USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[D-Queued]

Man no reason to jump into the muck when you've got the upperhand. We don't need to bring into question stupid sh$t like this with the upcoming evidence. Stick to the story brah

Right you are.

Except he made it the story.

The mods would have deleted my post and banned me if this were not the case.

Lance has cited:

1. His kids as the primary reason for his first retirement

2. His 'family' and his children as a primary reason for not contesting USADA

And used countless finish lines as PR pulpits.

As such, the combined set represents a target for scrutiny.

Since it fails to pass the smell test, it is an example of his lack of remorse when it comes to exploiting his family as he is not beneath using the 'children' shield along with the 'cancer' shield.

Perhaps you were thinking that he was really trying to tell his daughter, I'm sorry, Daddy can't keep the medal because Daddy was cheating. Remember, we aren't allowed to cheat.' You know, some sort of positive family values message with himself setting an example.

Dave.

 

[ManInFull]

Just in:

Obama: Armstrong Was 'Great American Hero'

Clever. Neil Armstrong, of course.

 

[jackwolf]

Clever. Neil Armstrong, of course.

Just trolling a bit, ha ha.

 

[sniper]

Are the UCI declaring their hand?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/usada-has-no-legal-right-to-strip-lance-armstrong/story-fn8sc2wz-1226458458001
(...)

the author of that crap article does show a sense of humor by citing Indurain as a legal expert

Indurain, a five-time Tour winner, said: "Until an organisation recognised by all parties decides to the contrary, the Tour victories are his."

 

[Turner29]

the author of that crap article does show a sense of humor by citing Indurain as a legal expert

With Dr. Nichols entering the fray again, there is an obvious connection to Armstrong and his most vital supporters: he has donated to their institutions significant amounts of money.

Any doctor treating for cancer a young male patient who is a professional athlete would ask the obvious question about performance enhancing drug use.

At the very least then, Dr. Nichol's statement is fishy. Had he said "we asked Mr. Armstrong about performance enhancing drug use and his answer was no....", I would be less suspicious.

 

[Oldman]

With Dr. Nichols entering the fray again, there is an obvious connection to Armstrong and his most vital supporters: he has donated to their institutions significant amounts of money.

Any doctor treating for cancer a young male patient who is a professional athlete would ask the obvious question about performance enhancing drug use.

At the very least then, Dr. Nichol's statement is fishy. Had he said "we asked Mr. Armstrong about performance enhancing drug use and his answer was no....", I would be less suspicious.

The doctor's had a full blood profile. Logic would suggest they may have seen an indicator in the sampling or why not ask: "have you ever had chicken pox?" The fact that they would inquire when someone already had cancer tells volumes, don't you think?

 

[Velodude]

Thanks RR - 'Able' certainly, but how do we know she is 'willing?' Is there anything out there to suggest that she was contacted by USADA, or others, or that she has provided testimony / observations?

I have distinct memories of her visiting LA during the Tour and them sharing a room together on rest days - exactly when the transfusions should have been administered. The US news media wouldn't leave it alone - fascinated by any star that would hang out with him (Robin Williams, Ben Stiller, etc). I seem to remember them parting on bad terms...she just seems to be the perfect potential witness.

According to Dan Coyle ("Lance Armstrong's War") it was not only on rest days but she was a permanent installation in LA's room throughout races and training in Spain.

Emperor Lance had different accommodation arrangements to the rest of the team befitting his dictatorial CEO team status. Team members slept two to a room like the full complement of all other teams. Lance had the presidential suite all to himself and, when he summonsed, his squeeze.

PA Anderson ran foul of LA when he was sent to Spain to remove from the Spanish training headquarters all evidence of the residence of Mrs Lance Armstrong to welcome Sheryl Crow. During this clean out he stumbled across part of LA's PED stash.

 

[Velodude]

Phil Bates will toe the line to Pat & Heinie, come what may. His livelihood is dependent on the UCI, so don't expect any different.

Are the UCI declaring their hand?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cycling/usada-has-no-legal-right-to-strip-lance-armstrong/story-fn8sc2wz-1226458458001

Sydney's Phill Bates, a member of the international cycling union's arbitration tribunal, yesterday described USADA's actions against Armstrong as unenforceable and described the organisation's chief executive Travis Tygart as an "egomaniac publicity hunter".

"While Armstrong may have opted not to continue with his legal fight, USADA, a signatory to the WADA code, has no jurisdiction to punish or impose sanctions against any rider," Bates said.

"In addition, the Armstrong case also raises the legal issue of the meaning of article 17 of the WADA code, which imposes a limitation period of eight years for prosecuting doping cases. ...

"If USADA believes Armstrong has a case to answer, the ultimate judge should be the UCI, not a publicity-seeking chief executive hellbent on a witch-hunt to chop down the tallest poppy in our sport." ...

"Everything I've read of the USADA case has been driven by Tygart and against Armstrong built on hearsay evidence provided by a small group of riders who rode with him more than 12 years ago, and some of whom are still competing today.

"If Tygart and USADA believe otherwise, then why not make public the agency's findings and have them tested before the appropriate court?"

Phill Bates (of UCI) in Australia is a cycling event promoter and, until 2011, a long term bike shop owner.

He also has a long track record of raising funds for cancer. Certainly on the same page as Lance Armstrong

From his Linkedin profile

Spent enormous part of my life in improving sport of cycling as an administrator and promoter. Also worked extensively to assist community projects, fund raising for various charities such as Victor Chang Cardiac Research, Fred Hollows Foundation and been instrumental in building the St George Cancer Care Lodge, the Prostate Cancer Institute and Cancer Survivors Centre. Now raised in excess of 8 million for various charities.

 

[QuickStepper]

I've been reading all the news item comments and keep reading the same talking points. . .

You have much to learn, Grasshopper

Eyewitness testimony is not hearsey.

Re: The bolded text. I think you mean "hearsay" not "heresy". Either way, it's not correct.

It's not hearsay if a witness testifies in court, for example, "I personally saw Armstrong fill a syringe with EPO from a bottle labeled EPO." It's not hearsay because the witness is only testifying to what he or she observed personally. If, on the other hand, a witness testifies "Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO," that is hearsay, and can't be used as evidence if the other side objects.

Capiche, Grasshopper?

 

[MarkvW]

Armstrong under oath ever again?

I know that so many of the haters have been captured by the conspiracy/influence theory, but consider this other alternative for a moment.

What if, as the Armstrong investigation was coming to a close, Birotte reached out to Armstrong and said: "Lance, if you come clean with me under oath, I will give you the exact same immunity deal that I gave to all the other USPS riders. Then, let's suppose Lance took the deal, and the testimony was taken in extreme secrecy. Now, there is a sworn deposition where Lance totally spills the beans and it won't ever see the light of day unless Lance contradicts himself under oath.

This reasoning got me extreme flack from one poster in particular, but look at USADA--they offered the same deal to Lance as they did to all the other riders. And why in the world would the feds let their investigation end without giving immunity to Lance and hearing what he has to say? Might as well get some information if you're going to drop it anyway. It should be noted that lying to the feds is the big fad in federal prosecutions, nowadays..

If there is such a sworn statement under oath, you won't ever see Lance swearing that he never did drugs. As you could imagine, this would be a really big handicap if he ever got in a lawsuit where doping was an issue.

I'm not saying this theory happened, but it is as likely as the 'dishonorable prosecutor' theory. If Lance avoids testifying under oath like the plague, give it a second thought.

 

[Velodude]

I know that so many of the haters have been captured by the conspiracy/influence theory, but consider this other alternative for a moment.

What if, as the Armstrong investigation was coming to a close, Birotte reached out to Armstrong and said: "Lance, if you come clean with me under oath, I will give you the exact same immunity deal that I gave to all the other USPS riders. Then, let's suppose Lance took the deal, and the testimony was taken in extreme secrecy. Now, there is a sworn deposition where Lance totally spills the beans and it won't ever see the light of day unless Lance contradicts himself under oath.

This reasoning got me extreme flack from one poster in particular, but look at USADA--they offered the same deal to Lance as they did to all the other riders. And why in the world would the feds let their investigation end without giving immunity to Lance and hearing what he has to say? Might as well get some information if you're going to drop it anyway. It should be noted that lying to the feds is the big fad in federal prosecutions, nowadays..

If there is such a sworn statement under oath, you won't ever see Lance swearing that he never did drugs. As you could imagine, this would be a really big handicap if he ever got in a lawsuit where doping was an issue.

I'm not saying this theory happened, but it is as likely as the 'dishonorable prosecutor' theory. If Lance avoids testifying under oath like the plague, give it a second thought.

Lance Armstrong being provided with immunity from prosecution is certainly your hobby horse as repeatedly evidenced in your posts during the Fed investigation of "Lance Armstrong & others".

Why would any prosecuting authority provide immunity from prosecution to the central person they want to prosecute?

 

[QuickStepper]

I know that so many of the haters have been captured by the conspiracy/influence theory, but consider this other alternative for a moment.

What if, as the Armstrong investigation was coming to a close, Birotte reached out to Armstrong and said: "Lance, if you come clean with me under oath, I will give you the exact same immunity deal that I gave to all the other USPS riders. Then, let's suppose Lance took the deal, and the testimony was taken in extreme secrecy. Now, there is a sworn deposition where Lance totally spills the beans and it won't ever see the light of day unless Lance contradicts himself under oath.

This reasoning got me extreme flack from one poster in particular, but look at USADA--they offered the same deal to Lance as they did to all the other riders. And why in the world would the feds let their investigation end without giving immunity to Lance and hearing what he has to say? Might as well get some information if you're going to drop it anyway. It should be noted that lying to the feds is the big fad in federal prosecutions, nowadays..

If there is such a sworn statement under oath, you won't ever see Lance swearing that he never did drugs. As you could imagine, this would be a really big handicap if he ever got in a lawsuit where doping was an issue.

I'm not saying this theory happened, but it is as likely as the 'dishonorable prosecutor' theory. If Lance avoids testifying under oath like the plague, give it a second thought.

Re: the bolded text: What exactly was the "deal" USADA offered Lance and the other riders? A six-month prospective ban on future competition? No forfeiture of prize money, medals or finish results? Only go back 8 years?

I'm really serious about this question, and hope you don't take it as baiting or an attempt to be snide. I've not read anywhere what the deal actually was that was offered to anyone. As far as I know, none of the other riders has disclosed the terms of any deals they were offerred, and USADA hasn't disclosed this either.

If you really know, please share.

 

[the big ring]

Re: the bolded text: What exactly was the "deal" USADA offered Lance and the other riders?

If you really know, please share.

He's simply stating exactly what USADA have : that they offered the same deal to Lance.

Noone other than those riders and USADA know.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Re: The bolded text. I think you mean "hearsay" not "heresy". Either way, it's not correct.

It's hearsay if a witness testifies in court, for example, "I personally saw Armstrong fill a syringe with EPO from a bottle labeled EPO." It's not hearsay because the witness is only testifying to what he or she observed personally. If, on the other hand, a witness testifies "Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO," that is hearsay, and can't be used as evidence if the other side objects.

Capiche, Grasshopper?

True if you need to convolute the meaning of "Eyewitness", however, as this would be the statements by the riders who rode with Lance and not someone who talked to Floyd or Betsy, the most likely statement would be "Lance Armstrong told me ___________ or I saw Lance Armstrong do _____________" which is why the author of the post said "Eyewitness" and not "witness" the difference being that they were there with Armstrong. That being the case, the operative FRE is:

FRE 801(d)(2)(A) "(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;"

A common mistake lots of people make is to suggest that any out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted can always be excluded if objected to, but the rule is CLEAR. The statement would be made in court, and normally would be considered hearsay but for the fact that Armstrong would obviously be a party and almost certainly be the person quoted, and thus 801(d)(2)(A) is operative.

If you are going to go around calling people "grasshopper" and lecturing on the applicable rule of evidence, I would provide more of a realistic scenario based on what we are told is the operative set of facts in this particular instance.

Again, I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but things like you twisting yourself into a pretzel by creating a statement ("Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO,") that falls outside of what the USADA is suggesting so that you can correct someone who actually was correct suggests your bias once again.

 

[TubularBills]

"It's hard to know which is worse, the doping or the lying. One is done in private, the other in public. It is difficult to comprehend the amount of times that Armstrong has looked the public in the eye and told them lies. Millions of people admired and trusted him. And he lied to them.

In his heyday he would cycle himself to a standstill in the Alps. He ultimately lied himself to a standstill too. His final statement was one last sad and desperate fiction. It was the flag on the summit of a mountain of lies."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/master-of-denial-sees-his-epic-fiction-ripped-to-shreds-3210251.html

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Re: The bolded text. I think you mean "hearsay" not "heresy". Either way, it's not correct.

It's hearsay if a witness testifies in court, for example, "I personally saw Armstrong fill a syringe with EPO from a bottle labeled EPO." It's not hearsay because the witness is only testifying to what he or she observed personally. If, on the other hand, a witness testifies "Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO," that is hearsay, and can't be used as evidence if the other side objects.

Capiche, Grasshopper?

The second part was not an issue in this case.

The charging letter from USADA said:
"The witnesses to this conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists as well as cycling team employees".....
"multiple riders with first hand knowledge..."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The second part was not an issue in this case.

The charging letter from USADA said:
"The witnesses to this conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists as well as cycling team employees".....
"multiple riders with first hand knowledge..."

I think the term "eyewitness" threw blind Master Po off his game a bit. Krebs had snatched the pebble, and blind Master Po tried to come up with a reason he actually didn't...

 

[TubularBills]

"Watergate Le Tour, a new drama, promises to consume you as you surf the Web this weekend: Political intrigue hits the scenic roads and high mountains of France in technocolor as determined prosecutors pursue an American icon on a bike. Huge sums of cash changes hands. Friends betray friends. Bikes crash. Podium girls look sexy. And it all ends in a finish that will leave you shocked and surprised or anxious for Watergate Le Tour II -- Return of the King.

Starring:

Lance Armstrong as a fitter, better looking Richard M. Nixon with the PR skills of FDR and Bill Clinton's lust for hot babes.

Defrocked Tour de France Winner Floyd Landis as John Dean, the man who just couldn't keep his mouth shut.

Disgraced Olympian Tyler Hamilton as Chuck Colson, the former aide waiting to bare his soul and find Jesus.

Garmin-Sharp manager Jonathon Vaughters as the always cagey John Ehrlichman.

And George Hincapie as G. Gordon Liddy, the trusted disciple who will never talk.

Unless you're already a cycling fan, you don't know who any of these people are anymore than the Chinese knew the Nixon administration, but you will soon. You will. They're trending.

Also featuring:

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency front-man Travis Tygart as pit bull Sen. Sam Irvin, the prosecutor who just won't give up the pursuit.

And Tygart aide William Bock as Sam Dash, the right hand man.

With:

Irish journalist Paul Kimmage as Woodward and Bernstein.

And "Le Monde" as The Washington Post.

In this updated spin on an American classic, a hard-working, young man from Texas with the cycling skills of Tour de France champion Greg Lemond and the organizational acumen of Machivelli envisions a cycling team to rule the world.

Backed with U.S. government funding, he soon takes over the national sport of France. But to achieve his ends, he must resort to the questionable practice of turning his team into a bunch of blood-sucking vampires, and vampires can only live in the dark.

When the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency starts to shine light onto the enterprise, some of the big man's accomplices are caught. They start to talk, and soon the end is near. But there is a twist this time. Even as this leader departs, he hints to the faithful at new scheme to fight on."

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/get-ready-watergate-le-tour-coming-website-near-you

 

[python]

"It's hard to know which is worse, the doping or the lying. One is done in private, the other in public. It is difficult to comprehend the amount of times that Armstrong has looked the public in the eye and told them lies. Millions of people admired and trusted him. And he lied to them.

In his heyday he would cycle himself to a standstill in the Alps. He ultimately lied himself to a standstill too. His final statement was one last sad and desperate fiction. It was the flag on the summit of a mountain of lies."

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/master-of-denial-sees-his-epic-fiction-ripped-to-shreds-3210251.html

i am impressed by those courageous statements. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[Velodude]

Hearsay evidence is not admissable evidence at law as the prosecution or defense have no opportunity to cross examine the direct witness who was the origin of the hearsay.

Except in narrow circumstances where the direct witness made deathbed declarations in the belief he or she was about to die.

 

[QuickStepper]

True if you need to convolute the meaning of "Eyewitness", however, as this would be the statements by the riders who rode with Lance and not someone who talked to Floyd or Betsy, the most likely statement would be "Lance Armstrong told me ___________ or I saw Lance Armstrong do _____________" which is why the author of the post said "Eyewitness" and not "witness" the difference being that they were there with Armstrong. That being the case, the operative FRE is:

FRE 801(d)(2)(A) "(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;"

A common mistake lots of people make is to suggest that any out of court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted can always be excluded if objected to, but the rule is CLEAR. The statement would be made in court, and normally would be considered hearsay but for the fact that Armstrong would obviously be a party and almost certainly be the person quoted, and thus 801(d)(2)(A) is operative.

If you are going to go around calling people "grasshopper" and lecturing on the applicable rule of evidence, I would provide more of a realistic scenario based on what we are told is the operative set of facts in this particular instance.

Again, I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but things like you twisting yourself into a pretzel by creating a statement ("Floyd Landis told me that Betsy Andreu told him that Lance used EPO,") that falls outside of what the USADA is suggesting so that you can correct someone who actually was correct suggests your bias once again.

You know, no one can win for losing with you. I could have done exactly what you just did, but then I would have been faced with a torrent of messages, "Hey, stop clogging up the thread"..."Take it to the Legal Thread"... or "Hey, you're an a##hole, so stop being so pedantic"...or "you're just an intern for Livestrong, you schmuck and we don't want to hear what you say anyway [Ignore button being pushed].

So instead, I kept it short and sweet.

And what do I get? A lecture from you.

 

[Arnout]

I assume this has already been posted, but I've no time to check. It's the USADA letter to Armstrong, Ferrari, Bruyneel et al: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html

Just ignore if this is already known.

 

[thehog]

I assume this has already been posted, but I've no time to check. It's the USADA letter to Armstrong, Ferrari, Bruyneel et al: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html

Just ignore if this is already known.

Think the Clinic would have missed that?

All over it...

 

[Kennf1]

Hearsay evidence is not admissable evidence at law as the prosecution or defense have no opportunity to cross examine the direct witness who was the origin of the hearsay.

Except in narrow circumstances where the direct witness made deathbed declarations in the belief he or she was about to die.

The "dying declaration" exception is one of about 28 exceptions to the hearsay rule.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

...It's hearsay if a witness testifies in court, for example, "I personally saw Armstrong fill a syringe with EPO from a bottle labeled EPO."...

Capiche, Grasshopper?

Maybe it's just me, but do you want to review your text above very carefully and confirm that's what you actually meant to write?

OK Grasshopper?