The official CBS 60 minutes thread

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
zigmeister said:
It isn't much of an argument, particularly by Frankie and Tyler that "I never tested positive either." The time period they claimed that they and Lance were doing EPO, 99-00, there was no test for EPO!! So of course Frankie would never test positive. No kidding. Wow. Genius Frankie.
Are you sure you understand what you're commenting on? The fact that Frankie didn't test positive, while he DOES admit having done EPO, shows how little value Lance's favorite talking point is. It seems relevant if you're a lawyer or a blind and deaf fanboy, not if you're a rational human being.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
zigmeister said:
It isn't much of an argument, particularly by Frankie and Tyler that "I never tested positive either." The time period they claimed that they and Lance were doing EPO, 99-00, there was no test for EPO!! So of course Frankie would never test positive. No kidding. Wow. Genius Frankie.
Except they were doing a lot more than just EPO - testosterone for eg - for which there was testing and still they were not getting caught.

Remember Thomas Frei? "Frei claimed that if he had drank enough water after the injection, the urine test would not have shown the EPO. He didn't drink the required litre of water however, even when the controller arrived at six o'clock the next morning." http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/frei-confesses-to-epo-usage-and-is-released-by-bmc

If all it takes to mask microdosing EPO is a liter of water, then clearly the "never tested positive" thing is meaningless.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
zigmeister said:
The time period they claimed that they...were doing EPO, 99-00,
wait...are you implying that Hamilton and Andreu are lying about their own PED use? WTF would be the point of a clean rider admitting to doping??
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
VeloCity said:
wait...are you implying that Hamilton and Andreu are lying about their own PED use? WTF would be the point of a clean rider admitting to doping??
that's easy. selling a book of course. ;)

and they are likely to have had a huge frikkin axe to grind with LA.

of course, these two matters must have been way more important to Hamilton and Andreu than loosing your dignity, honor and honesty on national television, fooling your family, and lying under owth.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
VeloCity said:
wait...are you implying that Hamilton and Andreu are lying about their own PED use? WTF would be the point of a clean rider admitting to doping??
To attack Lance, silly. The clean rider tells the world that he doped because he's jealous of Lance and he wants to make Lance look bad--even at the risk of a criminal conviction and damage to his reputation. That's what Zigmeister is arguing!

It's logically possible . . . .. Look, maybe there is a worldwide conspiracy against Lance and many of those in The Clinic are innocent dupes (or worse). Zigmeister could be the new Messiah of truth. Are you going to engage with the Zigmeister and help him spread the Word?
 
MarkvW said:
To attack Lance, silly. The clean rider tells the world that he doped because he's jealous of Lance and he wants to make Lance look bad--even at the risk of a criminal conviction and damage to his reputation. That's what Zigmeister is arguing!

It's logically possible . . . .. Look, maybe there is a worldwide conspiracy against Lance and many of those in The Clinic are innocent dupes (or worse). Zigmeister could be the new Messiah of truth. Are you going to engage with the Zigmeister and help him spread the Word?
Now that made me laugh.

If only Lance could pursue a similar strategy of putting himself at the risk of criminal conviction.

Oh, right. He already did. :D

Dave.
 
Nov 24, 2009
1,158
0
0
D-Queued said:
Thus, not really a legal retort at all.

More like a work a high school creative writing exercise.

Dave.
I was unsure on how to describe what was/is an impotent attempt to ruffle some feathers, but you pretty much nailed it.
 
trompe le monde said:
I was unsure on how to describe what was/is an impotent attempt to ruffle some feathers, but you pretty much nailed it.
Yes, but by describing it as a 'legal retort' you illuminated exactly why it isn't, and how foolish it really is.

Honestly, can you imagine paying your external counsel to send a letter like that?

If I did that, I am sure I would be fired. And deservedly so.

'Aggressive' litigators are typically looking to gouge their clients. Thus, Armstrong is ultimately getting what he deserves and what he is paying for.

Dave.
 
Jan 2, 2010
395
0
0
If only 60 Minutes could have a camera crew filming the legal team reading that letter and telling the journalists about it. Now that would be good reality TV:D

My impression from both Landis and Hamilton was that Armstrong had told them about the test and making it go away not as a warning about tests but to brag about his power and influence. It's entirely possible that he was exaggerating the extent of the cover-up. That might help the UCI and the lab but it really won't help him in the long run. His myth just can't hold up to the scrutiny his legal team is inviting.
 
May 20, 2010
801
0
0
D-Queued said:
Yes, but by describing it as a 'legal retort' you illuminated exactly why it isn't, and how foolish it really is.

Honestly, can you imagine paying your external counsel to send a letter like that?

If I did that, I am sure I would be fired. And deservedly so.

'Aggressive' litigators are typically looking to gouge their clients. Thus, Armstrong is ultimately getting what he deserves and what he is paying for.

Dave.
Sally Jenkins crafted the letter, which was then forwarded to Stapleton who added a flourish or two, and finally on to the writers of The Young and The Restless who put the icing on the rhetorical cake. No lawyer could've written that and sent it with a straight face.
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
70kmph said:
LA dug his own grave when he told Landis and Hamilton he was positive,.
Nope he has been digging his won grave for years with his cheating, bribery, fraud, bullying coupled with his narcissism. It was just a matter of time before someone finally had enough of the toerag.
 
Let’s deconstruct this letter:

1) “there was no positive test”

60 m didn’t say there was. They said “That letter reveals that the lab found the initial test of a urine sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use." Tyler said it was a positive test, but 60m was just reporting what TH said LA told him.

2) “there was no secret meeting at the Swiss lab during the TdS”

60m never said there was. They said “We have also learned that the lab director met with Johan Bruyneel, the U.S. Postal Service team's manager, and Armstrong…the meeting with Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the International Cycling Union itself.” Saugy confirmed that his meeting was arranged by the UCI. TH said it was at the lab, but again, 60 m was just reporting what Tyler said LA told him. Since LA can’t seem to recall the meeting, he can’t contradict him.

3) “there was no coverup of any test result”

60m didn’t say there was. They said “the lab director told the FBI that a representative of the International Cycling Union wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further.” Maybe Rivier said that to the FBI, or maybe even Saugy did. Saying that you don’t want a suspicious result to go further is not the same as covering up. If someone pointed out that it was in the 70-80% range, and that >80% was needed for a positive, they might well conclude that they didn’t want the matter of this test to go any further.

I think Peters may be half wrong and half right here. He is wrong in accusing 60m of being “false” or “incorrect”, particularly by accusing them of the “assertion” that LA tested positive. The word positive was never used in this story, except in Tyler's words, and in fact, 60m never even said that the suspicious samples, described in the letter, belonged to LA. Everything that 60 m sourced has been basically confirmed by Saugy. All the points of difference--the location of the meeting, the claim that the sample was positive, that it was dismissed--are from Tyler.

OTOH, 60 m did present it in a way that implicated LA. The clear implication was that a) the samples were positive; b) they belonged to LA; c) UCI met with LA and JB to discuss these samples; and d) UCI arranged to have the positives dismissed. I think most people who watched the broadcast came away with these conclusions (even people who questioned the truth of these conclusions weren’t questioning that this is what 60 m was saying). Yet nothing 60 m (Pelley) said actually demands any of these conclusions. They are mostly implied by Tyler's story of LA saying a positive had been taken care of. The hard facts that 60m reported, from other sources, only suggest these conclusions when juxtaposed with Tyler's statements.

It seems to me that the key figure here, then, is Tyler. Tyler is the one saying it was positive, and that it was taken care of. Tyler's testimony seems very much at odds with Saugy's. Some here have suggested LA may have just been exaggerating, pretending he had a lot more control of samples than he did. But the fact that both TH and FL said the same thing about TdS suggests this remark of LA's was connected to some suspicious samples.

Sorry, everyone, for the long-winded verbosity.
 
Correct and thank-you. Some sanity amougst all the madness.

Merckx index said:
Let’s deconstruct this letter:

1) “there was no positive test”

60 m didn’t say there was. They said “That letter reveals that the lab found the initial test of a urine sample "suspicious" and "consistent with EPO use." Tyler said it was a positive test, but 60m was just reporting what TH said LA told him.

2) “there was no secret meeting at the Swiss lab during the TdS”

60m never said there was. They said “We have also learned that the lab director met with Johan Bruyneel, the U.S. Postal Service team's manager, and Armstrong…the meeting with Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the International Cycling Union itself.” Saugy confirmed that his meeting was arranged by the UCI. TH said it was at the lab, but again, 60 m was just reporting what Tyler said LA told him. Since LA can’t seem to recall the meeting, he can’t contradict him.

3) “there was no coverup of any test result”

60m didn’t say there was. They said “the lab director told the FBI that a representative of the International Cycling Union wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further.” Maybe Rivier said that to the FBI, or maybe even Saugy did. Saying that you don’t want a suspicious result to go further is not the same as covering up. If someone pointed out that it was in the 70-80% range, and that >80% was needed for a positive, they might well conclude that they didn’t want the matter of this test to go any further.

Sorry, everyone, for the long-winded verbosity.
 
webvan said:
Yes, all good points, however it's hard to feel sorry for the cheating, conniving, bullying Uniballer and his escort of spinsters
Saugy still has some answering to do. The full story has yet to be revealed. Both Floyd and Tyler were convinced that Lance not only had the test covered up but he paid to do so.

It might have been some boasting from Lance but what doesn't add up was yes there was a meeting arranged by the UCI at the Swiss Lab and there was a donation - that much we know.

Why say such things? To impress or to impress upon? "Trust me. I make these things disappear"? When you weigh this detail with the fact that zero USPS riders even came close to testing positive or being linked to a drug scandal in 10 years. It beggars belief that in this period that they had a clean record. Almost every single professional team from 1999 to 2006 had a positive or a scandal of sorts. USPS none?

Something was up. I get the feeling where about to find out what was going on.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
This is the 60min response.


60 MINUTES stands by its story as truthful, accurate and fair. Lance Armstrong and his lawyers were given numerous opportunities to respond to every detail of our reporting for weeks prior to the broadcast and their written responses were fairly and accurately included in the story. Mr. Armstrong still has not addressed charges by teammates Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie that he used performance enhancing drugs with them. 1) The letter from Keker & Van Nest, Mr. Armstrong's attorneys, claims that there was no "positive" or "suspicious" test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse: Mr. Armstrong's teammate, Tyler Hamilton, told 60 MINUTES about the 2001 Tour de Suisse test. Included in his interview are the same facts that Hamilton reported under oath to U.S. federal officials under the penalty of perjury. 60 MINUTES also reported that the Swiss Anti-Doping Laboratory Director, Dr. Martial Saugy, told U.S. officials and the FBI that that there was a "suspicious" test result from the Tour de Suisse in 2001. This was confirmed by a number of international officials who have linked the "suspicious" test to Armstrong. In recent days, Dr. Saugy finally confirmed to the media that there were "suspicious" test results. 2) The letter from Armstrong's attorneys claims that 60 MINUTES was inaccurate in reporting about a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and former U.S. Postal Team Director, Johan Bruyneel: 60 Minutes reported there was a meeting between Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel. Dr. Saugy refused our requests for an interview, but after the broadcast he confirmed that the meeting took place. Mr. Armstrong, after our broadcast, said he couldn't recall that any such meeting took place. 3) Mr. Armstrong's lawyers claim our story was "shoddy," while we found at least three inaccuracies in their letter: They claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place at the Swiss lab; they claimed that 60 MINUTES reported the meeting took place in 2001; and they claimed that 60 MINUTES said it was a "secret" meeting. All three are wrong. David Howman, managing director of the World Anti-Doping Agency, told 60 MINUTES that any meeting between Mr.Armstrong, Mr. Brunyeel and the Swiss lab director, Dr. Saugy, would be "highly unusual" and "inappropriate." Jeff Fager, chairman, CBS News, executive producer, 60 MINUTES
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY