Levi Leipheimer

[del1962]

From reading his affadavit, I could not work out when he stopped.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Oh and it is REALLY in the USADA's interest to push hard for the longest ban possible on any of the "6 month-ers" shown to have lied.

When you get the chance to tell the truth in return for a deal, you better tell the whole truth, else we will come back and nail you. Thats a message to reinforce.

 

[blackcat]

Levi said in October 2012he had been clean for more than 5 years, so presumably stopped after the TdF 2007 (matching his affidavit, i believe).

I can't find anything, but I wonder, did USADA vouch for the truthfulness of Levi?
Wonder what Bruyneel's testimony brings to light wrt Levi, and what conseuqences Levi might face if found to have lied under oath.

ow, and RR on twitter
no way Levi stopped in 2007.

5'1" angry.

5'4" with hgh and a bobble head

 

[blackcat]

Oh and it is REALLY in the USADA's interest to push hard for the longest ban possible on any of the "6 month-ers" shown to have lied.

When you get the chance to tell the truth in return for a deal, you better tell the whole truth, else we will come back and nail you. Thats a message to reinforce.

give them +24 months.

serve your 6 months. Then get the other 24 you deserved.

30 months. nice round number

 

[blackcat]

From reading his affadavit, I could not work out when he stopped.

perhaps last year, in 2012. Cos he wants to ride out a contract at 1 million per.
oh, this aint Ryder, this is LL. Well scrap that then

 

[del1962]

Levi said in October 2012he had been clean for more than 5 years, so presumably stopped after the TdF 2007 (matching his affidavit, i believe).

I can't find anything, but I wonder, did USADA vouch for the truthfulness of Levi?
Wonder what Bruyneel's testimony brings to light wrt Levi, and what conseuqences Levi might face if found to have lied under oath.

ow, and RR on twitter
no way Levi stopped in 2007.

His affadavit does not appear to say when he stopped (as far a I can tell), the public comment he made was not under oath.

 

[blackcat]

Levi said in October 2012he had been clean for more than 5 years, so presumably stopped after the TdF 2007 (matching his affidavit, i believe).

I can't find anything, but I wonder, did USADA vouch for the truthfulness of Levi?

machine gun Odessa

 

[hrotha]

His affadavit does not appear to say when he stopped (as far a I can tell), the public comment he made was not under oath.

But his stripped results suggest he said he stopped doping right after the 2007 Tour.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh and it is REALLY in the USADA's interest to push hard for the longest ban possible on any of the "6 month-ers" shown to have lied.

When you get the chance to tell the truth in return for a deal, you better tell the whole truth, else we will come back and nail you. Thats a message to reinforce.

Or if any of their key witnesses lied in the 'reasoned decision' it might open USADA to a lawsuit from Armstrong (even after his admission) to get off the lifetime ban.

So USADA might kick stuff like lies, from those who hung Armstrong, under a carpet.

 

[Catwhoorg]

You have a point, but it would be hard to sweep if the information comes out publicly from another party.

 

[Benotti69]

You have a point, but it would be hard to sweep if the information comes out publicly from another party.

It would be hard, but who believes GH, Leipheimer et al stopped when they said they did in their Press releases........and yet nowt has come forth.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It would be hard, but who believes GH, Leipheimer et al stopped when they said they did in their Press releases........and yet nowt has come forth.

Quite frankly, you and a couple of others are the main people who have a problem with some people saying they stopped doping.

You only do so because it goes against your own bias - it has nothing at all to do with actually establishing what actually did happen. So far, there is nothing at all to contradict what people have said to USADA, which would also b what the were required to say under oath as part of the Fed investigation.

 

[sniper]

'no way Levi stopped in 2007'! Who stopped??? I didn't see any reasons for riders to stop. Remember the clowns who were running this sport only stopped a few weeks ago!!!

+1

Oh and it is REALLY in the USADA's interest to push hard for the longest ban possible on any of the "6 month-ers" shown to have lied.

When you get the chance to tell the truth in return for a deal, you better tell the whole truth, else we will come back and nail you. Thats a message to reinforce.

and thats exactly why i find it so odd/misplaced that usada have vouched for the truthfulness of some of the affidavits including hesjedals admission. I mean, the investigation is still ongoing and a certain bruyneel still has to do his story...
usada look biassed here. I hope im wrong

 

[Netserk]

Quite frankly, you and a couple of others are the main people who have a problem with some people saying they stopped doping.

You only do so because it goes against your own bias - it has nothing at all to do with actually establishing what actually did happen. So far, there is nothing at all to contradict what people have said to USADA, which would also b what the were required to say under oath as part of the Fed investigation.

Tbf, I find it very unlikely for LL to be clean in 2008 (and some of the following years, but especially 2008). But maybe that's just my bias?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

and thats exactly why i find it so odd/misplaced that usada have vouched for the truthfulness of some of the affidavits including hesjedals admission. I mean, the investigation is still ongoing and a certain bruyneel still has to do his story...
usada look biassed here. I hope im wrong

So, Hesjedal co-operated with USADA, under penalty of a lengthly ban, even though he is outside SoL - while Bruyneel has fought USADA every step.

Ya, I think USADA would have a pretty good idea on exactly what has happened and whose version of events will be more accurate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Tbf, I find it very unlikely for LL to be clean in 2008. But maybe that's just my bias?

Fine - why?

 

[sniper]

Quite frankly, you and a couple of others are the main people who have a problem with some people saying they stopped doping.

You only do so because it goes against your own bias - it has nothing at all to do with actually establishing what actually did happen. So far, there is nothing at all to contradict what people have said to USADA, which would also b what the were required to say under oath as part of the Fed investigation.

There is common sense to contradict that levi stopped in 2007 and that RH stopped in 2004.
the question is, again, why have usada vouched for them when e.g. bruyneel and armstronv havent talked yet?

there is plenty of dots whichm if connected, suggest people have liefd under oath.
even jv just suggested this on twitter.

 

[hrotha]

Fine - why?

Because he was in a team with a heavy doping culture, with the same old DS and doctors, and had the best season of his career (CQ-wise) in 2008, for starters.

 

[Netserk]

Fine - why?

His Dauphine and Vuelta performances that year. On more or less the same team (and management) as last year.

If he was clean in '08, then he really didn't benefit that much from the dope.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is common sense to contradict that levi stopped in 2007 and that RH stopped in 2004.
the question is, again, why have usada vouched for them when e.g. bruyneel and armstronv havent talked yet?

there is plenty of dots whichm if connected, suggest people have liefd under oath.
even jv just suggested this on twitter.

And to answer, again - because they obviously have nothing to contradict what he says (thankfully they rely on more than your common sense).
Its a sad day when you are relying on the likes of JB & LA to support your theory.

Also, can you link to JV tweet where it looks like people have lied under oath?
And you knew I would ask, so no complaining about it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...
there is plenty of dots whichm if connected, suggest people have liefd under oath.
even jv just suggested this on twitter.

I believe, since doping is not a judicial manner in the U.S. it falls under arbitration process.

I was corrected on another thread regarding a feature of arbitration. Apparently, the arbitration process is not known for aggressively penalizing lying under oath. The lying mostly serves to discredit their arguments. That's about it.

I'm no lawyer. I could be wrong.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because he was in a team with a heavy doping culture, with the same old DS and doctors, and had the best season of his career (CQ-wise) in 2008, for starters.

His Dauphine and Vuelta performances that year. On more or less the same team (and management) as last year.

If he was clean in '08, then he really didn't benefit that much from the dope.

In 2008 - Astana had changed to Vinoless Astana.
They got in the great anti-doping guy *cough* Bruyneel to clean it up.....

In seriousness - I had forgotten he finished so high in that Vuelta. But, I do think Astana and JB dialled back on the doping and it was left to the riders to sours their own, ymmv.

 

[sniper]

And to answer, again - because they obviously have nothing to contradict what he says (thankfully they rely on more than your common sense).
Its a sad day when you are relying on the likes of JB & LA to support your theory.

Also, can you link to JV tweet where it looks like people have lied under oath?
And you knew I would ask, so no complaining about it.

he didn't say that.
he did hint at why riders in the current system might feel pushed to lie, also under oath i assume, though that's my free interpretation and not explicit in the tweet.

Sad to see all these guys Rasmussen named scrambling to deny the truth. But the system, as it is, would spit them out if they admitted.

 

[sniper]

So, Hesjedal co-operated with USADA, under penalty of a lengthly ban, even though he is outside SoL - while Bruyneel has fought USADA every step.

Ya, I think USADA would have a pretty good idea on exactly what has happened and whose version of events will be more accurate.

mmmkay. thanks for proving the point.

 

[sniper]

I believe, since doping is not a judicial manner in the U.S. it falls under arbitration process.

I was corrected on another thread regarding a feature of arbitration. Apparently, the arbitration process is not known for aggressively penalizing lying under oath. The lying mostly serves to discredit their arguments. That's about it.

I'm no lawyer. I could be wrong.

interesting point, thanks.
that would indeed explain a few things.