errors in usada investigation + affidavits?

[sniper]

some points worthy of discussion in this negative review of USADA's Lance investigation and the affidavits.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/26/response.pdf

1. according to the author, and imo this is a compelling point, there's something wrong with the dates of the testimonies

Incredibly, all but one of the affidavits cited by USADA were signed in September
and October of this year.

Why is this incredible? For two reasons:
First, all of the key witnesses in this case only swore under oath AFTER they
knew that Armstrong was not contesting the USADA allegations (a decision
announced on August 24, 2012). In other words, not a single key witness was
willing to swear under oath until they were absolutely sure that there would be no
adversarial proceeding, until they were absolutely sure that they would not be
subject to cross examination, and until they were absolutely sure that their
testimony would not be impeached by third parties or by special deals that the
witnesses had made with USADA

2. S/he alleges that

Paragraph three of Vaughters’ affidavit to USADA directly contradicts testimony
that he provided under oath in the SCA cas

(not sure in what way yet)

3. This point has been discussed ad nauseum already, but I think it's worth repeating. USADA's stringent focus on Lance has had the obviously negative side effect of letting other dopers escape with six-month off-season deals.

In other words, USADA, which says it wants to clean up the sport of cycling, actually enabled already-confessed cheaters to continue racing throughout the summer in the biggest races of the year.

This is especially damning in light of the - imo indisputable - fact that several affidavits contain obvious lies about the dates at which riders allegedly stopped doping.

The lies now make more sense to me in light of point #1 above. I.e. the riders knew there wasn't going to be any follow-up investigation. They could get away with implicating Lance and lying about certain parts of their own carreer that weren't relevant to the investigation.

 

[del1962]

Not sure of the relevance as that would include at least one of Tyler and Floyd, don't see why either of these two would waut, same with Emma O'Reilly and Frankie Andreau

Probably another reason why signed then

 

[sniper]

to be sure, I personally (unlike the author of that document) think Tygart went after Lance for mostly the right reasons. The six-month bans and the many lies in the affidavits are just a very unlucky side-effect.
What I don't understand though is why he later went on the record vouching for the truthfulness of those affidavits.
(well, I understand it from a PR perspective, I guess, but it's wrong from an anti-doping perspective)

 

[GJB123]

The first point has been weel and truly covered in one of the many Lance-USADA threads. Go look it up! I think it was Race Radio or Chewbacca who explained that there was no reason for the witnesses to sign sworn statements if f Lance was going to challenge and they would have been cross-examined under oath. Once it was clear Lance wasn't going to challenge they need to complete the files by drawing up the affidavits. If understood correctly this is common practice.

In a way I am not surprised you of all people like to recognize a conspiracy theory in all of this including the chance of taking another swipe at Vaughters. Don't you ever get tired?

 

[sniper]

Re:

Not sure of the relevance as that would include at least one of Tyler and Floyd, don't see why either of these two would waut, same with Emma O'Reilly and Frankie Andreau

Probably another reason why signed then

not sure what you mean.

the author's argument is very clear:

not a single key witness was willing to swear under oath until they were absolutely sure that there would be no adversarial proceeding, until they were absolutely sure that they would not be subject to cross examination, and until they were absolutely sure that their testimony would not be impeached by third parties or by special deals that the witnesses had made with USADA

If that's the case, it's also clear why so many of the affidavits score remarkably high on the BS barometer, especially in terms of when riders allegedly stopped doping.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

Not sure of the relevance as that would include at least one of Tyler and Floyd, don't see why either of these two would waut, same with Emma O'Reilly and Frankie Andreau

Probably another reason why signed then

not sure what you mean.

the author's argument is very clear:

not a single key witness was willing to swear under oath until they were absolutely sure that there would be no adversarial proceeding, until they were absolutely sure that they would not be subject to cross examination, and until they were absolutely sure that their testimony would not be impeached by third parties or by special deals that the witnesses had made with USADA

If that's the case, it's also clear why so many of the affidavits score remarkably high on the BS barometer, especially in terms of when riders allegedly stopped doping.

The affidavits basically contain what they have stated before and was only written down later for completeness sake as there would be no cross examination. They needed the affidavits for the reasoned decision. This would have been very different if Lance had challenged in which they would have to be heard under oath and no affidavits were necessary.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The first point has been weel and truly covered in one of the many Lance-USADA threads. Go look it up! I think it was Race Radio or Chewbacca who explained that there was no reason for the witnesses to sign sworn statements if f Lance was going to challenge and they would have been cross-examined under oath. Once it was clear Lance wasn't going to challenge they need to complete the files by drawing up the affidavits. If understood correctly this is common practice.

In a way I am not surprised you of all people like to recognize a conspiracy theory in all of this including the chance of taking another swipe at Vaughters. Don't you ever get tired?

can you for once stick to the topic without making it personal?

no conspiracy either.

I understand that it is common practice. In order to get to one guy, you need to make deals with others.
I'm just wondering if the issue with the dates is a legitimate point of critique and whether it facilitated active riders to lie about the time frame of their doping.

The vaughters issue, maybe someone else can comment on that. I don't know what the author refers to. I do know Vaughters was on Lance's side in 2005 so it's no surprise that there are contradictory statements in his two testimonies.

Tired only of your baiting.

 

[GJB123]

As for the testimony given in earlier instances (ie. the SCA case) I think Vaughters was quite adamant that he didn't speak the full truth in the SCA case in fear of reprisal by LA.

The review is nonsense written by an LA-groupie who is having difficulties coming to terms with the fact that his hero cheated the hell out of the sport, his teammates and a lot of other people around him. Does he or she also address the fact that Lance admitted to most of the allegations and chose not to challenge for that reason?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Not sure of the relevance as that would include at least one of Tyler and Floyd, don't see why either of these two would waut, same with Emma O'Reilly and Frankie Andreau

Probably another reason why signed then

not sure what you mean.

the author's argument is very clear:

not a single key witness was willing to swear under oath until they were absolutely sure that there would be no adversarial proceeding, until they were absolutely sure that they would not be subject to cross examination, and until they were absolutely sure that their testimony would not be impeached by third parties or by special deals that the witnesses had made with USADA

If that's the case, it's also clear why so many of the affidavits score remarkably high on the BS barometer, especially in terms of when riders allegedly stopped doping.

The affidavits basically contain what they have stated before and was only written down later for completeness sake as there would be no cross examination. They needed the affidavits for the reasoned decision. This would have been very different if Lance had challenged in which they would have to be heard under oath and no affidavits were necessary.

cheers, that clarifies a lot.

see, we can settle this without the insults.

 

[GJB123]

Re: Re:

The first point has been weel and truly covered in one of the many Lance-USADA threads. Go look it up! I think it was Race Radio or Chewbacca who explained that there was no reason for the witnesses to sign sworn statements if f Lance was going to challenge and they would have been cross-examined under oath. Once it was clear Lance wasn't going to challenge they need to complete the files by drawing up the affidavits. If understood correctly this is common practice.

In a way I am not surprised you of all people like to recognize a conspiracy theory in all of this including the chance of taking another swipe at Vaughters. Don't you ever get tired?

can you for once stick to the topic without making it personal?

no conspiracy either.

I understand that it is common practice. In order to get to one guy, you need to make deals with others.
I'm just wondering if the issue with the dates is a legitimate point of critique and whether it facilitated active riders to lie about the time frame of their doping.

The vaughters issue, maybe someone else can comment on that. I don't know what the author refers to. I do know Vaughters was on Lance's side in 2005 so it's no surprise that there are contradictory statements in his two testimonies.

Tired only of your baiting.

When I said it was common practice I wasn't referring to using one witness to turn on the other (although this is indeed common practice). I was referring too the fact of drafting the affidavits after LA chose not to challenge. That is common practice when drafting the reasoned decision.

 

[sniper]

Re:

As for the testimony given in earlier instances (ie. the SCA case) I think Vaughters was quite adamant that he didn't speak the full truth in the SCA case in fear of reprisal by LA.

The review is nonsense written by an LA-groupie who is having difficulties coming to terms with the fact that his hero cheated the hell out of the sport, his teammates and a lot of other people around him. Does he or she also address the fact that Lance admitted to most of the allegations and chose not to challenge for that reason?

that i do not dispute.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

The first point has been weel and truly covered in one of the many Lance-USADA threads. Go look it up! I think it was Race Radio or Chewbacca who explained that there was no reason for the witnesses to sign sworn statements if f Lance was going to challenge and they would have been cross-examined under oath. Once it was clear Lance wasn't going to challenge they need to complete the files by drawing up the affidavits. If understood correctly this is common practice.

In a way I am not surprised you of all people like to recognize a conspiracy theory in all of this including the chance of taking another swipe at Vaughters. Don't you ever get tired?

can you for once stick to the topic without making it personal?

no conspiracy either.

I understand that it is common practice. In order to get to one guy, you need to make deals with others.
I'm just wondering if the issue with the dates is a legitimate point of critique and whether it facilitated active riders to lie about the time frame of their doping.

The vaughters issue, maybe someone else can comment on that. I don't know what the author refers to. I do know Vaughters was on Lance's side in 2005 so it's no surprise that there are contradictory statements in his two testimonies.

Tired only of your baiting.

When I said it was common practice I wasn't referring to using one witness to turn on the other (although this is indeed common practice). I was referring too the fact of drafting the affidavits after LA chose not to challenge. That is common practice when drafting the reasoned decision.

ok, thanks for clarifying.

i haven't followed the lance threads.
just wanted to clarify at least this one point.
thread imo can be closed now.

wrt vaughters: obviously i think the "lance made me" fassade is ridiculous, but let's not go there