not be on the pro cycling threads talking up Cancellara's motorised TT bike...

Uniballer has not 'officially' failed a test, but that might all change if the evidence from '99 tests are introduced as evidence in Novitsky's case. He failed a test for which he produced a TUE, backdated.

Given that LA admitted in a hospital a room of 2 Doctor's, a girlfriend and the Andreu's that he took copious amounts of PEDs does not count.

Also if other evidence is produced to show he PED'd big time, official testing and it's results won't matter, except to those who love to worship false idols and there are a lot out there if the posts on this forum are anything to judge by.

He can't have been tested more than 500 times so again it is another lie to keep the myth going, but that is all about to crumble or have you been avoiding reading the newspaper articles about Uniballer and how they are all talking about the end of Liestrong.

At this stage if one did not know anything about cycling, but had a bit of cop on about them and read an unbiased story of LA and then heard what is coming out now, if would not take a genuis to realise the man is lying and that his PR machine are spewing desperate statements like sand walls made by a child to block the rising tide.....

Get with the flow Sparty or you risk drowning with all the other fanboys.

Hope the samaritans get some extra phone lines installed in texas, it sounds like they are gonna need them soon

Firstly, if you are actually saying that you believe the motorised bike nonsense, then I feel I am wasting my time responding to anything you may post. Assuming however, that you are just trying to be funny:

Beno, whether he was tested 500 times, 300 times or 100 times is hardly the issue. The fact is that he has been tested a lot and none of those tests over the past ten years have come back positive. Forget about the fanboy stuff, that is just irrelevant. I am telling you now that no evidence from any historical testing will be admissible as evidence because it has already been tested and found to be not positive. Any defence counsel worth their salt would have a field day if the prosecution tried to suggest that such samples be re-tested. The second issue around that is that the US prosecutors have no access to those samples as they are the property of another nation and the French would not give them up. Why not you ask? because if they did and they were retested and found to be positive, where would that leave the credibility of the testing lab? So it will not happen...sorry to disappoint you.

The rest of your post is about;if's, buts and maybe's. There is very little new coming out in the newspapers and most of what is on here is pure speculation. So what if Tyler Hamilton is speaking to investigators? Does that mean he is necessarily going to say anything adverse about Armstrong? Of course it doesn't. A lot of this is around eyewitness testimony, so we have a game of he said, she said...hardly stuff that will get you a criminal conviction without corroborating hard evidence and at this stage there has been none of that forthcoming.

You need a reality check. Whether you think he is lying or not is not the point. The point is that proof needs to be conclusive and from what I have seen so far, it is far from that. From your post you obviously have a strong emotional attachment to the outcome, I do not, I just call it as I see it.If I am wrong at the end of the day, well its no big deal to me.

 

[alvynmcq]

I seem to remember in the Tyler Hamilton case that the red light about him doping was his blood profile through 1994, surley the UCI has similar data about Armstrong, I take it that someone will be asked to look at his blood profiles from 1999-2006 to access any areas that could show possible doping? Like a low retic count, dodgy HB values etc.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Spartacus, don't you think they will ask former US Postal riders about how they beat the tests? Wouldn't that render your whole argument invalid?

You are assuming that former riders would give evidence to the affirmative. Many of them have retired and so even if they did indulge in doping practices,why do you assume they would admit to it? Not everyone feels the need to clear their conscience. I don't see too many ex pro's rushing to the press around the world, wanting to clear the slate.

Also it wouldn't render my argument invalid. Firstly they would have to provide evidence that they directly say Armstrong taking PED's or coaching/advising them around taking PED's. Obviously if all of them gave that testimony he would be in trouble,evidentially, but I think it highly unlikely that will be the case. Many may just say they have nothing to say or more likely, say that they did not see anything.

 

[alvynmcq]

You are assuming that former riders would give evidence to the affirmative. Many of them have retired and so even if they did indulge in doping practices,why do you assume they would admit to it? Not everyone feels the need to clear their conscience. I don't see too many ex pro's rushing to the press around the world, wanting to clear the slate.

Also it wouldn't render my argument invalid. Firstly they would have to provide evidence that they directly say Armstrong taking PED's or coaching/advising them around taking PED's. Obviously if all of them gave that testimony he would be in trouble,evidentially, but I think it highly unlikely that will be the case. Many may just say they have nothing to say or more likely, say that they did not see anything.

Why do you think that? You think they would lie under oath to a federal investigator with a track record of putting people in jail for lying to him?

 

[SpartacusRox]

The mechanical doping cheat.

Yeah it hurts when the shoe is on the other foot.

Cancellara's doped bike - bike with engine !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzzmBrBFXaY

Mate,I think you must be the only idiot out there in the world who has not moved on from this nonsense. I suppose you think he had a motor hidden up his backside when he won the prologue,given his bike was scanned?

Grow up son. Come back and apologize in a few months after he has won a few more races.

 

[SpartacusRox]

Why do you think that? You think they would lie under oath to a federal investigator with a track record of putting people in jail for lying to him?

Point one: is your automatic assumption that they are lying, which clearly indicates you preconceived view.

Point two: You have been watching too much TV. You can't just put people in jail just for not telling you what you would like to hear. A lot of this will be one persons word against another. "did you see this?" "No I did not" "person X says you did", "then person X is mistaken".

Point Three: I have already given my reasons for my thinking. Your are welcome to disagree,I am happy with my rationalisation of the information at this point.That may change in time with new evidence or it may not.

 

[alvynmcq]

Point one: is your automatic assumption that they are lying, which clearly indicates you preconceived view.

Point two: You have been watching too much TV. You can't just put people in jail just for not telling you what you would like to hear. A lot of this will be one persons word against another. "did you see this?" "No I did not" "person X says you did", "then person X is mistaken".

Point Three: I have already given my reasons for my thinking. Your are welcome to disagree,I am happy with my rationalisation of the information at this point.That may change in time with new evidence or it may not.

So people didn't go to jail during the Balco case for with holding information from Nevotsky?

My opinion about the doping at USPS has been informed by the vast amount of "circumstantial" evidence that exists to show that a systematic team wide doping program was being ran under the watchful eye of M.Ferrari and administered by the ex-ONCE doctors that JB brought to the squad. Unless you are saying that Floyd Landis is lying?

 

[SpartacusRox]

Is this really the case? Why would they not be admissable?

Obviously they cannot be used for sporting sanction, but why not in a court case. If Ressiot and Ashenden provided testimony on the tests I think they would form very credible evidence.

I always thought this was why Armstrong did not sue l'Equipe, as they would have stood up in court.

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.

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

 

[SpartacusRox]

So people didn't go to jail during the Balco case for with holding information from Nevotsky?

My opinion about the doping at USPS has been informed by the vast amount of "circumstantial" evidence that exists to show that a systematic team wide doping program was being ran under the watchful eye of M.Ferrari and administered by the ex-ONCE doctors that JB brought to the squad. Unless you are saying that Floyd Landis is lying?

Firstly,you have to prove that people have withheld information. Why do you assume that it somehow just happens. The BALCO case was a totally separate matter.

Secondly: Fine , that's your opinion. A bit Oliver Stone for me, but I am sure it fits with your world view on the issue. Stick with it.

Floyd lie?? Now why would I think that? Does he have a history of telling lies?...the best lie's are those that are sprinkled with enough truth to make them seem credible.

 

[Benotti69]

Beno, whether he was tested 500 times, 300 times or 100 times is hardly the issue. The fact is that he has been tested a lot and none of those tests over the past ten years have come back positive.

We know of the test for corticoid that he produced a back dated TUE for. It was accepted then but maybe proven now to be false. We will see. But UCI might have to open its files on its testing and the TdS in 2001 and the alleged positive from that and the subsequent donation to UCI is another avenue to be taken.

I am telling you now that no evidence from any historical testing will be admissible as evidence because it has already been tested and found to be not positive. Any defence counsel worth their salt would have a field day if the prosecution tried to suggest that such samples be re-tested. The second issue around that is that the US prosecutors have no access to those samples as they are the property of another nation and the French would not give them up. Why not you ask? because if they did and they were retested and found to be positive, where would that leave the credibility of the testing lab? So it will not happen...sorry to disappoint you.

Evidence from the retests from the 99 TdF came back positive from 6 samples. They were not admissable as evidence to get him a ban from sport but they are in themsleves proof of Armstrongs doping. Whether it can be used in an american court of law, i will wait and see. It may be got through the international court of arbitration or some such other path. I am sure that the feds might get it through an agency.

The rest of your post is about;if's, buts and maybe's. There is very little new coming out in the newspapers and most of what is on here is pure speculation. So what if Tyler Hamilton is speaking to investigators? Does that mean he is necessarily going to say anything adverse about Armstrong? Of course it doesn't. A lot of this is around eyewitness testimony, so we have a game of he said, she said...hardly stuff that will get you a criminal conviction without corroborating hard evidence and at this stage there has been none of that forthcoming.

If what? But What? Maybe what?.He doped and he is a fraud? You wanna wait till you hear the clink of the prison cell door to know whether what is screamingly obvious to anyone with half a brain is true? C'mon give yourself more credit!

You need a reality check. Whether you think he is lying or not is not the point. The point is that proof needs to be conclusive and from what I have seen so far, it is far from that. From your post you obviously have a strong emotional attachment to the outcome, I do not, I just call it as I see it.If I am wrong at the end of the day, well its no big deal to me.

I don't need a reality check. Read the papers. It all points to one thing. Doping and Fraud. Whether it will be proved in a court of law, which as we know is anything but fair, well we will see. But these guys dont pick impossible cases where they will fail.

I am amazed that the fanboys fail to notice that LA/JB and Pubic Stratalies have in the past made a huge deal of starting lawsuits against publications that have published alleged doping and fraud articles about LA, now not one announcement of a single lawsuit. Why? If these were lies he could clean up tenfold. Think of all that $$$$$$ for the fight against cancer. He would only have to win 2 or 3 for the rest to pay up before it gets to court. Why not now? Because it is true! He is finished in cycling plenty of time to start litigation against anybody and everybody who dares print that the myth is exactly that a myth! These are credible publications publishing these stories, not the national enquirer or tabloids.

So you wait till it is 'officially official', but stop with the persistent old LA line, 'never tested positive' because he has! "he was only a rider on the team" is the new mantra.Ok we are well beyond never tested positive, because it is known about the TdF'99 EPO tests, the corticoid positive and the TdS positive will i imagine come to light too. 3 strikes and it looks like he's out!

so ya think Canc will win the TT?

 

[hrotha]

You are assuming that former riders would give evidence to the affirmative. Many of them have retired and so even if they did indulge in doping practices,why do you assume they would admit to it? Not everyone feels the need to clear their conscience. I don't see too many ex pro's rushing to the press around the world, wanting to clear the slate.

Also it wouldn't render my argument invalid. Firstly they would have to provide evidence that they directly say Armstrong taking PED's or coaching/advising them around taking PED's. Obviously if all of them gave that testimony he would be in trouble,evidentially, but I think it highly unlikely that will be the case. Many may just say they have nothing to say or more likely, say that they did not see anything.

Your point was that, in court, Lance's "never tested positive" defense would hold. That wouldn't be the case if other riders talk about how the tests can be easily beaten. That has nothing to do with proving Armstrong took PEDs, that has to do with "never tested positive" being a weak defense that would be easily defeated.

This is not about clearing their conscience, this is about not lying in a federal investigation. Unless you believe the bulk of what Landis said was a lie? Sure, he's not the most credible fellow and you can doubt his motives or whatever, but what he said goes very well with the circumstancial evidence. Also, I suppose Andreu, Vaughters and others were lying too? I can't believe even for a second that you believe what Landis said is not for the most part true.

 

[SpartacusRox]

We know of the test for corticoid that he produced a back dated TUE for. It was accepted then but maybe proven now to be false. We will see. But UCI might have to open its files on its testing and the TdS in 2001 and the alleged positive from that and the subsequent donation to UCI is another avenue to be taken.



Evidence from the retests from the 99 TdF came back positive from 6 samples. They were not admissable as evidence to get him a ban from sport but they are in themsleves proof of Armstrongs doping. Whether it can be used in an american court of law, i will wait and see. It may be got through the international court of arbitration or some such other path. I am sure that the feds might get it through an agency.



If what? But What? Maybe what?.He doped and he is a fraud? You wanna wait till you hear the clink of the prison cell door to know whether what is screamingly obvious to anyone with half a brain is true? C'mon give yourself more credit!



I don't need a reality check. Read the papers. It all points to one thing. Doping and Fraud. Whether it will be proved in a court of law, which as we know is anything but fair, well we will see. But these guys dont pick impossible cases where they will fail.

I am amazed that the fanboys fail to notice that LA/JB and Pubic Stratalies have in the past made a huge deal of starting lawsuits against publications that have published alleged doping and fraud articles about LA, now not one announcement of a single lawsuit. Why? If these were lies he could clean up tenfold. Think of all that $$$$$$ for the fight against cancer. He would only have to win 2 or 3 for the rest to pay up before it gets to court. Why not now? Because it is true! He is finished in cycling plenty of time to start litigation against anybody and everybody who dares print that the myth is exactly that a myth! These are credible publications publishing these stories, not the national enquirer or tabloids.

So you wait till it is 'officially official', but stop with the persistent old LA line, 'never tested positive' because he has! "he was only a rider on the team" is the new mantra.Ok we are well beyond never tested positive, because it is known about the TdF'99 EPO tests, the corticoid positive and the TdS positive will i imagine come to light too. 3 strikes and it looks like he's out!

so ya think Canc will win the TT?

I am not promoting a "he never tested positive" line. I raised that because I knew it would be raised on here. I am saying that if the alleged positive tests are deemed inadmissable, then in an evidential sense they do not exist.

Yeah I do think he will win the TT, but the final TT in the TdF is sometimes hard to call because it depends on the relative fatigue levels of the riders. It is far different from say the World Champs TT where they all come in fresh. The course this year is pretty flat so it will favour him over say AC.

 

[badboygolf16v]

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

There was no test for EPO at the time the samples were tested in 1999, and all of the six samples were positive for EPO when tested for EPO. So they were not OK for EPO.

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

The rules of sanctioning someone in a sport are immaterial here. All that needs proving is that they contain a PED and are Armstrong's.

Thirdly because in a civil case the standard of proof is far lower than that required of the prosecution in a criminal case.

The standard of proof is the same for this particular evidence or not, regardless of civil or criminal proceedings, surely? The issues are: do the samples contain EPO; are the samples Armstrong's? The first is not problematic, the second perhaps more so. The UCI have already stated that the samples are Armstrong's, they would have to retract this.

Fourthly and leading on from that, the defense would have a field day with raising issues of the possibility of tampering with the evidence.

Ashenden can testify on this, he had first hand experience of this. Any suggestions of tampering are pure supposition.

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

I don't think this is relevant. The testing has already happened, so no further access to the samples is required.

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

See point above, no release is required as no retesting is needed.

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

I think, you think, but neither of us know. Where's one of our lawyer friends who could assist?

 

[SpartacusRox]

There was no test for EPO at the time the samples were tested in 1999, and all of the six samples were positive for EPO when tested for EPO. So they were not OK for EPO.



The rules of sanctioning someone in a sport are immaterial here. All that needs proving is that they contain a PED and are Armstrong's.



The standard of proof is the same for this particular evidence or not, regardless of civil or criminal proceedings, surely? The issues are: do the samples contain EPO; are the samples Armstrong's? The first is not problematic, the second perhaps more so. The UCI have already stated that the samples are Armstrong's, they would have to retract this.



Ashenden can testify on this, he had first hand experience of this. Any suggestions of tampering are pure supposition.



I don't think this is relevant. The testing has already happened, so no further access to the samples is required.



See point above, no release is required as no retesting is needed.



I think, you think, but neither of us know. Where's one of our lawyer friends who could assist?

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

 

[fabramowski]

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

holly crap! someone on here actually knows what he is talking about... un heard of around here....

 

[badboygolf16v]

holly crap! someone on here actually knows what he is talking about... un heard of around here....

Or thinks he knows what he is talking about.

There are some very informed posters on The Clinic.

You aint one of them.

 

[alvynmcq]

I am not promoting a "he never tested positive" line. I raised that because I knew it would be raised on here. I am saying that if the alleged positive tests are deemed inadmissable, then in an evidential sense they do not exist.

Yeah I do think he will win the TT, but the final TT in the TdF is sometimes hard to call because it depends on the relative fatigue levels of the riders. It is far different from say the World Champs TT where they all come in fresh. The course this year is pretty flat so it will favour him over say AC.

You didn't say "if the alleged tests are deemed inadmissable", you said they would be inadmissable. Can't move the goal post just because you get caught out.

I take it work is slow at the minute for you, considering you seem to be spending all day on here trying to shoot people down.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I am not promoting a "he never tested positive" line. I raised that because I knew it would be raised on here. I am saying that if the alleged positive tests are deemed inadmissable, then in an evidential sense they do not exist.

Yeah I do think he will win the TT, but the final TT in the TdF is sometimes hard to call because it depends on the relative fatigue levels of the riders. It is far different from say the World Champs TT where they all come in fresh. The course this year is pretty flat so it will favour him over say AC.

The 99 positives for EPO are a big question. At worst, they could be seen as corroborating evidence of doping, to support the eye witness testimony. I think they will be given some weight, considering the overall picture and depth of evidence that is presented. At best, they will be examined as direct evidence of doping, as this is not a USADA case, where very specific things must occur for the athlete to be positive. The rules in one mean nothing in the rules of the other venue.

Let's consider the Landis case, where they ran a CIR test on several B samples of his. On their own, they were not enough, no matter how far positive they were, to establish an AAF, since the A portion had been opened and used. But they were accepted as corroboration. In fact, the running of them, to establish corroboration, was highly unusual (and outside the rules, btw) considering the A's were negative on the T/E screening test. Yet, there was USADA, running B's alone, with no A positive, to get corroboration of synth T use in order to corroborate the findings of Floyd's sample at issue.

As evidence, they now have the potential to corroborate someone, say Tyler Hamilton, from that year. And before you go reaching for your SoL defense, this is not to be considered for a USADA or UCI adjudication but a US Federal criminal process. Quite a different venue. No wonder Lance mentioned he'd prefer it (this) be handled by WADA/USADA/UCI.... He has dodged them for years.

As a matter of fraud, it seems to me that the answer o whether the "team" had an organized doping program would be key. To the extent that Lance can be proven to directly dope, it may not be the sum issue. If the team can be proven to have had the program, then that may be sufficient to nail them for frauding the US Govt.

I feel the corroboration will be so one-sided, so pervasive, it will be very hard or Lance to claim EVERYONE is an axe-grinding, jealous and bitter former employee. George, Tyler, CVV, Landis, Zabrisky, on and on.

I think I will be first to call bullsheet on your claim you are a prosecutor of some sort, or even an attorney or even a paralegal. I am not buying it. Too reactive, too emotional and your posts are just too poor, in written form, and in underlying thought structure, to have that kind of job. Nope.

I would not toss claims around like that unless you are really ready to back it up. I highly doubt you will.