Evidence: Links Only!

[LauraLyn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-keith-devlin/lance-armstrong-blood-tests_b_1829050.html

Mathematics and evidence in the Lance Armstrong case.

For what it's worth.

 

[gheizhwinder]

The above is also a blog.

 

[LauraLyn]

Forbes on "the evidence."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb...nti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/

A former prosecutor's perspective on the relationship between "due process" and "evidence" in the Armstrong vs. USADA case.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Forbes on "the evidence."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb...nti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/

A former prosecutor's perspective on the relationship between "due process" and "evidence" in the Armstrong vs. USADA case.

\\

Hard to believe the perpetuation of these falsehoods......

 

[la.margna]

Forbes on "the evidence."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorb...nti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/

A former prosecutor's perspective on the relationship between "due process" and "evidence" in the Armstrong vs. USADA case.

Can somebody tell me how this article can be regarded as "evidence"?!!! joke! it's a discussion about the evidence from somebody who has not seen it and has three incorrect facts in just one sentence

The first point Deming raises is that despite being randomly tested over 500 times, without warning, in competition and out of competition, during the day or night, and by different labs, every test Armstrong was given turned out to be negative.

500 = incorrect
without warning = incorrect
turned out to be negative = incorrect

Mods, pls remove my post and the post with the Forbes link.

 

[the big ring]

Can somebody tell me how this article can be regarded as "evidence"?!!! joke! it's a discussion about the evidence from somebody who has not seen it and has three incorrect facts in just one sentence

500 = incorrect
without warning = incorrect
turned out to be negative = incorrect

Mods, pls remove my post and the post with the Forbes link.

LauraLyn is an LA apologist. There are a number of links he has posted in this thread that are opinion, not evidence, notably post #5 from Alexei.

 

[Rotwang]

Here is the sworn deposition from Lance in the SCA case.
Lance states more than once that he has never taken any PEDs.

Perjury charges can be levied against anyone who lies in such a deposition, as it is equivalent to sworn testimony in court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony

I predict that Lance will seek an out of court settlement, if and when SCA come asking for their money back.

 

[LauraLyn]

Can somebody tell me how this article can be regarded as "evidence"?!!! joke! it's a discussion about the evidence from somebody who has not seen it and has three incorrect facts in just one sentence

500 = incorrect
without warning = incorrect
turned out to be negative = incorrect

. . . .

LauraLyn is an LA apologist. There are a number of links he has posted in this thread that are opinion, not evidence, notably post #5 from Alexei.

Please let me point out that there is not a single reference in this thread to an article written by someone who has seen the USADA evidence in the case against Armstrong & Co.

[I do not think many people reading The Clinic miss the uncritical repetition of Lance's PR in articles discussing the evidence.]

Any reasonable discussion of any evidence depends upon allowing people with differing viewpoints to contribute. "Group think" doesn't work in a court room though it does work well for people who believe in omerta's and enforcing them, on the road and next to the road.

When discussing the evidence, you may want to consider how Lance Armstrong behaves when he is confronted with those having a differing viewpoint on matters of evidence: He insults them, he belittles them, he invents lies about them, and he bullies them. And the simple fact of the matter is that too few people stood up to him.

A danger with hating people so deeply is that you sometimes start to behave like them.

 

[D-Queued]

(New) evidence on number of tests:

McQuaid said 215 tests throughout Armstrong’s career were overseen by the UCI

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Here is the sworn deposition from Lance in the SCA case.
Lance states more than once that he has never taken any PEDs.

Perjury charges can be levied against anyone who lies in such a deposition, as it is equivalent to sworn testimony in court.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony

I predict that Lance will seek an out of court settlement, if and when SCA come asking for their money back.

That deposition was taken in 2005. Lance is forever safe from any perjury prosecution based on that deposition.

Any perjury concerns that Lance has are probably related to any future statements that he may be called upon to make while under oath. His problem is that if he ever states under oath that he didn't dope in a proceeding where that statement matters, then he might later be confronted in a perjury prosecution with "overwhelming evidence."

Lance's top game now is avoiding sworn testimony (and avoiding that perjury risk). This means that Lance's blood is in the water for anybody with a colorable (and timely) argument that Lance's lying about his doping caused them harm or damage.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

(New) evidence on number of tests:

McQuaid said 215 tests throughout Armstrong’s career were overseen by the UCI

Dave.

\\

Inch by inch, UCI is 'narcing' on wonderboy.....the line has ben drawn. I think Lance is all by his lonesome now!!

 

[LauraLyn]

http://www.dopeology.org/people/Lance_Armstrong/

An introductory overview of Lance Armstrong and doping.

 

[roadfreak44]

A direct quote from the UCI reprort on the LNDD labs findign EPO in the 1999 urine samples:


Finally, the LNDD has admitted that it is unable to produce any “chain of custody”,
making it impossible to link, in a sufficiently reliable manner for doping control
purposes, a result to a particular sample. Moreover the fact that the samples
were opened previously and used for unknown research purposes means that
the “integrity” of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France can
also not be guaranteed. This creates a serious problem, as the LNDD has stated
that the analysis of urine samples from patients having received r-EPO for medical
reasons, as well as urine samples “spiked” with r-EPO, were part of the same
research project. Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”,
the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have
been contaminated can not be ruled out.

 

[Carols]

A direct quote from the UCI reprort on the LNDD labs findign EPO in the 1999 urine samples:


Finally, the LNDD has admitted that it is unable to produce any “chain of custody”,
making it impossible to link, in a sufficiently reliable manner for doping control
purposes, a result to a particular sample. Moreover the fact that the samples
were opened previously and used for unknown research purposes means that
the “integrity” of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France can
also not be guaranteed. This creates a serious problem, as the LNDD has stated
that the analysis of urine samples from patients having received r-EPO for medical
reasons, as well as urine samples “spiked” with r-EPO, were part of the same
research project. Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”,
the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have
been contaminated can not be ruled out.

Links only thread...Link Please?

 

[the big ring]

Links only thread...Link Please?

The Vrijman report.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/doping-report.pdf

 

[poupou]

WADA response to the farcical (WADA word) Vrijman's report :
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Media-Center/Press-release/WADA-Completely-Rejects-Vrijman-Report/

WADA Completely Rejects Vrijman Report

June 2, 2006

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) today completely rejected the so-called “Vrijman report” submitted to the International Cycling Union (UCI) in relation to the publication appearing in L’Équipe in August 2005 that concluded Lance Armstrong had used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France.
WADA expressed its astonishment that the UCI would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report, especially since UCI had had more than six weeks during which to review the draft report and to correct the many factual errors contained in it.
WADA’s preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.
“WADA is an independent agency, comprised of equal representatives from the sports movement and the governments, which is concerned with the integrity of sport and the health of the athletes who practice it,” said WADA’s Chairman Richard W. Pound. “Our only interest in this matter is to determine the facts in an objective manner, whatever they may be. The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical. Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves. (emphase added)”

And more : http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/News_Center/News/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

 

[D-Queued]

A direct quote from the UCI reprort on the LNDD labs findign EPO in the 1999 urine samples:


...

That is all you needed to read.

As noted, farcical.

wrt to 'chain of custody' or anything else that Vrijman alleges that LNDD might have suggested, Vrijman never completed his interview with LNDD. They assembled information for him and he never, ever returned or reviewed it.

Dave.

EDIT to add: Sorry, I forgot that this is 'evidence links' only. I can find the relevant quotes for the above, but this is a waste of my time as the Vrijman report is a waste of everyone's time.

Please feel free to delete my post per the guidance for this thread if it does not meet the hurdle required.

 

[D-Queued]

A direct quote from the UCI reprort on the LNDD labs findign EPO in the 1999 urine samples:


Finally, the LNDD has admitted that it is unable to produce any “chain of custody”,
making it impossible to link, in a sufficiently reliable manner for doping control
purposes, a result to a particular sample. Moreover the fact that the samples
were opened previously and used for unknown research purposes means that
the “integrity” of the urine samples from the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France can
also not be guaranteed. This creates a serious problem, as the LNDD has stated
that the analysis of urine samples from patients having received r-EPO for medical
reasons, as well as urine samples “spiked” with r-EPO, were part of the same
research project. Given the absence of an “internal laboratory chain of custody”,
the possibility that urine samples of the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France might have
been contaminated can not be ruled out.

Ok, this time I will provide the quotes and the link.

In an improperly submitted post (no links, no quotes - against the rules of this thread), I observed that the statement in the Vrijman report is erroneous as Vrijman never pursued collecting the evidence that could have backed up his claims.

The following is from the official - uncontested by UCI - WADA response to the Vrijman report. Link provided by Poupou above: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

"WADA heard no more from Mr. Vrijman. WADA received no request for any personal interview, nor any follow up to the responses to the questions that WADA had provided to Mr. Vrijman. WADA was not shown the report in draft form (although this was accorded to UCI, with at least two drafts being provided to the federation), nor was it asked to respond to allegations made against WADA within the report so that its comments would be fully and properly investigated and recorded. In most jurisdictions around the world, this blatant demonstration of bias and lack of proper and professional
process is seen as a breach of natural justice.

...

WADA responded to all two of Mr. Vrijman’s letters in a complete and timely manner and offered to provide additional information. WADA cannot be faulted for the inquirer’s lack of follow up."

The last bolded part is my favorite.

Pure smokescreen by UCI/Vrijman.

Dave.

Edit: Link fixed

 

[LauraLyn]

Views of lawyers on the evidence and the case against Lance Armstrong:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19413613

 

[FitSsikS]

The following is from the official - uncontested by UCI - WADA response to the Vrijman report. Link provided by Poupou above: http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Ne...man_report.pdf

The link didn't work for me. ("bad request")


Let's try this one...errgg...push!!

 

[biker jk]

Australian Sports Scientist Robin Parisotto's analysis of Lance Armstrong's blood values from 2008-9.

"Whatever way you cut it, Armstrong's blood values are undoubtedly indicative of blood doping".

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html

 

[Baldwin]

I don't know if it was already published, haven't seen the news on CN main website so I place it here. If that's the wrong topic - sorry, feel free to move it.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTYzMDQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=ODExOTA&LangId=1

It is a motion accepted by the UCI Congress on September 21st 2012.
What do you think?

 

[hiero2]

Today, in the Sunday Times (London), David Walsh published an article with some details, apparently including statements of involvement of Kristen Armstrong. The Sunday Times piece appears to be gated - I can't get to it. VN says it is behind a paywall, and it looks like that to me.

CN and VN cover slightly different aspects of the Walsh article.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/news/journalist-david-walsh-says-usada-report-will-make-uncomfortable-reading-for-uci_240383

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

 

[hiero2]

From the original thread. As the OP says, a long shot, and also old. However, it is useful background.

Long shot...

Hemassist

In the late 1990s, according to a source with knowledge of the government's investigation of Armstrong, the Texan gained access to a drug, in clinical trial, called HemAssist, developed by Baxter Healthcare Corp. HemAssist was to be used for cases of extreme blood loss. In animal studies, it had been shown to boost the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity, without as many risks as EPO. (Armstrong, through his lawyer, denies ever taking HemAssist.)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/01/18/lance.armstrong/index.html#ixzz24bjqqsrY

The Science of Sport Discussion:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/01/drug-of-2011-hemassist-and-armstrong.html

& Bicycling:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/01/18/talking-points/

and an interesting equine based discussion of the ramifications of changes in testing protocol post Armstrong:

http://www.horsejunkiesunited.com/2012/08/25/lance-armstrong-and-doping-controls-what-this-case-could-mean-for-equestrian-sports/

 

[hiero2]

From the original thread. Part of the current conversation in 2012, post USADA charges.

WADA Supports USADA. UCI "smells of corruption:"

WADA letter to UCI: (Thanks RR)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102398382/WADA-Letter-to-UCI

John Fahey, WADA slamming Lance:

http://www.zimbio.com/Travis+Tygart/articles/eK6JggMt2X3/WADA+head+John+Fahey+says+Armstrong+stance

”He had a right to contest the charges. He chose not to,” Fahey said. ”The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them. Under the rules, penalties can now be imposed.”

Phil Anderson on the UCI:

Anderson has previously admitted publicly that he was ashamed of the sport following the Festina affair in 1998 and says now that the real concern is with cycling's governing body. USADA's evidence against Armstrong is said to have included an alleged cover up of a doping control at the 2001 Tour de Suisse, with witnesses reiterating earlier claims made by Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton that a positive test for EPO was covered up. The UCI denies the claim and began proceedings against Landis.

"That sort of smells of corruption at the highest level within the sport and if that is the case, it's hard to make comment," Anderson told Cyclingnews. "It would be very disappointing if that is the case because these are the people (UCI) that run our sport.

"They're [the UCI is] in dangerous territory I guess and they will want the whole thing to go away. It's not good for the sport to have this sort of publicity. It's like a bad dream for them, I'm sure."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/anderson-maintains-support-for-armstrong