Urine Trouble

[flicker]

Lances' 99 samples were tarnished, it has been proven. Those samples are tarnished and ancient history. If Novitzky wants to take Armstrong to the yard on that issue, he is truly barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'd rather wait for these to actually get tested so we can see what (if anything) is in the samples, rather then wild specualtion about how this is the end of the world for 'fanboys.'

My question would be what will the Clinic do if they all come back negative, defeating the old myth of 7 positives and so on? Obviously we know what would happen if they come back positive (much 'hoo har we told you so 'na na na-na na' etc), but the other possibility needs to be entertained.

Please try and keep the insults to a minimum.

They were already tested in 2005 - six of his samples had EPO in them.

The samples will not degrade if stored properly - and as the Feds have requested them, then it is safe that they believe they have been stored correctly.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm guessing by 'LA fans', you're putting in me, wrongly, in that category. I'm not fan (I always preferred Ullrich), I'm just not a hater. I see him no different than any other doper.

What I was separating was BBs theory about trafficking, which I thought wouldn't fly. I think a professional like Novisky will have something more substantial up his sleeve.

You appear to have fallen into the trap of thinking any poster not denouncing Armstrong is a fan. Not the case. Here's an analogy. Some Christians think that evolution is rubbish and the world is 6000 years old. Other Christians are more reasonable and believe evolution and think that the world is 4.5 billion years old. This doesn't mean they're atheists - they just a little more circumspect. It's the difference between fundamentalism and reasoned thinking. This is the problem with this forum when it comes to LA - it's black or white and grey is dismissed by one side as the other.

That, my friend, may the crux of the ongoing discussion.

He is SO different than any other doper. Not only in public profile, but more importantly in methodology and his personal history with the UCI. NO OTHER rider (or doper) has had this type of confluence of personal team management and potential influence with the international governing body.

His is NOT 'just another doper'.

 

[ingsve]

2. EPO test

3. CERA test (if this is not part of the EPO test)

If you do EPO and CERA tests then you might as well also do a NESP test which was the 2nd generation of EPO that Mühlegg used in 2002. I don't know if CERA was even invented in 1999 yet so NESP is perhaps more likely than CERA.

 

[BotanyBay]

He'll have to explain where he got it, hence the "trafficking".

Americans don't have to explain anything at trial. That's the burden of the prosecution.

Having something in your blood is a far cry from being guilty of trafficking.

I'm starting to guess that they're probably looking for things "other" than EPO.

 

[Race Radio]

We are all short of facts. But if LA stands trial for trafficking as the focus then you will be very disappointed in the outcome. So will Novitsky.

If you think you know what the charges are and what the sentences are available, then please tell us. That's what we're discussing.

A lot of posters say 'you know nothing' without saying what they know. Everyone likes to learn.

Really? Flying illegal drugs around on his private jet is not against the law?

 

[Mambo95]

That, my friend, may the crux of the ongoing discussion.

He is SO different than any other doper. Not only in public profile, but more importantly in methodology and his personal history with the UCI. NO OTHER rider (or doper) has had this type of confluence of personal team management and potential influence with the international governing body.

His is NOT 'just another doper'.

He's only different because he was better at it and more successful. So the rest of his team were at it. Is this different than Ullrich, Virenque, Millar etc? Not to me it isn't. A cheat's a cheat in my book.

 

[SC1990]

They were already tested in 2005 - six of his samples had EPO in them.

The samples will not degrade if stored properly - and as the Feds have requested them, then it is safe that they believe they have been stored correctly.

I thought it was 2001? Ah well, kinda helps my point, some many rumours and discrepancies that the Feds looking at it will clear it up once and for all and give a definitive answer - no longer will one side be able to say 'that was just the newspaper and they never really had the evidence and now half of them are missing', and the other will no longer be able to say 'clearly he tested positive.'

Why bother then if we all supposedly know they are positive? That's the problem with this whole scenario, even in the case if Armstrong is innocent, he can never prove it any more. It's going to run forever.

Another question, just because I can't remember, how come if he did test positive and this was brought up in 2005, how come nothing came of it?

 

[Mambo95]

Really? Flying illegal drugs around on his private jet is not against the law?

If he did that then that's something to investigate. But I have no knowledge of that. Maybe Novisky does.

 

[Race Radio]

If he did that then that's something to investigate. But I have no knowledge of that. Maybe Novisky does.

Did you read the Sports Illustrated article?

Don't worry, Novitzky does

 

[Mambo95]

No - I haven't.
I just read your posts and they are all the same, there is nothing reasoned in them. All your pots look to defend LA at every turn, ..... saying things like Novitzky will be laughed at etc is not reasoned thinking. There is nothing grey in your arguments.

No you've got it completely wrong. Do you not think Novitsky's staff are sitting around saying 'this is good evidence' and 'this is rubbish'? Or do you think they'll throw any vague theory that pops into their mind into the case?

I'm not a fanatic. Neither is Novitsky. Evidence and charges need to be filtered according to feasibility. That's all I'm doing.

The problem is many on here are so drenched in LA bile that they are unable to look at anything objectively. That's why this place is nicknamed 'The Asylum' elsewhere.

LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. (Good enough?)

 

[Mambo95]

Did you read the Sports Illustrated article?

Don't worry, Novitzky does

I did, but I didn't forensically catalogue it, I'm afraid. I can't remember all of it.

 

[MacRoadie]

But if I were in Lance's shoes, and someone tried to introduce 12-year-old urine evidence against me, and that evidence had been stored in private, non-judicial hands (and even re-tested without my consent or presence), I'd be working very hard to discredit it. And I don't think it would be very hard.

In other words, I hope they've got a lot more than Floyd and some 12 Y/O urine.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that if a bunch of us can come up with all these arguments as to the weakness of using the samples in any of the manners suggested here in the forum, then there's a pretty good chance seasoned federal investigators and Assistant Attorneys General considered all these long before they even requested the samples.

Just a hunch, but whatever use they plan on for those samples, the time, effort and expense were all taken into acount and the use was still vetted by the folks well up the food chain from Novitsky, et al.

 

[BotanyBay]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that if a bunch of us can come up with all these arguments as to the weakness of using the samples in any of the manners suggested here in the forum, then there's a pretty good chance seasoned federal investigators and Assistant Attorneys General considered all these long before they even requested the samples.

Just a hunch, but whatever use they plan on for those samples, the time, effort and expense were all taken into acount and the use was still vetted by the folks well up the food chain from Novitsky, et al.

And I'm seeking theories as to "what else might they have" that they're combining with this 12-year-old potentially insecure evidence. I agree with you. I'm not here just to crap on this evidence. I want to see theories on what they plan to combine it with.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I thought it was 2001? Ah well, kinda helps my point, some many rumours and discrepancies that the Feds looking at it will clear it up once and for all and give a definitive answer - no longer will one side be able to say 'that was just the newspaper and they never really had the evidence and now half of them are missing', and the other will no longer be able to say 'clearly he tested positive.'

Why bother then if we all supposedly know they are positive? That's the problem with this whole scenario, even in the case if Armstrong is innocent, he can never prove it any more. It's going to run forever.

Another question, just because I can't remember, how come if he did test positive and this was brought up in 2005, how come nothing came of it?

Firstly - no idea where you got 2001 - except that it shows you have not really followed this case.

To answer the highlighted - the UCI had a friend of Heins called Vrijman come in and say that the UCI could not prosecute a case, but this has been discussed many times, so use the search function.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He's only different because he was better at it and more successful. So the rest of his team were at it. Is this different than Ullrich, Virenque, Millar etc? Not to me it isn't. A cheat's a cheat in my book.

This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)

The 3 examples you gave all served sanctions for their doping - if you were interested in justice and say ' a cheat is a cheat' then you would be happy to see LA get his day too.

 

[Elagabalus]

...Why bother...

Why bother?! To WIN the internet, of course!!

 

[Mambo95]

This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)

The 3 examples you gave all served sanctions for their doping - if you were interested in justice and say ' a cheat is a cheat' then you would be happy to see LA get his day too.

Of course the three examples severed sanctions - so should Armstrong. The fact that it won't matter much is down to timing. I just don't buy into the blood lust for substantial prison time unless it's justified (which it probably isn't).

This forum runs so much on hatred, that dislike is seen as fandom. You all need step back and get some perspective.

 

[Mambo95]

This is why I accuse you of being a Lance fan -(nothing wrong with that BTW)

The 3 examples you gave all served sanctions for their doping - if you were interested in justice and say ' a cheat is a cheat' then you would be happy to see LA get his day too.

Of course the three examples served sanctions - so should Armstrong. The fact that it won't matter much is down to timing. I just don't buy into the blood lust for substantial prison time unless it's justified (which it probably isn't).

This forum runs so much on hatred, that dislike is seen as fandom. You all need step back and get some perspective. George Bush's 'you're with us or against us' isn't a smart approach.

 

[Dallas_]

My question would be what will the Clinic do if they all come back negative, defeating the old myth of 7 positives and so on? Obviously we know what would happen if they come back positive (much 'hoo har we told you so 'na na na-na na' etc), but the other possibility needs to be entertained.

I prefer to look to experts such as Ashenden.

"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

I may be wrong, but I think Novitzky has already spoken to Ashenden. This could be why Novitzky is confident of the samples being right on the money.

cheers

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course the three examples severed sanctions - so should Armstrong. The fact that it won't matter much is down to timing. I just don't buy into the blood lust for substantial prison time unless it's justified (which it probably isn't).

This forum runs so much on hatred, that dislike is seen as fandom. You all need step back and get some perspective.

Your blue would make sense if the highlighted were true, but it's not.

Very, very few here seriously believe LA will do prison time - you see, you just made that up, and that questions your claimed 'objectivity'.

LA - like all the others you mentioned is a doper - and he should be sanctioned accordingly, and if its shown he trafficked etc then he needs to be punished accordingly.

 

[MacRoadie]

And I'm seeking theories as to "what else might they have" that they're combining with this 12-year-old potentially insecure evidence. I agree with you. I'm not here just to crap on this evidence. I want to see theories on what they plan to combine it with.

I understand that.

Just getting tired of all the other posts about Novitsky:

-He's gonna get schooled...
-LA's lawyers will have a field day with him...
-He's gonna be real sorry...
-He'll be sorely disappointed..
-He's barking up the wrong tree...
-If Landis is all he's got, he's got nothing...
-Blah, blah, blah...

It's like these guys here think Novitsky is some lone-wolf, small town, hayseed sheriff who got the job because his dad is the mayor.

The guy is a seasoned federal agent, first with the IRS and now with the FDA. He has superiors, they have superiors, and nothing gets done unless it is fully vetted: especially intercontinental flights and meetings with foreign law enforcement, Interpol, and formal Letters Rogatory (which involves the DoJ).

Similarly, the Assistant USAG's on the case have superiors and THEY have superiors. The expense and extent of this investigation has likely gone well up the chain of command at the Justice Department and the FDA. How much they spend, what they feel are the potential charges, what the political evironment is and what the blow back might be, will all have been discussed by people well removed from the actual investigation.

This is the US Federal Government, not some guys wearing cheesy vests with "Control Anti-Dopage" on the back, chasing after riders after a race in the middle of the Alps. These guys make EVERYONE involved in anti-doping in sport look like high school hallway monitors. They don't do ANYTHING unless they have extreme confidence that their efforts are worthwhile and their efforts robust.

 

[BotanyBay]

Look, I think it's unjust to attack people who pick apart evidence (or its value) and brand them as fanboys or apologists. We're supposed to be having an adult discussion here, right? C'mon.

Don't get your ti*†s all twisted in a knot. I simply asked a question about being a hypothetical juror and looking at this evidence. Why so much anger here?

 

[MacRoadie]

Don't get your ti*†s all twisted in a knot. I simply asked a question about being a hypothetical juror and looking at this evidence. Why so much anger here?

Mambo says this forum runs so much on hatred, that dislike is seen as fandom. We all need to step back and get some perspective.

Maybe we need a group hug too. One for Novitsky as well, since he's apparently on the cusp of a failure of biblical proportions.

 

[Dallas_]

LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. LA DOPED. (Good enough?)

YES, I get the impression the mountain of evidence points in that direction and Novitzky just squirts the icing

on the cake.

have a good day