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

[the big ring]

I just watched it. It's call Gruen Planet Series 2. Episode 3 on ABC Iview. The Lance doping bit goes from about 2min to 23min mark. A good 20 minutes without commercials and includes plenty of Lance video footage doing commercials and lying through his teeth. At least all 4 journalists do not dispute his guilt. They talk a lot about the cancer shield and they pay out on Lance with plenty of humor about his doping ways. Is there a way we that non Australians can view this video ? definitely worth a watch.

Someone mentioned in one of these threads some tunneling software - I missed the name - that allows you to assume a different IP address and trick websites into thinking you're in a different country.

Probably easy to find something like that by googling "IP sp00f tunnel vpn" or similar (replace 0's with o's).

 

[fujitourer]

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/the-gruen-planet-on-lance-armstrong/

Non-geo resitricted version.

 

[Bratam]

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/the-gruen-planet-on-lance-armstrong/

Non-geo resitricted version.

Brilliant work. All paid for by the Australian Govt. The female panelist is Jane Flemming a former olympic heptathlete and a world class commentator on Athletics. You can tell she is just livid with Armstrong's doping and cheating ways. She competed against doping cheats in her heyday.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

"Should Lance Armstrong Resign from LIVESTRONG?"

http://michaelrosensays.wordpress.co...ong/#more-1312

There is a poll to vote on as well, should you care to.

Link is broken. But this works:

michaelrosensays.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/should-lance-armstrong-resign-from-livestrong/

 

[MarkvW]

The Qui Tam?

I was told that Tyler's book reports that the United States has joined the qui tam action that Floyd started.

If that is true, then things may get very interesting. If the Feds pursue the case, then at least one of these two options must take place.

(1) Lance must testify under oath about his doping. There is a real perjury risk there.
(2) The USPS Conspirators must pony up exactly the amount of money that the United States is seeking to recover.

Floyd is very quiet now. I think he is finally taking the advice of his lawyers. And those of you considering giving up your hard earned money to Fraud Landis might want to reconsider. Floyd may be about to reap a huge financial benefit. The fact that the Feds let Floyd plead without a stipulation to facts indicates to me that the feds might be very confident about Floyd's ability to pay the $300K in restitution.

So, did Tyler's book say that the feds joined the qui tam action?

 

[MacRoadie]

Probably easy to find something like that by googling "IP sp00f tunnel vpn" or similar (replace 0's with o's).

To hell with that: just ask the latest incarnation of BPC, that guy has had about 200 IP addresses...

 

[Cycle Chic]

Livestrong and Tennis

I noticed Serena Williams in a full on Livestrong outfit playing Ivanovic - the whole black and yellow melange ....she was only missing the wristband. Nike still supporting Livestrong then.

Still, takes a doper to know a doper

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Any indication on when we can expect USADA to release their "reasoned decision about what action was taken" in the Armstrong case as a result of him waiving his rights to a hearing per Section 8.3 of the WADA Code?

 

[Benotti69]

I hope WADA is preparing an official announcement for its webiste and an official release document stating that USADA is in full compliance of WADA and receives WADAs full backing on its decision.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Any indication on when we can expect USADA to release their "reasoned decision about what action was taken" in the Armstrong case as a result of him waiving his rights to a hearing per Section 8.3 of the WADA Code?

At this point, I think we are in the UCI's window where they get to look over USADA's work. I believe the next step in the process is/was to send a bunch of documentation over to the UCI regarding the case and how they reached their conclusion.

The UCI has some time to look it over and presumably make something up to protect Wonderboy. They can't lose this one like so many other doping issues, that's for sure.

 

[Bicycle]

At this point, I think we are in the UCI's window where they get to look over USADA's work. I believe the next step in the process is/was to send a bunch of documentation over to the UCI regarding the case and how they reached their conclusion.

The UCI has some time to look it over and presumably make something up to protect Wonderboy. They can't lose this one like so many other doping issues, that's for sure.

I can't see that the UCI can have any grounds to protect LA. He refused arbitration and any subsequent lines of appeal. Had USADA's case been flawed these other courts would have dealt with it.

 

[MarkvW]

I can't see that the UCI can have any grounds to protect LA. He refused arbitration and any subsequent lines of appeal. Had USADA's case been flawed these other courts would have dealt with it.

No other courts have "dealt with" USADA's case. The federal court found it had no jurisdiction to deal with it.

I agree regards jurisdiction, but I do think it possible that the UCI is considering trying to protect Lance's "old" (>8 yrs) results. There may be big PR downsides to this though.

 

[MarkvW]

I noticed Serena Williams in a full on Livestrong outfit playing Ivanovic - the whole black and yellow melange ....she was only missing the wristband. Nike still supporting Livestrong then.

Still, takes a doper to know a doper

Reminds me of Tammy Thomas and her San Francisco Giants baseball cap.

 

[Bicycle]

No other courts have "dealt with" USADA's case. The federal court found it had no jurisdiction to deal with it.

I agree regards jurisdiction, but I do think it possible that the UCI is considering trying to protect Lance's "old" (>8 yrs) results. There may be big PR downsides to this though.

By "other courts" I mean CAS and the Swiss courts. UCI can't really protect Lance when he refused these options.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

By "other courts" I mean CAS and the Swiss courts. UCI can't really protect Lance when he refused these options.

To be clear, the only way that can still do something is by blatantly breaking from following the WADA Code. I doubt they're willing to do that, even for Armstrong.

 

[MarkvW]

By "other courts" I mean CAS and the Swiss courts. UCI can't really protect Lance when he refused these options.

The UCI have their own right of appeal.

 

[MarkvW]

To be clear, they only way that can still do something is by blatantly breaking from following the WADA Code. I doubt they're willing to do that, even for Armstrong.

But the WADA Code authorizes a UCI appeal, doesn't it?

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong is not going to settle for any stripping of any results.

It will destroy his arguments of not tested positive, witch hunt, never dope after cancer etc etc

If they take one TdF because they can prove doping and the UCI agree to strip 1, he has lost the battle for the public perception of himself as the cancer deity.

No Armstrong is trying very very hard to end or damage the USADA so he can walk away with everything. Anything else to him means he lost and we know he doesn't like to lose.

This is election year so he is not going to win it via politics when the evidence gets out. Politicians looking to get relected are not going to get behind Armstrong.

He isn't doing enough to help that. He is in hiding, he shoud be out there in the most public places riding his bike talking about himself and liestrong, but after the ****poor turnout in Montreal i guess he went home and has been pounding and ranting on the phone.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

From the UK Telegraph:

...Weltz, who currently works for the Garmin Sharp Team, has denied the charges to Danish website sporten.dk. "It is unbelievable. What should I say? It is absurd," he said and insisted that he “certainly did not” bring Hincapie little white bags containing EPO....

 

[Turner29]

I can't see that the UCI can have any grounds to protect LA. He refused arbitration and any subsequent lines of appeal. Had USADA's case been flawed these other courts would have dealt with it.

The UCI has been protecting Armstrong in one way or another since 1999, by covering his various failed in-competition tests and evasions of out-of-competition tests. They have also accepted bribe money from Lance Armstrong.

Thus, the UCI is between a rock and a hard place. If they support the USADA's findings, there is a tacit admittance of being part of Armstrong's fraud. In addition, knowing that Armstrong is a psychopath, he could very well bring down the UCI should he confess. Thus, I can only see them not agreeing with the USADA findings.

 

[MacRoadie]

He isn't doing enough to help that. He is in hiding, he shoud be out there in the most public places riding his bike talking about himself and liestrong, but after the ****poor turnout in Montreal i guess he went home and has been pounding and ranting on the phone.

Link please?




(Just kidding)...

 

[Bicycle]

The UCI has been protecting Armstrong in one way or another since 1999, by covering his various failed in-competition tests and evasions of out-of-competition tests. They have also accepted bribe money from Lance Armstrong.

Thus, the UCI is between a rock and a hard place. If they support the USADA's findings, there is a tacit admittance of being part of Armstrong's fraud. In addition, knowing that Armstrong is a psychopath, he could very well bring down the UCI should he confess. Thus, I can only see them not agreeing with the USADA findings.

If the UCI appeal though would that subject USADA's evidence to public scrutiny? Surely they won't want that - Lance certainly won't.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

But the WADA Code authorizes a UCI appeal, doesn't it?

Yes, but as far as I can tell, only when the Athlete has chosen to have a hearing, and was found to be in violation by the arbitrators, does the UCI have something to appeal.

In a no hearing case like this one, where the Athlete does not challenge the charges, and waives his right to a hearing, I don't see what the UCI has to appeal. I suppose they can question the appropriateness of the sanctions dished out by the national anti-doping agency (USADA in this case), but given the severity of the charges in this case, that would be just silly.

The UCI also did not appeal the cases of the others who did not contest the charges. AFAIK, only Bruyneel contested.

Has UCI (or anyone else) ever appealed the decision of a national ADA in a case where the accused did not contest the charges? I think that would be unprecedented.

 

[Turner29]

If the UCI appeal though would that subject USADA's evidence to public scrutiny? Surely they won't want that - Lance certainly won't.

Which is why I think they will take the same route as Armstrong -- not agree with the findings and no sanction.

Can the USADA appeal to the CAS?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The UCI has been protecting Armstrong in one way or another since 1999, by covering his various failed in-competition tests and evasions of out-of-competition tests. They have also accepted bribe money from Lance Armstrong.

Thus, the UCI is between a rock and a hard place. If they support the USADA's findings, there is a tacit admittance of being part of Armstrong's fraud. In addition, knowing that Armstrong is a psychopath, he could very well bring down the UCI should he confess. Thus, I can only see them not agreeing with the USADA findings.

The UCI can disagree all they want, but that has no bearing on what happens. Unless they are willing to ignore WADA Code, I don't see what they could do. The decision of a national ADA in a WADA Code Section 8.3 no hearing case is not a recommendation. It's a "decision explaining the action taken". Note the past tense used in that wording... straight from 8.3.

The fact that Armstrong did not contest changes everything. That's why I was surprised he took this route.

8.3 Waiver of Hearing

The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly
or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to
challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion
that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within
the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping
Organization’s rules. Where no hearing occurs, the
Anti-Doping Organization with results management
responsibility shall submit to the Persons described
in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the
action taken.

(Google "Wada Code" if you want to see more)