Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[Turner29]

"The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has announced the formal disqualification of cyclist Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories, also slapping him with a lifetime competition ban."


http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-usada-strip-lance-armstrong-20120824,0,732407.story

But I cannot find the official statement....

 

[Bronstein]

The official statement is here - http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

There are some clowns at wiki who erased the DQ´s. Can someone with access correct this. Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Lance_Armstrong

 

[Turner29]

Thank you.

 

[Merckx index]

But Herman concluded his letter to Bock yesterday with this:

…you are on notice that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong…USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable.”

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...vbWFpbnxueWRuZG9jc3xneDo0NWQ1MWMzMmE3MWU0NThl

Sure sounds to me like USADA just made that public statement. Any lawyers want to comment?

 

[Turner29]

There are some clowns at wiki who erased the DQ´s. Can someone with access correct this. Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Lance_Armstrong

it is going to be a back and forth ****ing contest. Google news is still very much pro-Armstrong, no surprise since they receive advertising money from Livestrong.com.

 

[DirtyWorks]

There are some clowns at wiki who erased the DQ´s. Can someone with access correct this. Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Lance_Armstrong

It's wrong again and the page is locked for the next three days. Time to move on to another totem true believers...

 

[BroDeal]

There are some clowns at wiki who erased the DQ´s. Can someone with access correct this. Thanks in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Lance_Armstrong

Keep editing. Eventually Wikipedia will lock the page to prevent defacement.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I would go into that back and forth battle. I just don´t know how to do it. But i guess some of the 12 apostels will do the work?!

 

[Turner29]

But Herman concluded his letter to Bock yesterday with this:



https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...vbWFpbnxueWRuZG9jc3xneDo0NWQ1MWMzMmE3MWU0NThl

Sure sounds to me like USADA just made that public statement. Any lawyers want to comment?

I needed a good laugh and that letter provided it. I believe the USADA gave its response this morning: *uck You.

 

[patrick767]

USADA vs. UCI. Subject: Results management.

The USADA is obviously asserting a right to change the results of past cycling races, but on August 3rd McQuaid sent a letter from the UCI to the USADA that states, if I'm reading it correctly, that the USADA does not have the right to change results without UCI's consent.

How is this issue up in the air? How is it that what governing bodies in sport have the right to change past race results is not crystal clear to all parties involved? Now the headlines everywhere say that Armstrong has been stripped of all results since 1998 as though it's a done deal, but as far as I can tell the UCI's position is "you can't do that".

Per an article at ESPN, WADA president Fahey, after saying that the USADA has the right to impose penalties: "When asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Fahey replied: "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

Here's one of the few articles I foundthat gives much print to this dispute. Even it starts off by stating that his results have been stripped. Strange indeed that the UCI doesn't seem to agree with that statement. What next?

 

[Turner29]

"USADA has no authority to proceed in this matter for all of the reasons we have set out in our previous pleadings, correspondence and my presentation in Federal Court."

Was he not present for Judge Spark's decision? At the very least, he should have read it.

 

[patrick767]

Keep editing. Eventually Wikipedia will lock the page to prevent defacement.

Yes, because having a wikipedia editing fight is so useful.

Referring to my prior post, it looks like the UCI disputes the USADA's claimed right to change the race results. I'm not sure what happens now.

 

[python]

i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?

The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses

It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.

 

[BroDeal]

i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.

No. It used to be at least ten riders plus several staff and others.

 

[Merckx index]

i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.

The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.

only the very loyal or the very gullible would be persuaded by Armstrong's self-serving rant against the USADA, which he accuses of engaging in a "witch hunt" against him.

According to my few sources in the U.S. cycling community, there's hardly a wet eye today among top U.S. racers, who have long been turned off by Armstrong's perceived arrogance.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-armstrong-doping-20120824,0,5765006.story

Not everyone in the press is gushing over LA.

 

[BroDeal]

The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.

There may be something to what QS has written about the USADA being hamstrung about what it can release. My take on the warning is that it sounds like a warning against libel or leaked information that could damage Armstrong's reputation and finances. Or maybe Armstrong's lawyers are waiting for an infraction of the rules so they can use a suit to further depict the USADA as a rogue agency.

 

[Benotti69]

The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-armstrong-doping-20120824,0,5765006.story

If Alpe hasn't found anything but pro-LA articles, he hasn't looked very hard.

Herman is an idiot. Are they going to sue all these papers declaring Lance is a cheat and doper now?

Threatening USADA but letting all this editorials to go by unchallenged.

Herman probably wrote what he was told to write and threaten who he was told to threaten.

Not a good day at the LieStrong ranch. Bet people have been avoiding a certain person.

 

[buckle]

USADA vs. UCI. Subject: Results management.

The USADA is obviously asserting a right to change the results of past cycling races, but on August 3rd McQuaid sent a letter from the UCI to the USADA that states, if I'm reading it correctly, that the USADA does not have the right to change results without UCI's consent.

How is this issue up in the air? How is it that what governing bodies in sport have the right to change past race results is not crystal clear to all parties involved? Now the headlines everywhere say that Armstrong has been stripped of all results since 1998 as though it's a done deal, but as far as I can tell the UCI's position is "you can't do that".

Per an article at ESPN, WADA president Fahey, after saying that the USADA has the right to impose penalties: "When asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Fahey replied: "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

Here's one of the few articles I foundthat gives much print to this dispute. Even it starts off by stating that his results have been stripped. Strange indeed that the UCI doesn't seem to agree with that statement. What next?

This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd. The UCI, if they have any sense, will simply shut up about this and rely on European anti-Americanism to carry the day i.e. "Armstrong is our misundertood hero a prophet not accepted in his own county ...".

Heck, If the banks can get away with theft and fraud for years than Armstrong will have no problems with his racket. Nowadays, most people are too busy watching X-Factor or the football to care.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? ".

It won't be forgotten because this is the tip of the metaphorical iceberg. The scope and scale of the sporting fraud should take weeks, if not months to come out.

What he's specifically banned from going forward is participating in any sport federation that has agreed to use WADA's anti-doping code. That means no triathlon appearance fees.

They have wiped all of his historic results from some date 199x forward.

 

[Mishrak]

If it was something that would be forgotten in two weeks, it wouldn't still be an issue today.

 

[goober]

"USADA has no authority to proceed in this matter for all of the reasons we have set out in our previous pleadings, correspondence and my presentation in Federal Court."

Was he not present for Judge Spark's decision? At the very least, he should have read it.

Do you even understand what Judge Sparks was making a decision on?

 

[Benotti69]

This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd. The UCI, if they have any sense, will simply shut up about this and rely on European anti-Americanism to carry the day i.e. "Armstrong is our misundertood hero a prophet not accepted in his own county ...".

Heck, If the banks can get away with theft and fraud for years than Armstrong will have no problems with his racket. Nowadays, most people are too busy watching X-Factor or the football to care.

This is only the begininng.

Sit back and enjoy.

 

[MacRoadie]

This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd.

Wasn't he planning on doing a little something over in Hawaii? Professionally?

 

[WinterRider]

i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.

It was always more than a dozen. The original charging letter stated more than 10 cyclists, and well as team employees. The minimum number of witnesses is 13 altogether.