Stephanie testifies today

[mastersracer]

If Novitsky is focused on USPS fraud etc., wouldn't her testimony be at best to establish a history of doping by Armstrong? It concerns a conversation in 1996 - Armstrong wasn't even a member of USPS until 98.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't think there is a chance in hell of conviction, and probably not even an inditement, if this all remains on the level of "I heard so and so say that they once heard so and so say such and such." That's just way too abstract.

So I can't believe anyone really cares what Stephanie or Betsy or Lemond or any of these people say or don't say in regards to this case. If they don't have photos or videos or bank account numbers or can show exactly where the bodies have been buried (so to speak), then no one is going to be convinced.

If there turns out to be no paper trail of actual failed drug tests that were covered up by bribery, or no testimony by credible human beings who put an actual needle into Armstrong's arm, and have proof of it (like Clemens' trainer's bloody cotton balls), then this whole thing goes away.

And even though the failure of the case may be terrible for the sport of cycling, if that's all the investigation comes up with, its dismissal would actually be a victory for the American concept of justice.

You have a lot of "ifs" there.

You do realise other riders have already backed up Floyds admissions?
And you're right - this is the Feds, so they will be going through all the financial records, emails, phone records.

The only thing Stephanie appears to have done is kept on digging.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Novitsky is focused on USPS fraud etc., wouldn't her testimony be at best to establish a history of doping by Armstrong? It concerns a conversation in 1996 - Armstrong wasn't even a member of USPS until 98.

You're forgetting the fraud of the SCA case - which was in 2005 and would have had an impact on USPS.

 

[stephens]

I know where his urine samples are buried? is that good enough? or do you think they will pass today's EPO tests?

I don't know. According to people on this forum, riders get away with using epo because it only stays detectable for a few days and is particularly hard to catch in urine (and so they lobby for blood tests). Yet somehow we are being asked to simultaneously trust that EPO use has been proven by testing years-old urine samples? (not to mention u.s. courts will likely not find the chain of custody of said samples to be adequate, nor the "identification" method used to tie them to Armstrong).

 

[Kennf1]

I don't know. According to people on this forum, riders get away with using epo because it only stays detectable for a few days and is particularly hard to catch in urine (and so they lobby for blood tests). Yet somehow we are being asked to simultaneously trust that EPO use has been proven by testing years-old urine samples? (not to mention u.s. courts will likely not find the chain of custody of said samples to be adequate, nor the "identification" method used to tie them to Armstrong).

According to "people on this forum?" There are multiple links that have been provided to interviews with experts in this fied. Statements concerning the length of time epo is detectable are in the context of epo in the body, not epo sitting in a frozen urine sample. Read the Ashenden interview. So yes, you ARE expected to trust that it can be detected in a six year old sample.

As for your statement about chain of custody or identification, what problems are you aware of? The fact that the French were involved?

 

[Race Radio]

I don't know. According to people on this forum, riders get away with using epo because it only stays detectable for a few days and is particularly hard to catch in urine (and so they lobby for blood tests). Yet somehow we are being asked to simultaneously trust that EPO use has been proven by testing years-old urine samples? (not to mention u.s. courts will likely not find the chain of custody of said samples to be adequate, nor the "identification" method used to tie them to Armstrong).

You are confused (As usual)

Recently riders have been using a technique called microdosing. Small doses of EPO taken at night so they are gone by the next morning.

In 1999 this method was not needed. There was no EPO test so riders could take as much as they wanted.

Regardless, nobody is saying that EPO disappears from the sample quickly. They are saying that your body stops passing it in a few days.

Nice try at obfuscation.

 

[Race Radio]

Character assassination. Classy.

Did you listen to the tape? Stephanie herself admits to bing in a haze of drugs and booze.

 

[Race Radio]

you hear anonymous leaks from sources involved in the investigation is that a quote on the record would cause them to get fired. .

I am confused by this claim. When has anyone from the Feds leaked anything on this case to the media?

So far all the anonymous sources seem to be witnesses who do not wish make their name public because they know that as soon as they do the Armstrong media machine will slime them just like they did LeMond, Betsy, Etc.

 

[stephens]

As for your statement about chain of custody or identification, what problems are you aware of? The fact that the French were involved?

The fact that the samples were not constantly under the control of law enforcement officers trained in evidence gathering, stored in labs accredited by the u.s. government, and so on. If anyone can point us to a previous case that allowed such "evidence" in U.S. federal courts despite protest from lawyers of similar ability as Armstrong is likely to have, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Race Radio]

The fact that the samples were not constantly under the control of law enforcement officers trained in evidence gathering, stored in labs accredited by the u.s. government, and so on. If anyone can point us to a previous case that allowed such "evidence" in U.S. federal courts despite protest from lawyers of similar ability as Armstrong is likely to have, I'd like to hear it.

You are kidding right?

Please tell us when evidence stored by a WADA approved lab was not allowed by the Fed's?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Are you saying she forgot about the hospital incident due to one night of drinking?

Or are you implying that she has a more consistent problem with alcohol or drugs that caused her to misremember?

The latter is what I inferred from your statement.

I am not implying anything, but maybe she does suffer from CRS* syndrome.



*Can't remember sh**

 

[stephens]

You mean the LNDD lab that WADA asked the UCI to investigate and that investigation totally exonerated Armstrong and all others tested by the LNDD because of poor handling and testing methods? (yes, we know that Ashenden disagrees, but no matter how smart he may be, no matter how "right" he may be, the official "accredited" record of WADA/UCI/IOC is that the samples and results are useless as evidence).

 

[Race Radio]

Babble

There is a reason WADA said.

“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” “Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”

The statement said WADA was astonished the UCI “would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report.”

Let us know when you can give us an example of the Fed's not accepting samples from a WADA lab.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You mean the LNDD lab that WADA asked the UCI to investigate and that investigation totally exonerated Armstrong and all others tested by the LNDD because of poor handling and testing methods? (yes, we know that Ashenden disagrees, but no matter how smart he may be, no matter how "right" he may be, the official "accredited" record of WADA/UCI/IOC is that the samples and results are useless as evidence).

Wrong - here is what WADA chief Pound said about that report;

“The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical,” Pound said. “Were the matter not so serious and the allegations it contains so irresponsible, we would be inclined to give it the complete lack of attention it deserves.”

The LNDD lab was good enough to catch Landis.

 

[stephens]

And wasn't he then sanctioned by the IOC for making such statements?

Anyway...we will see in a few months/years whether the courts in the usa will accept those samples as evidence. If they do, I will make a donation of $100 to the charity of Race Radio's choice.

And just so we're keeping my pledges in order, from this thread (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9759&highlight=charity&page=2) I offered $100 to the Hog's charity choice if he's right that Lance will be proven to have run a drug network in Europe (Hog:"In this case Armstrong set up the network through Europe."), and $200 if the big three are handcuffed by the end of the year (Hog: "Levi, Hincapie, Armstrong and co. all think its about using dope but expect them all to be lead away in handcuffs by year out.")

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And wasn't he then sanctioned by the IOC for making such statements?

Anyway...we will see in a few months/years whether the courts in the usa will accept those samples as evidence. If they do, I will make a donation of $100 to the charity of Race Radio's choice.

Quite simply- no he was not.

He was sanctioned because Armstrong complained that Pound called him a doper:

"Anything I do or say in relation to doping is done in my capacity with WADA. I'm responsible to WADA, not the IOC." said Pound.

 

[theswordsman]

I'm not sure how a 2005 test of 1999 urine samples made it into this thread, but since it did, and also Vrijman and WADA, I'll post a link for new people.

There's a lot of good stuff in WADA's Official Statement on the Vrijman Report. It includes the step by step communication. The UCI refused to look into the situation with the samples until WADA sent a letter saying that they would do it. Lots of good information in twelve pages of plain English.

The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions. Mr. Vrijman, at all times, confuses this fundamental difference and seems to
indicate that, in conducting research, the laboratory was required to carry it out in the same manner as for analysing samples for adverse analytical findings. This is not the case, and Mr. Vrijman, in directing himself to the rules relating to samples collected for analysis rather than understanding the difference for research, has totally misdirected himself in his inquiry. This very basic error leads to ill-informed and incorrect outcomes. The laboratory has indicated publicly that it has no doubt whatsoever in the results of its analysis, and that no sample used for the research project was contaminated, manipulated or interfered with. There may be appropriately
stored residue still available for DNA and other further analysis.

As there are no proper factual conclusions, there can be no proper legal analysis. In this case, however, it is even worse. Mr. Vrijman fails to cite any rule or regulation, by number nor reference, where he can establish that
his speculations show a breach. Without a breach of rule, there cannot be allegations of misbehaviour or wrongdoings. There have not been any.

Mr. Vrijman suggests that WADA was formed in 2003. As any expert in antidoping matters knows, WADA was formed in 1999.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

 

[fasthill]

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

Much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Benotti69]

I don't know. According to people on this forum, riders get away with using epo because it only stays detectable for a few days and is particularly hard to catch in urine (and so they lobby for blood tests). Yet somehow we are being asked to simultaneously trust that EPO use has been proven by testing years-old urine samples? (not to mention u.s. courts will likely not find the chain of custody of said samples to be adequate, nor the "identification" method used to tie them to Armstrong).

it would appear that you are trying to obsfucate the very informative postings on here.

a search and a bit of reading would lead you to the answers or are you trolling?

when LA was taking EPO in the 99 TdF there was no test for it. When they took the urine samples which in 99 contained traces of EPO they are frozen after initial tests for PEDs.

 

[SilasCL]

I am confused by this claim. When has anyone from the Feds leaked anything on this case to the media?

So far all the anonymous sources seem to be witnesses who do not wish make their name public because they know that as soon as they do the Armstrong media machine will slime them just like they did LeMond, Betsy, Etc.

There's a couple references to "people familiar with the matter" in this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575357423818505614.html

While not leaked testimony from the grand jury, they are comments on an ongoing investigation. There's a reason Novitzky always says no comment, he's not supposed to comment on an ongoing case.

You're right that there have also been anonymous 'former teammates' who commented on their testimony. I missed them in my original reply.

 

[Barrus]

The fact that the samples were not constantly under the control of law enforcement officers trained in evidence gathering, stored in labs accredited by the u.s. government, and so on. If anyone can point us to a previous case that allowed such "evidence" in U.S. federal courts despite protest from lawyers of similar ability as Armstrong is likely to have, I'd like to hear it.

I have said this often enough, even if the evidence is gathered by unlawful means by a third party, as long as this party cannot be seen as an agent of the state (and with this I mean bot the country US, as well as a specific state within the US) it can be used in criminal proceedings. See Burdeau v. McDowell.

Also in a Grand Jury proceeding it would even be allowed outside of this exception to the exclusionary rule

 

[Archibald]

The fact that the samples were not constantly under the control of law enforcement officers trained in evidence gathering, stored in labs accredited by the u.s. government, and so on.

I love this bit - as if US law enforcement and the US government are the only ones with the ability to do any of this, and the rest of the planet are completely incompetent...

 

[sherer]

seeing as we are talking about the 99 samples. Why if the UCI couldn't even be bothered to look into this didn't WADA do this on their own. Once the UCI had commissioned the hack job report it shows they aren't fit for purpose and WADA should have followed up on this themselves there and then.

It's similar to my arguments on having national associations doing the drug testing and investigations. If they make millions of a star why on earth would they want to investigate when they can ignore it

 

[Race Radio]

There's a couple references to "people familiar with the matter" in this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575357423818505614.html

While not leaked testimony from the grand jury, they are comments on an ongoing investigation. There's a reason Novitzky always says no comment, he's not supposed to comment on an ongoing case.

You're right that there have also been anonymous 'former teammates' who commented on their testimony. I missed them in my original reply.

Thank you for proving my point, the Feds have had zero leaks in this case.

 

[Archibald]

so is there any further news on what she's said during the seven hours?