Lance's Spin Machine Drops into the Big Chainring

Jul 29, 2010
431
0
0
This same attorney was interviewed on "Nightline". A paunchy, out-of-shape late-50's windbag of a man, he called LA, "the hardest working athlete I've ever met."

C'mon, that's good enough for me. Should be good enough for all of us. Let's end this witchhunt now and begin the healing process! :D
 

editedbymod

BANNED
Jul 11, 2010
112
0
0
ricara said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5431631&campaign

Oh, that big ol', bad ol' USADA -- they're bribing riders to testify against Lance...:rolleyes:

What I can't work out. Is he suggesting the 'other' riders will lie about Armstrong doping to reduce their own doping bans or is he suggesting Armstrong doped but is not being offered a similar deal?

The beauty in all of this is that no one is talking to Lance and he hates hit. They're struggling with the PR war because they don't know what they're fighting.
 
editedbymod said:
What I can't work out. Is he suggesting the 'other' riders will lie about Armstrong doping to reduce their own doping bans or is he suggesting Armstrong doped but is not being offered a similar deal?

The beauty in all of this is that no one is talking to Lance and he hates hit. They're struggling with the PR war because they don't know what they're fighting.
I'd say he's suggesting USADA is doing what others did when they offered some bling bling to anyone who could come out with doping stories about LeMond.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
I'm actually kind of surprised USADA is doing any thing right now. I thought is was all the Feds.
 
hrotha said:
I'd say he's suggesting USADA is doing what others did when they offered some bling bling to anyone who could come out with doping stories about LeMond.

Kinda curious how the anti-Lemond vitriol has died down to a whimper over the last few days. Hard to target one guy when everyone is out to get you I guess...
 
ricara said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5431631&campaign

Oh, that big ol', bad ol' USADA -- they're bribing riders to testify against Lance...:rolleyes:


What Herman is desperately attempting to characterize as something inappropriate, is actually a very forward-thinking, progressive provision in the WADA code.

There's nothing that prevents USADA from inviting athletes suspected of doping to reveal not just their own story, but the details of others' doping that they observed or were aware of, in hopes of earning a reduction of their (possible) sanction.

Just as Dan Staite was apparently targeted for testing by UKAD as a result of 3rd party information, former teammates of Lance Armstrong might choose to provide evidence against him to USADA, or to a government agency - in this case with the hope of seeing their own potential liability reduced.

The WADA Code provides:

10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations

An Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility for an anti-doping rule violation may, prior to a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of the time to appeal, suspend a part of the period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual case where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another Person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person.

After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping Organization may only suspend a part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA and the applicable International Federation. The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime, the non-suspended period under this section must be no less than eight (8) years.

If the Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility under this Article, the Anti-Doping Organization shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision. If the Anti-Doping Organization subsequently reinstates any part of Article 2.8 is involved and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectible [sic] in Testing. The maximum suspension of the Ineligibility period shall only be applied in very exceptional cases.

An additional factor to be considered in connection with the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation is any performance-enhancing benefit which the Person providing Substantial Assistance may be likely to still enjoy. As a general matter, the earlier in the results management process the Substantial Assistance is provided, the greater the percentage of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended. If the Athlete or other Person who is asserted to have committed an anti-doping rule violation claims the suspended period of Ineligibility because the Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the Substantial Assistance which was anticipated, the Athlete or other Person may appeal the reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.
 
MacRoadie said:
Kinda curious how the anti-Lemond vitriol has died down to a whimper over the last few days. Hard to target one guy when everyone is out to get you I guess...
Yeah. On second thought, I shouldn't have brought it up, lest that summon the critters back.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
editedbymod said:
What I can't work out. Is he suggesting the 'other' riders will lie about Armstrong doping to reduce their own doping bans or is he suggesting Armstrong doped but is not being offered a similar deal?

The beauty in all of this is that no one is talking to Lance and he hates hit. They're struggling with the PR war because they don't know what they're fighting.


What they're really afraid of is that they are going to be fighting on ALL FRONTS. Lance has postured his claim of innocence in a winner take all framework. There are too many people and situations for them to keep up with and that's frightening and expensive to deal with.
His attorney states the obvious and implicates that someone might chose to be dishonest. Of course he can't say who might do that or he'd add to the expense of defending his client.
 
May 8, 2009
133
0
0
ricara said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5431631&campaign

Oh, that big ol', bad ol' USADA -- they're bribing riders to testify against Lance...:rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see who bites. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a bunch of current pros wanting to take the bait absent substantial proof against themselves. Now if they have a good case against a current rider, then there is probably enough incentive for them to finger Armstrong.

I do think Armstrong's attorney has a point with regard to the fact that we are talking about potential criminal indictments against Armstrong. It is fine for the USADA to say give us info and we will reduce your sporting sanction, but this is a little different. Here they are saying give us evidence to convict someone of a crime in exchange for leniency for a sporting violation. That is a pretty big difference and could be construed as bribing someone to provide evidence in a criminal proceeding.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
JayZee said:
It will be interesting to see who bites. I could be wrong, but I just don't see a bunch of current pros wanting to take the bait absent substantial proof against themselves. Now if they have a good case against a current rider, then there is probably enough incentive for them to finger Armstrong.

I do think Armstrong's attorney has a point with regard to the fact that we are talking about potential criminal indictments against Armstrong. It is fine for the USADA to say give us info and we will reduce your sporting sanction, but this is a little different. Here they are saying give us evidence to convict someone of a crime in exchange for leniency for a sporting violation. That is a pretty big difference and could be construed as bribing someone to provide evidence in a criminal proceeding.

Too late, 4 riders are already talking...plus a couple friends.

Fat boy Herman is running scared. His golden goose is cooked. He is searching for something to spin. First it was crying about non existent leaks now he is crying because people are no longer scared of wonderboy and are telling the truth. Sucks to be toady.
 

SpartacusRox

BANNED
May 6, 2010
711
0
0
Race Radio said:
Too late, 4 riders are already talking...plus a couple friends.

Fat boy Herman is running scared. His golden goose is cooked. He is searching for something to spin. First it was crying about non existent leaks now he is crying because people are no longer scared of wonderboy and are telling the truth. Sucks to be toady.

You have links to those 4 riders and also their friends? Also you obviously have links to what they have said to investigators given that you have insinuated that whatever evidence they have given is against Armstrong.

If you could post the links and/or transcripts it would be good thanks.
 
SpartacusRox said:
You have links to those 4 riders and also their friends? Also you obviously have links to what they have said to investigators given that you have insinuated that whatever evidence they have given is against Armstrong.

If you could post the links and/or transcripts it would be good thanks.

Are you really asking for internet links to what is at this point sealed testimony?
You can either choose to believe that RR knows people who have dropped hints or not. But links to testimony in an ongoing GJ investigation? Really?
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
We need to keep the source in mind. Henman is pretty much trying to fight a battle in the press because he's not allowed inside the investigation at this point.

Lance Armstrong's attorneys say the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is offering cyclists a "sweetheart deal" if they testify or provide evidence that the seven-time Tour de France winner cheated by doping.

If those riders have been caught doping
, the deal from USADA could result in a reduced ban from competition and other incentives, attorney Tim Herman told The Associated Press on Monday.
Armstrong's attorneys say USADA's current offer is for riders to talk to federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who could then give the information to USADA. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Even if it's all true, it doesn't seem like a lot to me. Step 1 is getting guys to talk to Novitsky, but a subpoena gets that done more effectively. The only advantage would be if it's a general offer and might bring in a rider who knows something but is some how below the radar of the investigation.
Step 2 is that the investigator "could" turn an admission of doping over to the USADA, but does it really get outside the grand jury process? And the wording of "if those riders have been caught doping" means what? The UCI obviously hasn't caught anyone. Is this meant to be permission to take future risks and pull out a get out of jail free card if they get caught?

It all sounds like more wind to me. Earlier stories already had Landis trying to get immunity for other riders before this all became a huge deal. I think Henman just needs to get his name in the press and bank some billable hours, because at this point, he and Lance haven't been invited to the party.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
SpartacusRox said:
You have links to those 4 riders and also their friends? Also you obviously have links to what they have said to investigators given that you have insinuated that whatever evidence they have given is against Armstrong.

If you could post the links and/or transcripts it would be good thanks.

There are more than that and of course not; no one has that information. Nothing's obvious except your attempts at being oblivious. And that makes me sad, again.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
theswordsman said:
...Even if it's all true, it doesn't seem like a lot to me.
Step 1 is getting guys to talk to Novitsky, but a subpoena gets that done more effectively. The only advantage would be if it's a general offer and might bring in a rider who knows something but is some how below the radar of the investigation.
Step 2 is that the investigator "could" turn an admission of doping over to the USADA, but does it really get outside the grand jury process? And the wording of "if those riders have been caught doping" means what? ....


Herman appears to be grossly exaggerating when describing the "sweetheart deal" from USADA. USADA would handle any doping sanctions, but there is no provision in the WADA code that allows USADA to "get out the eraser" and guarantee that "everything is cool". The maximum they can offer is a 3/4 reduction in suspension, so that part is clearly wind.

"If those riders have been caught doping" probably means:
If riders give evidence to the grand jury, and the grand jury decides to indict anyone, then they might have to repeat their evidence in a public trial. Admitting their own doping as part of evidence at a public trial means they would "get caught" doping by USADA.

I suspect USADA is just reminding anyone who is being asked to talk to the investigation that, although giving evidence might expose them to doping suspensions in the long run, the suspensions should be shorter than the usual 2 years.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i'm just chucking here:eek:

a legitimate effort by an anti doping agency to have riders expose doping is a bribes and the lawyer client's, a currently investigated alleged doper's 'contributions' (that no one can clearly recall how much and when) to the cycling agency were 'donations' to anti-doping :confused::confused:

i need to take a deep breath.
 
python said:
i'm just chucking here:eek:

a legitimate effort by an anti doping agency to have riders expose doping is a bribes and the lawyer client's, a currently investigated alleged doper's 'contributions' (that no one can clearly recall how much and when) to the cycling agency were 'donations' to anti-doping :confused::confused:

i need to take a deep breath.

The magical world of Public Strategies.

Enjoy the ride.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Isn't there another scenario? Hamilton says yes I doped but I didn't see anybody else..and yes I have already been punished and retired from cycling. George, Levi, DaveZ and all others say I didn't do anything and I didn't see anything and buy the way I still want to sell clothing, road id's and nut cream.When Armstrong calls for all the test results as proof of his claims there would appear to be some data on his side. He claims he was misquoted while drugged up in hospital room 10 years ago.. unsure what judge will hang you for a non recorded statement made while emotional and and on heavy meds and chemo
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ricara said:
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5431631&campaign

Oh, that big ol', bad ol' USADA -- they're bribing riders to testify against Lance...:rolleyes:

Wait a minute, I thought Armstrong was all about cleaning cleaning out the donkeys who eat bon bon's in the winter and dope to get results. I mean, he bought the UCI a machine to help fight doping. Why is it that he would have a problem with the USADA doing everything within its power to root out doping? No other rider has ever donated $120,000 to the anti-doping effort. I'd think a guy willing to part with that kind of scratch (to him its pocket change, and I am sure he laughed at how cheaply he was able to buy them off, but I digress) for the righteous cause of anti-doping would be in favor of doing what it takes to clean up the sport.
 
fatandfast said:
Isn't there another scenario? Hamilton says yes I doped but I didn't see anybody else..and yes I have already been punished and retired from cycling. George, Levi, DaveZ and all others say I didn't do anything and I didn't see anything and buy the way I still want to sell clothing, road id's and nut cream.When Armstrong calls for all the test results as proof of his claims there would appear to be some data on his side. He claims he was misquoted while drugged up in hospital room 10 years ago.. unsure what judge will hang you for a non recorded statement made while emotional and and on heavy meds and chemo

You forget that if LA "calls for all the test results as proof of his claims" at minimum there are the 6 positive EPO tests from 1999. If more of his old samples are tested I think it's likely there would be even more positives. While these re-tests have been dismissed by the UCI as outside their sanctioning procedure I doubt they'd be dismissed so readily by a Grand Jury. Especially with Ashenden, creator of the EPO test, on record saying the tests are legit.
 
Mar 10, 2009
341
0
0
BikeCentric said:
You forget that if LA "calls for all the test results as proof of his claims" at minimum there are the 6 positive EPO tests from 1999. If more of his old samples are tested I think it's likely there would be even more positives. While these re-tests have been dismissed by the UCI as outside their sanctioning procedure I doubt they'd be dismissed so readily by a Grand Jury. Especially with Ashenden, creator of the EPO test, on record saying the tests are legit.

isn't the problem that they only have the B samples. As such they can only be tested once. WADA requires two positives which can't happen with just a B sample.
 
Jul 3, 2010
115
0
0
Presumably if they decided that it was important to prove that doping went on from a legal perspective, if there were positives from a number of B-samples, it would be seen as legally robust, even if it didn't conform to WADA rules.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
sherer said:
isn't the problem that they only have the B samples. As such they can only be tested once. WADA requires two positives which can't happen with just a B sample.

Tell that to Marion Jones and Kyle LeoGrande. The Non-Analytical positive is increasingly successful.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,388
0
0
Tim_sleepless said:
Presumably if they decided that it was important to prove that doping went on from a legal perspective, if there were positives from a number of B-samples, it would be seen as legally robust, even if it didn't conform to WADA rules.

Are those tests documented in a way the US legal system would accept as evidence?

I remember reading articles about the samples, with copied documents from a french lab. But the lab never officially released those documents, did they? The tests weren't official tests at all I thought... they were retesting old samples for some other purpose (new EPO test? Statistical analysis?) and some reporter went back and connected the dots to prove that some of them belonged to Lance.

I really have no clue about the legal side of this... but at first glance my memory of the article wouldn't make me think there was anything particularly legally admissable there.