Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Cloxxki]

When you're out of convenient half-truths, last resort is to just look plain stupid.

 

[sheenyp]

"Armstrong and his team of seasoned PR experts didn’t fall for the ratings trap. Instead they responded with the initial tweet, then followed it with another missive linking to a focused response website: http://www.facts4lance.com "

 

[VeloGirl]

Scott Pelley on Late Night with David Letterman (video, not sure about geo-restrictions)

Talks about Hamilton interview around 3:55. Pelley says at least a dozen former riders from Postal have told their story to the GJ.

 

[Mestre]

Oranges and paellas

Now, memory is not so hot, but...

I do remember following Armstrong's 1998 season and being very impressed, especially with his 4th place in La Vuelta. He wasn't making a great deal of noise and the press, as I remember, wasn't really paying much attention to him, but I went to see a couple of stages and he was up there and I thought that had its merit after what he'd been through. And I remember seeing him in Valencia.

I'm less sure about him having competed in the 1998 Vuelta de Valencia and I can't find any info about him being there, but I do have this idea that he crashed on the ascent/descent of Eslida - I can remember thinking that was the last thing he needed. It stuck in my mind because I was curious about him coming back to racing and how he would perform and I've climbed Eslida a lot of times myself. That would have been at the beginning of the season, if he was there and my memory isn't playing tricks.

But apart from that, I can't recall him having been in Valencia other than on those occasions. After his cancer treatment, I mean. And I don't mean the Region - Denia, Altea, etc., - which is a standard location for late/early season training camps. I'm referring to the city of Valencia. Once he got into his Tour mode he made a big noise wherever he went - he still does - and I'm pretty sure that if he'd visited for anything even remotely related to his Foundation, never mind a bike race, he would have been all over the media.

Those of you who follow these things, which is all of you, know that Valencia is where Luis del Moral, he of [add d***ng scandal of choice] operates from. And Valencia is where Tyler Hamilton claims he flew to, accompanied, to have blood extracted for a later transfusion. For those of you with ropey memories like mine, it is also where Jesus Manzano claims he had to be dragged from a train following a transfusion with someone else's blood.

After watching Hamilton on 60 minutes, I remembered that Armstrong himself has said that he has been to the city. Many times. I had to search it out, but he said it:

"I've been to Valencia (Spain) many times over the past 15 yrs. I gotta say they have really taken gr8 care of this city. It's beautiful."

He didn't take part in La Vuelta again after 1998, did he? I don't think he raced in the Vuelta a Valencia. after 1998, if he was there. And when he was based in Spain he was in Girona.

So, despite being a Class A media star wherever he goes, the guy's been hanging out in Valencia off the radar. Anybody got any plausible reasons as to why he was there, apart from the obvious?

It's an innocent question.

 

[Cloxxki]

Scott Pelley on Late Night with David Letterman (video, not sure about geo-restrictions)

Talks about Hamilton interview around 3:55. Pelley says at least a dozen former riders from Postal have told their story to the GJ.

Would those riders have aligned their stories to limit exposure to Lance's wrath? Or just take their chances in their choice of truth vs liestrong?
Imagine 3 have been stupid enough to keep omerta, only to be exposed as liars by at least 9 others. They'd make a good team for jail bike racing.

 

[MarkvW]

Maybe he is reserving the high flying legal types before Strauss-Kahn gets to them.

I see a lot of parallels between the 2 cases. Wonder what DSK's mother looks like, might explain a lot.

Take a step back. Look at what DSK is accused of doing, and the probable cause that supports it, and what is going on in the Armstrong case.

There is no comparison. It's much more like the Manson case.

 

[sniper]

Now, memory is not so hot, but...

I do remember following Armstrong's 1998 season and being very impressed, especially with his 4th place in La Vuelta. He wasn't making a great deal of noise and the press, as I remember, wasn't really paying much attention to him, but I went to see a couple of stages and he was up there and I thought that had its merit after what he'd been through. And I remember seeing him in Valencia.

I'm less sure about him having competed in the 1998 Vuelta de Valencia and I can't find any info about him being there, but I do have this idea that he crashed on the ascent/descent of Eslida - I can remember thinking that was the last thing he needed. It stuck in my mind because I was curious about him coming back to racing and how he would perform and I've climbed Eslida a lot of times myself. That would have been at the beginning of the season, if he was there and my memory isn't playing tricks.

But apart from that, I can't recall him having been in Valencia other than on those occasions. After his cancer treatment, I mean. And I don't mean the Region - Denia, Altea, etc., - which is a standard location for late/early season training camps. I'm referring to the city of Valencia. Once he got into his Tour mode he made a big noise wherever he went - he still does - and I'm pretty sure that if he'd visited for anything even remotely related to his Foundation, never mind a bike race, he would have been all over the media.

Those of you who follow these things, which is all of you, know that Valencia is where Luis del Moral, he of [add d***ng scandal of choice] operates from. And Valencia is where Tyler Hamilton claims he flew to, accompanied, to have blood extracted for a later transfusion. For those of you with ropey memories like mine, it is also where Jesus Manzano claims he had to be dragged from a train following a transfusion with someone else's blood.

After watching Hamilton on 60 minutes, I remembered that Armstrong himself has said that he has been to the city. Many times. I had to search it out, but he said it:

"I've been to Valencia (Spain) many times over the past 15 yrs. I gotta say they have really taken gr8 care of this city. It's beautiful."

He didn't take part in La Vuelta again after 1998, did he? I don't think he raced in the Vuelta a Valencia. after 1998, if he was there. And when he was based in Spain he was in Girona.

So, despite being a Class A media star wherever he goes, the guy's been hanging out in Valencia off the radar. Anybody got any plausible reasons as to why he was there, apart from the obvious?

It's an innocent question.

+1, great post.
with a bit of luck we hear more about his passion for Valencian paella once the **** starts hitting the fan more seriously.

 

[Merckx index]

The CN article on Saugy’s interview clarifies some important points. The test was the urine/gel test. I hadn’t been sure of that. But he also says that then—as opposed to now—it was not unusual to notify riders about borderline results, because the test was new and their was some confusion about what should be called positive.

Exactly. 80% basic isoforms is not longer the criteria used. See WADA tech document, under Identification Criteria on page 4. It's quite likely that identical results now would be deemed positive.

No. Saugy claimed it was 70-80%, so by today’s standards it would not be positive, and it would not even rate a notification of suspicion. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t positive, just that it didn’t make the official criterion. It was in what today is considered a gray area, very likely positive, but not called as such.

I said before I don’t think this is going anywhere as a charge against LA, and after reading Saugy’s latest, I’m more convinced of that. But he said something a lot more damning, and less supportable:

We learned in the years 2002 and 2003 that the urine can change benefits or by improper storage so that even tests with more than 80 percent of typical bands of epo may be false positive.

This is probably the most critical point that has come out. He is implying (is he on LA’s payroll?) that the ’99 samples could have been false positive, that storage could result in an increase in basic bands. I doubt this very much, though, and he or LA’s team would have to provide evidence of this.

 

[richtea]

-Accuses Tyler and Floyd of "seeking publicity".
.

I'm not sure this is correct, based on the translation - more that the new accusations have had a lot of publicity.

He seems to me to be saying that his lab had to use a lot of resources to defend their cases against Landis and Hamilton when they challenged their results, and is a bit miffed they now admit they were not innocent at all - meaning all the money and effort they put in to defend their original case was a waste, and dragging them into second wave of negative publicity. And I don't think you can blame him to be honest.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The CN article on Saugy’s interview clarifies some important points. The test was the urine/gel test. I hadn’t been sure of that. But he also says that then—as opposed to now—it was not unusual to notify riders about borderline results, because the test was new and their was some confusion about what should be called positive.



No. Saugy claimed it was 70-80%, so by today’s standards it would not be positive, and it would not even rate a notification of suspicion. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t positive, just that it didn’t make the official criterion. It was in what today is considered a gray area, very likely positive, but not called as such.

I said before I don’t think this is going anywhere as a charge against LA, and after reading Saugy’s latest, I’m more convinced of that. But he said something a lot more damning, and less supportable:



This is probably the most critical point that has come out. He is implying (is he on LA’s payroll?) that the ’99 samples could have been false positive, that storage could result in an increase in basic bands. I doubt this very much, though, and he or LA’s team would have to provide evidence of this.

To get to that you are ignoring that both Landis & Hamilton said it was a 'positive' test.

You don't need to get anyone to 'sort it out' for a borderline, even by the standards of 2001. You don't need to pay anyone for a borederline.

This looks like LA's A sample was above 80%, it was referred to the UCI who identified the rider. Either the A was viewed again (or the B) and put in the 70-80% category and it is no longer a 'positive'.

 

[sniper]

I'm not sure this is correct, based on the translation - more that the new accusations have had a lot of publicity.

He seems to me to be saying that his lab had to use a lot of resources to defend their cases against Landis and Hamilton when they challenged their results, and is a bit miffed they now admit they were not innocent at all - meaning all the money and effort they put in to defend their original case was a waste, and dragging them into second wave of negative publicity. And I don't think you can blame him to be honest.

The german original is unambiguous: Saugy finds FL and TH are seeking publicity, and speaks of bitter irony. But not one bad word about the UCI or LA in the entire system.
Come on. He could at least draw some attention to the farcical anti-doping system, for starters, and he could take notice of the fact that the dirtiest of them all is wasting ****loads of money to keep his claim of innocence alive.

 

[sniper]

The CN article on Saugy’s interview clarifies some important points. The test was the urine/gel test. I hadn’t been sure of that. But he also says that then—as opposed to now—it was not unusual to notify riders about borderline results, because the test was new and their was some confusion about what should be called positive.



No. Saugy claimed it was 70-80%, so by today’s standards it would not be positive, and it would not even rate a notification of suspicion. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t positive, just that it didn’t make the official criterion. It was in what today is considered a gray area, very likely positive, but not called as such.

I said before I don’t think this is going anywhere as a charge against LA, and after reading Saugy’s latest, I’m more convinced of that. But he said something a lot more damning, and less supportable:



This is probably the most critical point that has come out. He is implying (is he on LA’s payroll?) that the ’99 samples could have been false positive, that storage could result in an increase in basic bands. I doubt this very much, though, and he or LA’s team would have to provide evidence of this.

He very much seems to be on LA's and UCI's payroll.
Calling FL and TH publicity seekers (WTF?); not saying a word about the donations made by LA (WTF?); calling the UCI pioneers instead of questioning their anti-doping system (WTF?).

 

[sniper]

To get to that you are ignoring that both Landis & Hamilton said it was a 'positive' test.

You don't need to get anyone to 'sort it out' for a borderline, even by the standards of 2001. You don't need to pay anyone for a borederline.

This looks like LA's A sample was above 80%, it was referred to the UCI who identified the rider. Either the A was viewed again (or the B) and put in the 70-80% category and it is no longer a 'positive'.

Interesting.
By the way, Saugy says LA's TdS suspicious peepee does no longer exist. Is that normal? Shouldn't those be stored?

 

[Mambo95]

So, despite being a Class A media star wherever he goes, the guy's been hanging out in Valencia off the radar. Anybody got any plausible reasons as to why he was there, apart from the obvious?

It's an innocent question.

Do you ever go to places other than your hometown for reasons unrelated to work? Yes? Well, so do sportsmen.

He may well of gone there for doping reasons on occasions*, but he may also have just gone for a weekend away with the wife.

And, yes, he would have easily have been unnoticed by the media. Celebrities (unless they're prime tabloid fodder) tend to go about their day with little attention (unless they want it).


*It's actually far more likely that the doctor would come to him.

 

[VeloCity]

Scott Pelley on Late Night with David Letterman (video, not sure about geo-restrictions)

Talks about Hamilton interview around 3:55. Pelley says at least a dozen former riders from Postal have told their story to the GJ.

Not surprised to hear that so many Posties have talked, but it does again raise the question of where Pelley/CBS are getting their info from - someone with insider info must have told them that. Starting to sound to me like they've got a "friend" somewhere in Novitzky's camp.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, the "dozen" riders would all be American, right? ie they can't subpoena non-Americans?

 

[RdBiker]

To get to that you are ignoring that both Landis & Hamilton said it was a 'positive' test.

You don't need to get anyone to 'sort it out' for a borderline, even by the standards of 2001. You don't need to pay anyone for a borederline.

This looks like LA's A sample was above 80%, it was referred to the UCI who identified the rider. Either the A was viewed again (or the B) and put in the 70-80% category and it is no longer a 'positive'.

Why do you believe Landis or Hamilton more than the Lausanne lab director? If Saugy says that he only remembers four suspicous (=no positive) tests I find it more believable than Landis/Hamilton saying the UCI hid a positive test.

Saugy, who was the lab's scientific director at the time, told Swiss newspaper Neue Züricher Zeitung that he remembered four "suspect" samples from the 2001 Tour de Suisse but did not know whether they belonged to Armstrong.

 

[Mestre]

He may well of gone there for doping reasons on occasions*, but he may also have just gone for a weekend away with the wife.

So, Lance Armstrong may have come to Valencia "many times over the last 15 years" on weekends away with his wife.

Thanks, my curiousity has been sated.....

 

[Race Radio]

T\
No. Saugy claimed it was 70-80%, so by today’s standards it would not be positive, and it would not even rate a notification of suspicion.

Not exactly. Today there are additional criteria. As we do not have the complete results we can only assume. One thing for sure is that the criteria was tightened in 2004 so many previous "borderline" results would now be positive.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Interesting.
By the way, Saugy says LA's TdS suspicious peepee does no longer exist. Is that normal? Shouldn't those be stored?

No - they are only required to store samples for 3 months.

 

[NedBraden]

It will take a while for her to accept the reality that she was lied to repeatedly for years. Gunderson is such a tool.

Why do some of you to refer to Armstrong by the name of the father who allowed him to be adopted by someone else and gave up his name?

Just curious because it seems kind of childish to me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why do you believe Landis or Hamilton more than the Lausanne lab director? If Saugy says that he only remembers four suspicous (=no positive) tests I find it more believable than Landis/Hamilton saying the UCI hid a positive test.

Why?
Simple - do you expect a lab director (even if he wasn't the lab director at the time) to implicate his own lab in covering up a test.
Saugy probably had little to do with the analysis of the '01 TdS samples and is relying on the paper trail to back up his memory of events.

 

[RdBiker]

Why?
Simple - do you expect a lab director (even if he wasn't the lab director at the time) to implicate his own lab in covering up a test.
Saugy probably had little to do with the analysis of the '01 TdS samples and is relying on the paper trail to back up his memory of events.

vs. two riders who are known to have lied for years and who don't actually have first hand knowledge of the events?

 

[VeloCity]

Why do you believe Landis or Hamilton more than the Lausanne lab director?

Why can't they all be telling the truth? Maybe it was a borderline positive but Armstrong told both Landis and Hamilton that it was a "positive" that they "made go away" either out of convenience or, more likely, exaggeration. So as far as Landis and Hamilton knew, it was a "positive".

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Scott Pelley on Late Night with David Letterman (video, not sure about geo-restrictions)

Talks about Hamilton interview around 3:55. Pelley says at least a dozen former riders from Postal have told their story to the GJ.

That´s great... at least a dozen former riders spoke...

In Germany* that would be wayyy enough. 3-5 judges decide on evidence either being hard, witnesses or circumstancial. He´d be 100% convicted. Can´t we shift the whole thing here?

* Actually if ever, i´d better like to be in the hands of a US-Jury. So don´t get me wrong that i like our arbitrariness "justice".

 

[ChrisE]

Gotta agree with my buddy python, you can't just go by the "smoking gun" it's the weight of the evidence in the case that matters

Hey man I like the support with your new avatar. Is this a concerted effort?

I am supporting Sally Jenkins. After I read her powerful interview that was linked to earlier I think she needs some support as well. It is good reading for those that are still on the fence.