Urine Trouble

[Dallas_]

Taunt

can you share his taunt?

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/tag/jeff-novitzky/

http://twitter.com/juanpelota/status/5711687764152321

cheers to all

 

[Anonymous]

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/tag/jeff-novitzky/

http://twitter.com/juanpelota/status/5711687764152321

thank you for the links.

cheers!

 

[SC1990]

You really think pointing out "except that it shows you have not really followed this case" is insulting and uncivilized?
Obviously I struck a nerve.

See what I mean, continual attempts to try and boost your superiority complex based on the fact i mixed up '1' and '5'.

Anyway back on topic rather then peoples attempts to look big on the internet.

 

[andy1234]

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.

Don't be ridiculous, you either hate him or love him.
And don't be bringing common sense into this.....

Now go and make up your mind which side you are on, before I pin a white feather on you.

 

[Benotti69]

Don't be ridiculous, you either hate him or love him.
And don't be bringing common sense into this.....

Now go and make up your mind which side you are on, before I pin a white feather on you.

Plenty of posters don't hate the man they hate the 'crimes'.

Very different from the fanboys who know he doped, treated a lot of people bad yet still blindly believe that what he did was justified and continue to defend it and call those that dont love LA haters.

 

[andy1234]

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?

Well said.

On a tangent...

I am generalizing. but I honestly think that there is a contrast between US and European mentalities here.

From experience, a great many European cyclists, including myself, doubted Armstrong from the moment he won the 1999 TDF prologue. It was really a case of "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck"

Rightly or wrongly Europeans, in particulat Brits, have a built in cynicism that doesn't naturally exist in a lot of Americans.
Whereas Armstrong disappointed and embarressed a huge amount of Americans, lots of Europeans were simply not surprised when the s**t started hitting the fan. Hence a lower level of feeling on the subject.

So when someone states that they really don't care one way or the other about Armstrong, It's possible that they just don't care any more than any other rider. The arguments in his defence are to readdress the balance, more than anything else.

For what it's worth, I think the salute the flag, peppy attitude I see in my American work colleagues is a breath of fresh air after dealing with cynical brits, but it doesn't always pay dividends in the real world, particularly when that positivity is misplaced.

 

[andy1234]

Plenty of posters don't hate the man they hate the 'crimes'.

Very different from the fanboys who know he doped, treated a lot of people bad yet still blindly believe that what he did was justified and continue to defend it and call those that dont love LA haters.

Plenty don't, but PLENTY do.

There actually arent that many Fanboys here, they just stand out from the crowd...

 

[Benotti69]

Plenty don't, but PLENTY do.

There actually arent that many Fanboys here, they just stand out from the crowd...

hate is too strong a word for what they feel.

 

[Le breton]

Multilingual pun

Now that the FDA has submitted some letters rogatory to the AFLD to obtain "Lance" urine, More?

I have not read all 355 contributions to this thread and I apologize if this one duplicates a previous one.
Several people have saluted the great title which should certainly be kept near the top in the Cyclingnews forum anthology of great titles, but I would also like to add that if you read it as a French title, urine trouble means murky urine (or turbid, muddy, etc as the word trouble in French has just as many connotations as the word troubled in English).

L.A. certainly is a specialist when it comes to "navigating in troubled waters "("naviguer en eaux troubles" in French)

 

[Benotti69]

I have not read all 355 contributions to this thread and I apologize if this one duplicates a previous one.
Several people have saluted the great title which should certainly be kept near the top in the Cyclingnews forum anthology of great titles, but I would also like to add that if you read it as a French title, urine trouble means murky urine (or turbid, muddy, etc as the word trouble in French has just as many connotations as the word troubled in English).

L.A. certainly is a specialist when it comes to "navigating in troubled waters "("naviguer en eaux troubles" in French)

i dont see him as a specialist when so few of the media asked difficult questions of him and then we have the uci and ASO, they more or less parted the murky waters for him á la Moses.

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[D-Queued]

edited by mod, quoting deleted material

 

[MarkvW]

The Abraham Lincoln Story

*** edited by mod ***

Never happened.
Check out snopes.com.

 

[fatandfast]

i dont see him as a specialist when so few of media asked difficult questions of him and then we have the uci and ASO, they more or less parted the murky waters for him á la Moses.

So for example at a bike show..being asked about doping while discussing a component product line..or at a pre race press conference being asked about doping..or at a research facility unveiling be asked about doping is a free pass by the press? Hardly. Having people that only cover cycling when Lance is involved suddenly shift gears into muckrake central is hardly a free pass.

Sports Center(ABC), NewsCorp, and SI to name a few have had a bonanza of BS about Lance. They sold the hero now they will sell the heal . This is ala Brett Farve rather than Moses..you are at the end of your sellable usefulness and let us milk it one or two times more.

There is an under discussed possible outcome and that is after an exhaustive investigation no charges will be brought. And LA will be shadowed as he has been for 20 years by an unproven theory.

If Novitzky doesn't get and examine a sample from every rider on Postal then the Lance theory about taints and tampers will go unexplored. What if all the samples show a similarity? What if to get Armstrong, multiple USPS samples were tainted? The only baseline as to the chain of custody or integrity of 11 year old samples is to ensure all have values as they did when tested a decade ago.

As with Bonds..it would appear that financiers and judges are running low on patience for these cases. There may be some level of wrong doing but if Novitzky has picked a case that will take 5 or 8 years to resolve he may have a loser by design. Yes cases are easy or easier as Marion Jones laid down. But if Barry Bonds is the benchmark. And his time of offense timeline to be used as an estimate,,Armstrong probably has a few years of just European discovery at his disposal.

His lawyer will certainly not validate French handling of tests and data in the US. Why would you? If the evidence procedures/standards are to be super imposed across continents and judicial bodies it can only help Armstrong. There are dozens of witnesses that would need to be called from europe about Armstrong's sample alone.

Legally I would want to talk to every lab worker involved in the transfer of the sample from sports to police hands and then the custodial persons that have "guarded" the sample for 11 years..IF it is even going to part of Novitzky's case

 

[Benotti69]

So for example at a bike show..being asked about doping while discussing a component product line..or at a pre race press conference being asked about doping..or at a research facility unveiling be asked about doping is a free pass by the press? Hardly. Having people that only cover cycling when Lance is involved suddenly shift gears into muckrake central is hardly a free pass.

where were the hard questions after 1999? why was the uci busting him for testing positive for steroids and why were they accepting a back dated TUE? why didn't the ASO kick him of the tour after the previous years debacle to send out a hard message that you cannot dope on the tour?

Sure that is why it took Greg Lemond to say that, "this is either the greatest comeback in the history of sport or the greatest fraud".

LA got a very easy ride from the media up until recently. How many have questioned his 'most tested athlete ever'? Walsh, Ballestre, Capdacqua and Kimmage if there are others, great, but names please.

snip.

not worth a response

There is an under discussed possible outcome and that is after an exhaustive investigation no charges will be brought. And LA will be shadowed as he has been for 20 years by an unproven theory.

yep that is a possibility, but so is snow in the summer, a possibility, never gonna happen but a possibility none the less

If Novitzky doesn't get and examine a sample from every rider on Postal then the Lance theory about taints and tampers will go unexplored. What if all the samples show a similarity? What if to get Armstrong, multiple USPS samples were tainted? The only baseline as to the chain of custody or integrity of 11 year old samples is to ensure all have values as they did when tested a decade ago.

I would imagine if you can figure this Novitsky and his team have already sussed that too.

Are you implying that the US federal government put an idiot in charge of FDA investigations?

As with Bonds..it would appear that financiers and judges are running low on patience for these cases. There may be some level of wrong doing but if Novitzky has picked a case that will take 5 or 8 years to resolve he may have a loser by design. Yes cases are easy or easier as Marion Jones laid down. But if Barry Bonds is the benchmark. And his time of offense timeline to be used as an estimate,,Armstrong probably has a few years of just European discovery at his disposal.

They are hardly running low on patience for a case that has yet to start, they are at the gathering information stage and maybe this will be a 'dominos' case.

His lawyer will certainly not validate French handling of tests and data in the US. Why would you? If the evidence procedures/standards are to be super imposed across continents and judicial bodies it can only help Armstrong. There are dozens of witnesses that would need to be called from europe about Armstrong's sample alone.

His lawyer has not been up to much lately but then lets give him a chance shall we?

I imagine that there will be lots of witnessing willing to testify as nearly all are not part of the omerta anymore are they. lots who spoke to Walsh and Ballestre. Then there is those in the UCI that Verbruggen and McQuaid have 'upset' to name a few.

Legally I would want to talk to every lab worker involved in the transfer of the sample from sports to police hands and then the custodial persons that have "guarded" the sample for 11 years..IF it is even going to part of Novitzky's case

It is probably happening, don't forget Novitsky met various agencies in Europe, so i bet they are undertaking investigations of their own or on behalf of the FDA.

If LA was clean as a whistle this would not be happening but he and we all know he is not a clean boy, he has been very very bad.

 

[BotanyBay]

No anger, but you've mentioned several times that the samples could produce bad evidence due to their age. Why? Do you have any knowledge of a substandard level of care or a kink in the chain of custody? And I'm not attacking you, just wondering if you have any info on the lab's handling/storage practices or the degradation of drugs in urine over time.

No, I do not. And I'm not saying that their "age" is the issue. I just think that in a "beyond reasonable doubt" situation, if I were sitting on a jury and a defense attorney said "imagine what might have happened with/to these samples if they've been sitting in non-judicial custody for 12 years", I just might be inclined to agree with him, and I think a lot of other jurors might too.

I know the prosecutors are not dumb. This evidence will not be "central" to any case they file. I'm just prodding the pack to see if they can come up with interesting/plausible theories as to why the feds are asking for these samples. How and why do they intend to use them, and what kind of charge do you think they're angling for?

 

[Colm.Murphy]

Interestingly the AFLD has handed over samples from many riders at USPS - not just Armstrong. As printed today in Le Monde. That will go with the employment law charge and the encouraging others to dope.











(JV)

How about a link, or a scan?

 

[pedaling squares]

No, I do not. And I'm not saying that their "age" is the issue. I just think that in a "beyond reasonable doubt" situation, if I were sitting on a jury and a defense attorney said "imagine what might have happened with/to these samples if they've been sitting in non-judicial custody for 12 years", I just might be inclined to agree with him, and I think a lot of other jurors might too.

I know the prosecutors are not dumb. This evidence will not be "central" to any case they file. I'm just prodding the pack to see if they can come up with interesting/plausible theories as to why the feds are asking for these samples. How and why do they intend to use them, and what kind of charge do you think they're angling for?

Well you are certainly onto something that the Armstrong legal team will consider. Remember the OJ Simpson case - if you can't attack the process (DNA typing/profiling), attack the handling of the exhibit. Hopefully there won't be any loose ends and any possible defence can be thwarted by good science.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There were multiple witnesses.....some of whom are talking to Novitzky

You got a link for the multiple witnesses who are talking to Nov?

 

[Race Radio]

You got a link for the multiple witnesses who are talking to Nov?

No link. Floyd is one the other is Jogi Muller.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

No, I do not. And I'm not saying that their "age" is the issue. I just think that in a "beyond reasonable doubt" situation, if I were sitting on a jury and a defense attorney said "imagine what might have happened with/to these samples if they've been sitting in non-judicial custody for 12 years", I just might be inclined to agree with him, and I think a lot of other jurors might too.

I know the prosecutors are not dumb. This evidence will not be "central" to any case they file. I'm just prodding the pack to see if they can come up with interesting/plausible theories as to why the feds are asking for these samples. How and why do they intend to use them, and what kind of charge do you think they're angling for?

Saying "imagine what might have happened" means nothing. They'd better find some real problems, and have some hard science and well credentialed scientists who back it up, or this will be an issue that is raced by. The prosecution will certainly have their own science and scientists contending that there are no integrity issues.

Custody was kept in a secure govt lab in France that is ISO certified. I cannot imagine they will have too much trouble illustrating their ISO cert means everything is in order, secure, and properly kept. Landis lost (twice) despite heavy and strong attacks on all aspects of the lab operations.

Consider this: If your lab held the bulk of the samples from perhaps the most heralded and suspicious sporting champion in history, don't you think they'd have protected the integrity of those samples "just in case"?

Granted, the 99 samples were removed from the standard treatment mode because they were not being used for an anti-doping procedure and so their handling became less of a concern. As the WADA report noted, this does not mean the findings were "wrong". For samples beyond 99, I would imagine the corresponding records to support their integrity and validity will be reliable and in order.

 

[BotanyBay]

Saying "imagine what might have happened" means nothing. They'd better find some real problems, and have some hard science and well credentialed scientists who back it up, or this will be an issue that is raced by. The prosecution will certainly have their own science and scientists contending that there are no integrity issues.

Custody was kept in a secure govt lab in France that is ISO certified. I cannot imagine they will have too much trouble illustrating their ISO cert means everything is in order, secure, and properly kept. Landis lost (twice) despite heavy and strong attacks on all aspects of the lab operations.

Consider this: If your lab held the bulk of the samples from perhaps the most heralded and suspicious sporting champion in history, don't you think they'd have protected the integrity of those samples "just in case"?

Granted, the 99 samples were removed from the standard treatment mode because they were not being used for an anti-doping procedure and so their handling became less of a concern. As the WADA report noted, this does not mean the findings were "wrong". For samples beyond 99, I would imagine the corresponding records to support their integrity and validity will be reliable and in order.

I was not aware that it is a "government" lab. Does it also handle evidence in criminal cases?

I think we're focusing too much on the lab now. Can we get back to how this kind of evidence factors into who is charged and what they'd be charged with?

 

[MacRoadie]

I was not aware that it is a "government" lab. Does it also handle evidence in criminal cases?

The Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage (LNDD - national laboratory for the detection of doping) was created in 1966 in accordance with a law of June 1, 1965, for the suppression of the use of stimulants in competitive sports, also known as the Herzog law. Since 1989 it has been located at Châtenay-Malabry, a suburb of Paris. It is a division of the Ministry of Sport; its operations are defined by articles R3632-18 to 3632-43 of the French public health code.

So yes, a government lab, but no, not involved in criminal investigations.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I was not aware that it is a "government" lab. Does it also handle evidence in criminal cases?

I think we're focusing too much on the lab now. Can we get back to how this kind of evidence factors into who is charged and what they'd be charged with?

Well, considering that doping is a "crime" in France, then, yes they handle criminal evidence.

I imagine this evidence will support witness testimony. It can stand on its own depending on what is found. If samples clearly show artificial Testosterone, or EPO or a huge DEHP spike, that will go a long way to supporting the assertion of doping. Lance would then have the argument "never tested positive" fall by the wayside.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was not aware that it is a "government" lab. Does it also handle evidence in criminal cases?

I think we're focusing too much on the lab now. Can we get back to how this kind of evidence factors into who is charged and what they'd be charged with?

As has been mentioned already it is a State lab run through the Ministry of Sport. Where that is significant is that it easier to get the sample for the US authorities through existing State channels.

To get back to the point - again I think you are losing sight of the bigger picture by concentrating on the samples and what charges come from them.
IMO the samples are a tiny part of the jigsaw and in themselves will not lead to charges.

From what we have read about this investigation it is concentrating on the financial and distribution side - the reason the FDA sought the samples is (IMO) to show the end use of the products and as leverage come testimony time - it frustrates the opposing side using the 'there are no positive tests' angle.