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

[Danilot]

After noticing that he was not allowed to run in Chicago the organizers of the Hoorn Marathon in the Netherlands wrote on Lance's FB page asking him to run in their event.

It gave me great pleasure to write to the organizers expressing my concern that they want to have a convicted and suspended doper at their event, and what sort of example that sets to young runners. I also pointed out that the details emerging of the evidence will likely give bad publicity to any event that invites him.

Every little bit helps.

I'm about to mail them a similar letter myself. Wat een lachetje.

 

[D-Queued]

...


by the way, here is the official sanction:

http://www.usada.org/sanctions/



Lance Armstrong Cycling Lifetime Ban - Loss of Results EPO, Testosterone, Blood Transfusions and Corticosteroids, Trafficking, Administration to others

...

What a Choad.

Dave.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . USADA is quietly going about their job without seeking publicity. . . . . There is no special news blurb on their website along the lines of "we got Lance, hooray for us !!" as LA's PR camp would have us believe is Tygart's motivation. . . .

Agree. Just to add something more: The few times Travis Tygart has spoken about Lance in recent interviews, he has been very matter-of-fact about the charges and investigations, not backing down at all. At the same time, however, he is constantly holding out an olive branch to Lance saying, not only if he had come in and talked, but also that the offer is still on the table.

Frankly, Lance should wake up and realized that his best friends (Carmichael, Weizel, Verbruggen, McQuaid, Messick) were never really friends. His real best friend today is/should be Tygart. A close second is Hamilton.

Lance will lose his tiny princedom, that is come and gone. He should save what is left of himself, not for the dwindling number that want to believe the magician, but for his children.

 

[perfessor]

The question is: Do we need to see the evidence. If your neighbor is convicted in a court room for burglary, unless you attend the court hearing, you will never see the evidence. Likely though, unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise, you will believe that your neighbor committed the crime and the punishment is "just."

This is complete nonsense. Are you familiar with court reporters? That's public information unless it's formally sealed. Newspapers frequently report the evidence presented in court
Tygart says they will release the evidence, and you continue to refute this. why?

 

[LauraLyn]

This is complete nonsense. Are you familiar with court reporters? That's public information unless it's formally sealed. Newspapers frequently report the evidence presented in court
Tygart says they will release the evidence, and you continue to refute this. why?

Where are the "court reporters" for Lance's case? There was never a public hearing.

I am not refuting what Tygart says. I am nowhere near his league. But I don't understand it. How will Tygart show evidence that has never been in a court room? And again, when has a prosecutor ever released evidence after the verdict?

 

[Benotti69]

This is complete nonsense. Are you familiar with court reporters? That's public information unless it's formally sealed. Newspapers frequently report the evidence presented in court
Tygart says they will release the evidence, and you continue to refute this. why?

LL apparent raison d'etre is to spoil threads by lengthening them beyond comprehension and making them difficult to read and follow for newbies coming to the clinic to find out if it is true about Armstrong and the evidence.

 

[Houndbike]

This is complete nonsense. Are you familiar with court reporters? That's public information unless it's formally sealed. Newspapers frequently report the evidence presented in court
Tygart says they will release the evidence, and you continue to refute this. why?

Actually, that's not really true is it?
If you go in to a case and plead guilty or no contest to the charge immediately why does the court need to go through the process of hearing all of the evidence?

 

[LauraLyn]

This is complete nonsense. Are you familiar with court reporters? That's public information unless it's formally sealed. Newspapers frequently report the evidence presented in court
Tygart says they will release the evidence, and you continue to refute this. why?

LL apparent raison d'etre is to spoil threads by lengthening them beyond comprehension and making them difficult to read and follow for newbies coming to the clinic to find out if it is true about Armstrong and the evidence.

See the post above. It is perhaps also difficult for you to comprehend.

What evidence regarding the USADA case against Lance Armstrong & Co. has been presented in The Clinic? And is there any evidence regarding Lance Armstrong in The Clinic that was not already in the public domain?

"Newbie" are not stupid. They will know that the truth depends not on one set of opinions, but on an intelligent discussion inclusive varying of viewpoints.

 

[Tubeless]

The NPR interview I heard with Tygart called this one out as fact. USADA simply does not have a bully pulpit like a Verdgruggen or McQaid. So, I'm lead to believe that they've got this one nailed down.

FWIW As Ashenden so accurately described, once their conclusions pass from WADA science finding to become legal evidence practically all sorts of rhetorical tactics can be used to persuade a court to doubt WADA's findings. The great news here is Armstrong closed this door by not engaging in arbitration.

My understanding of the bio-passport system is it tracks values that have strong indications of doping and doping evasion and that evidence can be collected via urine and blood samples. IMHO, I think differentiating between some longitudinal values and "standard doping tests" is probably not accurate.

The point of my post was to say that Lance was indeed the "golden boy" of UCI. A back-dated TUE in 1999, a suppressed TdS positive in 2001, legal cover in 2005 that retesting 1999 samples don't count as positive, 30-min warnings of an upcoming doping test at TdFin 2009 - and obvious biological passport fluctuations interpreted as negative were all discretionary decisions by UCI. These are the incidents we know about - there are likely to be many others.

Lance's most famous quote has always been "never tested positive". And he's been intent in making that mean "never tested positive by UCI". It'll be interesting to see which samples from when USADA has retested. It would be good to finally debunk the myth - but if the USADA test results are akin to intepreting biological passpost values, the fanboys will (in their minds) justifiably keep repeating the lie.

Best news would be if e.g. 2005 TdF samples were restested and found to be positive for CERA or similar experimental drug - which Lance got hold of privately well before its commercial release.

 

[DirtyWorks]

It is a bike shop, but it is more of a merchandise store than a bike shop. When they interview mechanics, instead of asking them about their technical skills, the ask how quickly they can fold t-shirts.

No kidding... It might actually make a little money then.

 

[perfessor]

What evidence regarding the USADA case against Lance Armstrong & Co. has been presented in The Clinic? And is there any evidence regarding Lance Armstrong in The Clinic that was not already in the public domain?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "evidence" is exclusively a legal term. It isn't.

"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."

As for your question --you have some reading to do.

 

[Tubeless]

Frankly, Lance should wake up and realized that his best friends (Carmichael, Weizel, Verbruggen, McQuaid, Messick) were never really friends. His real best friend today is/should be Tygart. A close second is Hamilton.

This is a rather unusual comment to make. Care to elaborate?

 

[the big ring]

Today it's harder to be a "golden boy". Labs testing samples are required to report both to the UCI and WADA simultaneously -

Personally, I find the lab in Lausanne to be questionable, given the polemic around the alleged Tour de Suisse positive in 2001. Suagy was the head of the lab then, and still is now.

They were also given the ABP gig. And subsequently tried to gag Ashenden, who left.

Now add the following: (from UCI ADR)

Where applicable under the Independent Observer Program, WADA Independent Observers may
attend the Sample taking session. WADA Independent Observers shall not directly observe the passing
of the Sample.

The laboratory shall report any analysis results to the UCI and WADA or, if the Testing concerns
World Championships, to the UCI official doctor and WADA.

No detail of which part of WADA should receive the results.

Pat McQuaid is on the executive committee and foundation board of WADA.

I'm not saying the results go to Pat to satisfy the "report to WADA". But I will say it's not clear IN THE UCI RULES who or how the results go to WADA. Checked the WADA code but that didn't help either.

Happy to be proven wrong on this last point.

 

[the big ring]

LL apparent raison d'etre is to spoil threads by lengthening them beyond comprehension and making them difficult to read and follow for newbies coming to the clinic to find out if it is true about Armstrong and the evidence.

And manages to with aplomb.

 

[sairyder]

LL is on my ignore list -

Mods, there has been a concerted effort to dilute the thread, and not just this thread at the expense of continuing to provide and discuss evidence.

Can you not do something about this? LL is in league of his own when it comes to thread clogging, and it is a phenomena that has coincided with the increased scrutiny of Lance and his legacy.

It is driving away knowledgeable posters such as RR etc, and confusing people who are coming to the Clinic Forum to increase their understanding.

I suggest everyone puts LL on Ignore - this thread (ALL threads) becomes way more readable after that.

Bratam: I will PM you with the Phil Bates email address. It has disappeared off the web. Whilst looking for it i did notice his extensive interests in bike shops and equipment and ?races.

Easy to understand why it may be hard to look clearly at a situation when you have extensive commercial interests. Maybe our representatives on the UCI should have a condition of no commercial interests. It gets messier the more you look.

 

[leftover pie]

I suggest giving LL a phantom ban.

So LL doesn't realise LL has been banned and keeps on posting and starting threads and replying and so on but no one can see LL's posts.

 

[thirteen]

luckily, there is still twitter for those that want real information: http://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio

 

[spetsa]

I suggest giving LL a phantom ban.

So LL doesn't realise LL has been banned and keeps on posting and starting threads and replying and so on but no one can see LL's posts.

Who is LL?

 

[Tubeless]

Personally, I find the lab in Lausanne to be questionable, given the polemic around the alleged Tour de Suisse positive in 2001. Suagy was the head of the lab then, and still is now.

They were also given the ABP gig. And subsequently tried to gag Ashenden, who left.

Now add the following: (from UCI ADR)

No detail of which part of WADA should receive the results.

Pat McQuaid is on the executive committee and foundation board of WADA.

I'm not saying the results go to Pat to satisfy the "report to WADA". But I will say it's not clear IN THE UCI RULES who or how the results go to WADA. Checked the WADA code but that didn't help either.

Happy to be proven wrong on this last point.

The significance that the labs have to report the results both to UCI and WADA is accountability - a lab could lose its WADA accreditation for any complicity of a coverup such as the TdS case in 2001 when the lab was hired by UCI alone to do the testing. It's less important who at WADA receives the results - it's in the lab's self-interest not to succumb to pressure by the UCI to hide a positive test.

UCI has always looked at doping control as a way to control doping - not to eliminate it. "Health check", so to speak. As long as riders stay within the limit values, micro-dosing etc. is tolerated / overlooked. Riders are not permitted to be tested between 10 pm and 6 am during grand tours - so there's really no risk to be caught positive unless you make a "professional mistake". So UCI still has much influence how much doping is permitted, but they can't supress postives that come out from labs the way it was possible during the Armstrong days.

The only way to get independent doping control is to have an agency other than the sports governing body conduct the testing. But this is a funding issue as much as anything else - and unfortunately unlikely to happen fully, ever.

 

[TexPat]

And manages to with aplomb.

LauraLyn is a robot. An automaton. Mechanised shill.

 

[the big ring]

The significance that the labs have to report the results both to UCI and WADA is accountability - a lab could lose its WADA accreditation for any complicity of a coverup such as the TdS case in 2001 when the lab was hired by UCI alone to do the testing. It's less important who at WADA receives the results - it's in the lab's self-interest not to succumb to pressure by the UCI to hide a positive test.

So if Pat McQuaid, as part of WADA, receives notification of the positive test on WADA's behalf, the lab is fine ("we gave it to someone on the Executive committee"), they've done their bit, and now Pat can handle it.

Yes?

 

[Tubeless]

So if Pat McQuaid, as part of WADA, receives notification of the positive test on WADA's behalf, the lab is fine ("we gave it to someone on the Executive committee"), they've done their bit, and now Pat can handle it.

Yes?

The labs that are accredited by WADA have very specific instructions to follow when reporting positive tests:

http://www.wada-ama.org/documents/w...sl/wada_int_standard_laboratories_2012_en.pdf

Failure to follow the standards is grounds for losing their accreditation and hence the funding for future work for WADA.

So no, it would not be sufficient to say they've informed Pat personally...

 

[the big ring]

Ok so it goes through their ADAMs system.

6.2.6.10
In addition to reporting to the Testing Authority, the Laboratory
shall simultaneously report all test results as defined in ISL
provision 6.2.6.8 to WADA via ADAMS. The information provided
in ADAMS shall be in compliance to ISL provision 6.2.6.6. The
Laboratory shall also simultaneously report any Adverse
Analytical Findings (“A” and “B” results) to the responsible
International Federation (and/or to the owner of the Event in the
case of Major International Events). In the case where the sport
or Event is not associated with an International Federation (e.g.,
professional leagues, University and college sports) the
Laboratory shall report Adverse Analytical Findings to the Testing
Authority and to WADA. All reporting shall be in accord with the
confidentiality requirements of the Code.

Detail missing if it's for an event / sport not associated with an IF, but maybe it's somewhere else.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Interrupting the conversation for a quick question:

Does anyone know the interview/have a link to where the questioner responds directly to lance saying "never tested positive", with, "what about the TUE", and lance replies with "well, yeah, except for that,"

...or something along those lines. Saw it on here, and could not get a good search (looked for TUE; corticosteroids; even 'except that')

 

[Mr.DNA]

LauraLyn is a robot. An automaton. Mechanised shill.

I plonked him/her two weeks ago. Hard to believe any of the regulars are still responding to the crap. I wish they'd at least stop quoting him.