The USADA letter in full

[Galic Ho]

I'm sure Pellizotti argued the same.

He did. Wasn't the only one. Not that this matters. I wish they did focus more on the specific quantitative measures, but testimony will be the big deal this time. I loved the part where 10 out of 11 people contacted by USADA agreed to truthfully disclose their whole involvement. Hincapie from memory was one of those guys. Tyler, Floyd and Frankie Andreu were as well.

Does anyone know if JV and CVV talked to the USADA?

 

[Cobblestones]

Hey stephens,

what about your retics then, and total blood volume? Why don't you just post all of that so we can have a look. Put your steroid profile up as well while you're at it.

 

[joe_papp]

...USADA only initiates matters supported by the evidence. We do not choose whether or not we do our job based on outside pressures, intimidation or for any reason other than the evidence. Our duty on behalf of clean athletes and those that value the integrity of sport is to fairly and thoroughly evaluate all the evidence available and when there is credible evidence of doping, take action under the established rules....

You only have to look at the statistics corresponding to USADA's win/loss in cases. I don't have the # off the top of my head, but their record of winning cases is enviable, to say the least. And they really don't bring fwd cases that aren't slam dunks.

So that's why Phil Z. got done-in for Eposino (admittedly on appeal, since he skewed the results of the first hearing by lying so blatantly), while Hilton Clarke is still racing (guilty but not a slam dunk b/c of how the transactions were processed, so no prosecution, ultimately).

 

[thehog]

Armstrong has until June 29 to file a written response to the charges. The case could ultimately go before an arbitration panel to consider evidence. The USADA letter said in that case a hearing should be expected by November.

 

[Merckx index]

Heres his values but I don't know enough to see anything suspicious other than the fluctuation in H/C between May and June 09 (38.2 - 45.7)

May 31 2009 was the last day of the Giro, which LA rode in that year, so a low HT value then is to be expected. But that makes the value at the end of the TDF (7/25/09), 43, all the more suspicious. HT should drop during a GT, but his value is the same at the end as it was at the start. One might argue that a value the same but not higher is only suspicious, but having that value of 38 at the end of the Giro sets a sort of benchmark or baseline for what his value should be. Note his 3 Giro values: 43.2 at the start, 40 in the middle, 38.2 at the end. That is the kind of profile one would expect to see. But his TDF profile is not like that at all.

The two values of 45 or more in the middle of June I think are suspicious. If he was transfusing blood, it would have been difficult to follow a schedule of regular withdrawals/infusions, since he couldn't keep to it during the Giro. But he could easily afford to withdraw during the offseason,and store the cells frozen for in-season transfusion. It's possible that he transfused not long after the Giro, to accelerate his recovery.

The whole "passport" concept is bogus. Over the last three years, my own hematocrit has tested as low as 34.7 and as high as 41 and everywhere in between, in a haphazard pattern. I've not taken any drugs. These things happen.

It's not bogus, it is difficult to be certain from a set of values that doping occurred. But my HT has never varied more than 1 point. If you underwent some physiological or pathological extreme (prolonged, intense exercise, certain diseases, e.g.), it would be possible to get the variation you report, but if you had it measured under similar conditions each time, that much variability would be very unusual.

Having said that, as I said earlier, I don't think they have a very strong case with the blood values. Those values can be supporting evidence, but based on the letter, the case clearly hinges on the witnesses. If their credibility is accepted, then the case is very strong. If their credibility can be impugned in some way--and that will depend on just who said what and when--there apparently is no smoking gun. LA said a while back he wouldn't fight doping charges any more, but I doubt that he will sit idly by with TDF titles at stake, and really, I think he is very p-d off at not being able to compete in Tris.

 

[rata de sentina]

The whole "passport" concept is bogus. Over the last three years, my own hematocrit has tested as low as 34.7 and as high as 41 and everywhere in between, in a haphazard pattern. I've not taken any drugs. These things happen.

We're always grateful for any comments from an expert haematologist such as yourself. As pointed out by others and not to diminish your comments in any way but in the spirit of openness it would be good if you posted the corresponding retic counts for those Hct. Thanks.

 

[joe_papp]

...LA said a while back he wouldn't fight doping charges any more, but I doubt that he will sit idly by with TDF titles at stake, and really, I think he is very p-d off at not being able to compete in Tris.

I think this (what you say above re. being po'd) explains the non sequitur on Twitter, where he fumed that this was somehow "unconstitutional." He's raving mad! USADA managed to seriously hit him the one place where it would really hurt in the short-term...

 

[Kennf1]

The whole "passport" concept is bogus. Over the last three years, my own hematocrit has tested as low as 34.7 and as high as 41 and everywhere in between, in a haphazard pattern. I've not taken any drugs. These things happen.

It's a little more complicated than just hematocrit. Read up on it.

 

[Escarabajo]

Maybe i need to expain why i dont believe in the passport concept. In this three year period, I did not alter my exercise regimes, didn't move to or from altitude, didn't alter diet, etc. And yet my hematocrit levels and various other blood test levels, greatly. There is no obvious cause to the anemia (e.g. Not iron deficiency or any other dietary type cause) and so they just monitor levels every few months and tell me to forget about it otherwise. I would suspect that an athlete that is always doing something different (legal stuff) could also have his values as tested change wildly.

OK, just entered all of LA's blood values from the past year into a spreadsheet and graphed it. Shaded in blue is the normal range (85-95) for OFF-score. Anyone want to bet that LA got transfused immediately before the TdF? Based on how quickly it dropped after 6/16/09, if he was tested a week earlier he may have been above the 133 cutoff. Seems ironic to me that these values were posted by LA as evidence that he doesn't dope...

Is this proof enough?

You are right, the passport is not stiff enough and needs a more fine tuning and usage of the statistical data like Michael Ashenden was saying so we can get more dopers. Having said that there has been a reduction in blood testing in the last year and that was one of the reasons for Ashenden's retirement from the UCI expert panel.

 

[Kennf1]

Is this proof enough?

You are right, the passport is not stiff enough and needs a more fine tuning and usage of the statistical data like Michael Ashenden was saying so we can get more dopers. Having said that there has been a reduction in blood testing in the last year and that was one of the reasons for Ashenden's retirement from the UCI expert panel.

Yep. And it's still amazing to watch the timeline in his "comeback" from hiring a firm to monitor his blood to prove he's clean, to firing that firm, to posting these values and having them called out, to him pulling the data off his website.

And still, there are clueless clowns that think he's clean. Unbelievable.

 

[Cervelo77]

Armstrong must be stupid or arrogant to have come back in 2009 with the same program.

On the positive side for him, the USofA loves a redemption story. He'd probably be wise to start working that angle.

 

[MacRoadie]

Armstrong must be stupid or arrogant...

"Or"?.....

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Armstrong must be stupid or arrogant to have come back in 2009 with the same program.

It certainly was a bad move. It's unclear what his intentions were before the comeback. Hiring Catlin and pledging to put results online doesn't seem like the act of someone intent on doping. Maybe he got the wrong idea from watching Sastre and a rather weaker than today Evans fight it out in 2008. But he cannot have been left in any doubt after climbing with Pellizotti, Menchov and Di luca at the Giro.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Observations

USADA don't know how to reach Pepe Marti. They sent his copy of the letter to the UCI. The irony is pretty rich.

And then there's the UCI's cover-up of the 2001 positive popping up again. That reflects badly on an Olympic sport. Again. Sadly, I think this will be ignored like the UCI's failed attempt at covering up the Contador positive. The cover-ups are a far bigger story. And yet, somehow no one will touch the story.

Some names were redacted from the CC at the end of the letter. The redacted names are where the power lies.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Reading the letter in full, I think it's going to be quite hard for him to get out of it. The only glimmer of hope is it doesn't appear to be certain they will go past the statue of limitations, even though they can use testomony before this date as circumstantical evidence to back up questionable blood results from 09/10. You've got to imagine, despite the tough holding statement last night, that he wouldn't contest if they left him with six tours and a ban. The problem is, the tone and style of the statement suggests USADA are in no mood to cut any type of plea bargin. It very much has the whiff of an old cop who has been out witted by a gangster all these years but now has finally gotten him. Very other worldly.

 

[BroDeal]

It certainly was a bad move. It's unclear what his intentions were before the comeback. Hiring Catlin and pledging to put results online doesn't seem like the act of someone intent on doping. Maybe he got the wrong idea from watching Sastre and a rather weaker than today Evans fight it out in 2008. But he cannot have been left in any doubt after climbing with Pellizotti, Menchov and Di luca at the Giro.

Whoah. BPC is back. Now it was Pellizotti, Menchov, and DiLuca that pushed Armstrong into doping during his comeback. The poor guy wanted to compete clean, but those dastardly Italians and a Russian dashed his plans.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Whoah. BPC is back. Now it was Pellizotti, Menchov, and DiLuca that pushed Armstrong into doping during his comeback. The poor guy wanted to compete clean, but those dastardly Italians and a Russian dashed his plans.

Just trying to square the behavior. Why do you think he posted results online that were used against him, and hired and then fired Catlin? His performance at the Giro was down on the top GC men, two of which were banned, the other very high on suspicion. You have to wonder what part that played in his thinking. He didn't go through these unnecessary hoops the other years, so it is interesting, don't you think?

In 2010, the plan was clearly to dope, albeit it couldn't be executed during the tour after the Landis bomb.

 

[DirtyWorks]

.. so it is interesting, don't you think?

No. This has been covered in excruciating detail in many other threads thanks to the deniers/pretenders/Public Strategies hacks/Livestrong.com interns/jokers like you.

Please stop polluting the discussion.

Still, I will throw you a bone. The search engine included in the forum software CN uses is pretty weak. Use google and preface your search with "site:forum.cyclingnews.com". For example: site:forum.cyclingnews.com 2001 armstrong positive

 

[TechnicalDescent]

No. This has been covered in excruciating detail in many other threads thanks to the deniers/pretenders/Public Strategies hacks/Livestrong.com interns/jokers like you.

Please stop polluting the discussion.

Still, I will throw you a bone. The search engine included in the forum software CN uses is pretty weak. Use google and preface your search with "site:forum.cyclingnews.com". For example: site:forum.cyclingnews.com 2001 armstrong positive

I was responding to someone else's point about the stupidity of coming back with the same program. The evidence suggests he may not have properly thought it through beforehand. It's not something you can dispute by pointing me to a thread - it's a circumstantial case about intentions, not whether he doped or not. He did dope.

But yeah, lets talk about the letter. I think it's pretty bad for him. As I say, the best chance is a) getting off on a technicality nobody has thought of yet. Or b,) the end of the letter, which does not, from my reading of it, confirm that they will definitely go past the statute of limitations. I think this is what he thought they would do when the men's mag interview was done, which is why he laid the ground work for not contesting the loss of a tour and a podium. What has thrown a spanner in the works is the tougher language suggesting it may go all the way back to 1998. If that is the case, there is no option but to fight it all the way and then claim a stitch up.

There may also be hope for him with the witnesses here. Do they have to testify again? It refers to them having to give evidence in the future. Now, it just might be that some of them crack. But it's basically public now - there could be a backlash against a bunch of dopers turning on the best guy. It's an outside chance at this point, it has to be said.

 

[Stingray34]

McLovin this:

It is also the law that evidence of doping throughout the entire time period described is
relevant and will be admissible in any eventual hearing for at least two reasons: (I)
evidence of doping and evidence of conspiratorial acts outside any applicable limitations
period can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period, and (2) as
explained in USADA v. Hellebuyck (copy provided as Attachment D) results outside the
limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statute of limitations has been
waived through false statements, fraudulent concealment or other wrongful conduct.

He's gonna lose OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSeven. And judging from his MJ interview last month, he knows it.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Do they have to testify again? It refers to them having to give evidence in the future. Now, it just might be that some of them crack. It's an outside chance, it has to be said.

Don't know what the process resulting in a finding of fact is fashioned after. Some of the legal Yankees might be able to help in another thread.

If they give him the time, he'll try to lie, or buy, or as the letter clearly states intimidate. Again. Just like he took about a year off then started messing with multisports and then couldn't just leave it there. Oh no... He hasn't changed a bit over the decades and that's going to be his eventual undoing. Even if USADA can't close this one he can't stop and so the ghosts/skeletons will come out.

I easily imagine USADA's paltry Federal funding coming under examination for challenging the likes of a Nike athlete. Meanwhile Weisel will probably be the first to fund the Livestrong.org Fairness Fund. Give Public Strategies a day or two to work some kind of "awareness" into it.

 

[joe_papp]

Bill Bock

Don't know what the process resulting in a finding of fact is fashioned after. Some of the legal Yankees might be able to help in another thread.

If they give him the time, he'll try to lie, or buy, or as the letter clearly states intimidate. Again.

Today was a good day. News like this challenges the legitimacy of pro sports and so lots of former sponsors with lots of money and political access will probably help. Oakley, Nike, and more including the UCI and Team Armstrong who just so happen run USA Cycling will have something to contribute to Armstrong's defense well outside of the case process. Armstrong is still on at least one of the Board of Directors over at USAC.

I easily imagine USADA's paltry Federal funding coming under examination for challenging the likes of a Nike athlete. Meanwhile Weisel will probably be the first to fund the Livestrong.org Fairness Fund. Give Public Strategies a day or two to work some kind of "awareness" into it.

I hear what you're saying, and I think I can understand why you would reach these conclusions, but I have to say that I don't feel anywhere near as pessimistic. That's because there is one variable here that benefits USADA, much to LA's detriment, that wasn't a factor in the federal investigation - and his name is William (Bill) Bock, USADA's general counsel.

He is an extraordinary man who fights the good fight not for money, prestige or power, but because it's the right thing to do. It matters little how many elite attorneys the accused can employ on their legal team: they can only operate in court one at a time, and Bock will eat alive each one of them, and cut to pieces any witnesses they are foolish enough to call to testify, and he will turn whatever defensive claims they proffer into anchovies that only make the accused and their crimes stink even worse.

 

[Cloxxki]

The way it kinda read to me, USADA make a proper effort to find ex-teammates who'd lie for Lance, but couldn't find and, and they were all pretty consistent in what they did have to share. Any chance the riders were in informal agreement with each other that they were going to high-fave lance wearign yellow bracelets in person, but keep it superficial and not actually do his jail time for him?

 

[Benotti69]

Don't know what the process resulting in a finding of fact is fashioned after. Some of the legal Yankees might be able to help in another thread.

If they give him the time, he'll try to lie, or buy, or as the letter clearly states intimidate. Again. Just like he took about a year off then started messing with multisports and then couldn't just leave it there. Oh no... He hasn't changed a bit over the decades and that's going to be his eventual undoing. Even if USADA can't close this one he can't stop and so the ghosts/skeletons will come out.

I easily imagine USADA's paltry Federal funding coming under examination for challenging the likes of a Nike athlete. Meanwhile Weisel will probably be the first to fund the Livestrong.org Fairness Fund. Give Public Strategies a day or two to work some kind of "awareness" into it.

I would love to see Noike commit sporting hari-kiri on Armstrong but he is small a fish in sporting terms

 

[yourwelcome]

the accused and their crimes stink even worse.

A little over the top coming from you, Joe.