USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[gree0232]

And yet Armstrong has been stripped of all his results from 1998.

Poor gree. what are you going to do with all the yellow stuff?

USADA cannot do that, they can only make the recommendation.

 

[Benotti69]

That poll allows you to vote early and often. Confirmed by my last three votes.

Almost certainly taken advantage of by Public Strategies

Dave.

+1

It has been addressed already that there are companies that specialise in hitting forums and comment sections including bots designed to affect an outcome.

The polls or comment sections mean nothing.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

That poll allows you to vote early and often. Confirmed by my last three votes.

Almost certainly taken advantage of by Public Strategies

Dave.

Very easy. 5 times yes by me in 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

 

[D-Queued]

Very easy. 5 times yes by me in 2 minutes and 15 seconds.

I have added a comment on this to notify them.

Perhaps other could as well.

Dave.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Just to clarify, what I meant by "only in the Clinic" was merely that there is a tendency here toward groupthink, a phenomenon common to all groups, but one which can lead to distorted perceptions.

I like our group and credibility.

 

[gree0232]

+1

It has been addressed already that there are companies that specialise in hitting forums and comment sections including bots designed to affect an outcome.

The polls or comment sections mean nothing.

And of course only one side uses them ... because that is what LA does in his spare time, he hires bots to spam random internet polls?

Another grand conspiracy for USADA to investigate and add to the charges against LA - that he is a spam bot. :roll:

Honestly, these kinds of antics are just silly.

 

[DirtyWorks]

That is just it, the National Federation is US Cycling - not USADA. Appeals go through the UCI and CAS, the parties such as USADA and WADA can similarly appeal a decision based on US Cycling decisions. That is not what is happening here.

I'm going to be charitable to you and let your pretending have some temporary validity. By your reasoning, UCI via USAC can appeal to CAS. That seems pretty fair. What's the UCI waiting for? What's that appeal look like?

Guilt has already been determined by USADA, as well as punishment administered, without the arbitration hearing.

That was Wonderboy's choice. Why do you dare question the motives of such a selfless cancer fighter?

Would you participate in a court started by the corporation you worked for, who had pre-determined your guilt and punishment, rather than use the nomial court procedure if you were charged with a henious offense?

You are mixing false analogies. None of which have any applicability to this situation, or to real life. Please get the facts straight before trying this again.

but the fact of the matter is that this is not the first judical inquiry into LA's activities,

You may think you are being clever here, but it is another fail. USADA is not a criminal process. Period. Others have recommended stopping and you won't. There is no choice left but to discredit your weak and broadly false arguments.

its not the first accusation of doping, and a criminal probe was deemed not strong enough to get a conviction.

What is known is the case was halted. No explanation. This is where you make the false association with innocence. Since you refuse to give up, I'm forced to keep going.

If you had been investigated a half dozen times and some kangaroo court decided to simply throw the rules to the wind and determine you guilty and demand you prove your innocence in a arbitration process, one loaded by the very agency charging you?

Lacing personal attacks into another stew of false analogies does nothing but discredit you.

http://arbitrationhorrorstories.wordpress.com/

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20041117a1.asp

Whaaaambulance for Gree in 3....2.....1...

As we can see, the arbitration process is not exactly on the same fairness level as an actual court proceeding,

Because it's not a criminal or civil court! Again, you fail to make any headway. But no, you can't stop there. You have to keep trying in the hopes that noise makes your case somehow valid. It is not.

Now, why should LA submit to this?

Because he agreed to it and now he is making every effort possible to welch on the deal. How is that for living strong? Is welching on agreements the new killing it now?

If the WADA process was an important issue he could have simply stayed retired. But no. In fact, he was very supportive of the process.

Please, stop. You are thoroughly discredited and on my ignore list.

 

[Stingray34]

If its logic we are dealing with, then exlain to me, when the process in sports not murder, why the eye witnesses need the same protection as witnesses against crme bosses? You know, those who are actually under threat of intimidation and silence by death threats?

Or are those who disagree with Lance so thin skinned and weak that rebuttal is now considered intimidating? A death threat?

Well, using logic, as there is clearly no actual threat of death against these witnesses, then there MUST BE some other reason.

That reason could be the xact opposite of the fear of intimidation - it could be that USADA is merely passing of the same unintimidated people, ala Frank and Betsy Andreau, Floyd, Tyler, etc. that we have been hearing for for years.

In short, the intimidation claim is BS.

Man, Team Lance really needed you in a Austin courtroom last week. What were they thinking?

Poor guy never had a chance.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I have added a comment on this to notify them.

Perhaps other could as well.

Dave.

We gonna hack it, and make it a 70/30 proposition in our favour? And then ask Nike & AB why they still support Armstrong?

 

[Maxiton]

If its logic we are dealing with, then exlain to me, when the process in sports not murder, why the eye witnesses need the same protection as witnesses against crme bosses? You know, those who are actually under threat of intimidation and silence by death threats?

Or are those who disagree with Lance so think skinned and weak that rebuttal is now considered intimidating? A death threat?

Well, using logic, as there is clearly no actual threat of death against these witnesses, then there MUST BE some other reason.

That reason could be the xact opposite of the fear of intimidation - it could be that USADA is merely passing of the same unintimidated people, ala Frank and Betsy Andreau, Floyd, Tyler, etc. that we have been hearing for for years.

In short, the intimidation claim is BS.

Just because we're not talking about murder doesn't mean the people accused aren't thuggish, or that they don't have thug friends. In fact, given the level of corruption involved, and the amount of money, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was found European organized crime has their hand in this somewhere; and if corruption in pro cycling is traced closely enough, you probably could find a murder or two, at some point in the past.

Tygart wants to protect the integrity of his case by protecting his witnesses. He is within his rights to do that, and he'd be irresponsible not to. Who's going to complain about that, except for the accused, who has access to the witness list after he agrees to arbitrate?

 

[gree0232]

Man, Team Lance really needed you in a Austin courtroom last week. What were they thinking?

Poor guy never had a chance.

Maybe you should read it:

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/2012/Bock-letter.pdf

The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, which means, as USADA actually shares its so called evidence, LA could bring the case back. The Judge raises many very serious questions about the process, but gives a federal agency the benefit of the doubt until more ACTUAL facts are known ... and they do seem slow in coming.

The Lance Haters jsut want the white whale, little things like actually reading about the process matter not at all.

ARRRRR .... THERE SHE BLOWS!!!!

 

[Stingray34]

Maybe you should read it:

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/2012/Bock-letter.pdf

The judge dismissed the case without prejudice, which means, as USADA actually shares its so called evidence, LA could bring the case back. The Judge raises many very serious questions about the process, but gives a federal agency the benefit of the doubt until more ACTUAL facts are known ... and they do seem slow in coming.

The Lance Haters jsut want the white whale, little things like actually reading about the process matter not at all.

ARRRRR .... THERE SHE BLOWS!!!!

Can't read it. Got my head stuck in Melville trying to understand your literary references.

 

[gree0232]

Just because we're not talking about murder doesn't mean the people accused aren't thuggish, or that they don't have thug friends. In fact, given the level of corruption involved, and the amount of money, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was found European organized crime has their hand in this somewhere; and if corruption in pro cycling is traced closely enough, you probably could find a murder or two, at some point in the past.

Tygart wants to protect the integrity of his case by protecting his witnesses. He is within his rights to do that, and he'd be irresponsible not to. Who's going to complain about that, except for the accused, who has access to the witness list after he agrees to arbitrate?

OK, so on one hand, its JUST a sporting investigation.

On the other hand, apparently the public rebuttal to a public accusation, and actual two sided trial by the press - which is what USADA started mind you - is ONLY intimidating to one side in a sporting investigation?

And a sporting investigation, in which witnesses have been publically speaking for over a decade, requires the same levels of protection that we use when fighting brutal maphia, drug cartels, and terrorists?

Is this a sporting investigation, or is LA a member of Al Qaeda? It cannot be both, and the intimidation claim is, IMHO, extremely weak.

Equating LA to a group of terrorists ... thus we need these legal protections aimed at EXTREME situations (like combating murderous terrorists) ... is something that requires a LOT of evidence to support such a silly claim.

I very highly doubt that either Floyd of Tyler (about to publish a book) is on the verge of being intimidated into silence - quite the opposite.

If you want to get Lance, fine, use evidence. However, when you are using procedures used to nab terrorists, who kill people for a living rather than ride bikes for a living, you may just want to stop and ponder whether or not this is a fair process for ... a sporting investigation.

If we are adopting practices used to confine people to GITMO, then we may want to consider whether or not doping to win the TdF is fraud ... or an act of terrorism.

Its these kinds of things that I take great issue with. If there is evidence, use it. If not? Spare us ALL, the emotional antics. They amount to nothing.

 

[Velodude]

That's just incredible. However, most people will not come around to our way of thinking when they've been constantly hit over the head with:

#1: Lance has passed 500 drug tests
#2: USADA is stripping him of his 7 TdF wins even though #1 is true

Someone or a group will have to do a great job of clearly spelling out how #1 happened (even if the exact number is nowhere near the truth) in a way that makes sense to even the most ignorant of people. It's either that or there's a web link for that George Hincappie interview!

For the 9 years he was racing TdF (1999-2005, 2009-2010) a total of 500 tests calculates to 56 tests per annum or more than 1 per week.

Factor in that OOC testing would only apply, at the most, to 3 of those years poor old Lance must have been having multiple tests per week.

He must have felt like a pin cushion!

 

[gree0232]

Can't read it. Got my head stuck in Melville trying to understand your literary references.

Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

Fortunately, actual justice does not hinge upon the personal hang ups and biases of the Lance Haters.

It depends on actual evidence, which is in awful short supply.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

T R O L L !!
A positive is a positive if on a banned list. No matter if you call it cough medicine or whatever you like.
Ashenden gave a clear POV that Armstrong did use EPO in 1999.

I think you said that already?

Just because this person decided to post a rebuttal to what someone posted does not make them a troll does it?
Sorry ladies and gentlemen but you will just have to get used to the facts that somehow, somewhere, someplace there will be people who are going to hold a different opinion to the facts stated in the clinic. I hate that I had to break that bit of news to you but someone has to do this now before you get to high for the fall.

The established rule here demands that everyone think and post the same conclusions and opinions.

 

[ManInFull]

Fortunately, actual justice does not hinge upon the personal hang ups and biases of the Lance Haters.

It depends on actual evidence, which is in awful short supply.

Do you consider eye-witness testimony by 10 or more people weak evidence? Or is the only evidence that will consider is an official positive drug test?

 

[gree0232]

For the 9 years he was racing TdF (1999-2005, 2009-2010) a total of 500 tests calculates to 56 tests per annum or more than 1 per week.

Factor in that OOC testing would only apply, at the most, to 3 of those years poor old Lance must have been having multiple tests per week.

He must have felt like a pin cushion!

Which is odd, especially in the later portion, when they apparently knew exactly what, when, and how he was doing drugs, and which drugs, but could never seem to produce a test that confirmed such specific knowlegde?

I mean AC gets busted for a minute trace of Clen ... but Lance, whom we know EVERYTHING about (and why are we letting him get away with this!) we cannot find even a trace of the drugs that we KNOW are there?

Sometimes, when you test a hypothesis, even opne that onvolves grand conspiracy, and the test comes back negative ... it just means that the hypothesis is wrong.

 

[thehog]

Can't read it. Got my head stuck in Melville trying to understand your literary references.

Think that was the sound of his head exploding!

My one observation is not the opinion that people have on doping but the fact that they seem perfectly ok with being lied to. Repeatedly.

I guess some like the hero villain scenario.

Thinking about it logically for it to be true Armstrong would have to be victim to one of the biggest sporting conspiracies in any sport ever. And he's happy to step aside? Even off he wasn't to get fair trial why not show that? Why not show the world? Beggars belief that people actually think he's doing the noble honor of non-contest.

Alas evidence of all kinds of shapes and sizes will see light of date.

One should not worry what others think. Attempting to shape another's mind only leads to resistance.

The entire saga along with the players involved will one day become a fascinating study of human dynamics.

 

[Stingray34]

Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

Fortunately, actual justice does not hinge upon the personal hang ups and biases of the Lance Haters.

It depends on actual evidence, which is in awful short supply.

It's not that I hate Lance; it's just that yellow isn't my colour. Another personal problem. But enough about me, lay your legion on me.

Will you promise to go away when the evidence comes tumbling out on Thursday, or are you going to explain that away too, Ahab?

BTW, I prefer Billy Budd.

 

[gree0232]

Do you consider eye-witness testimony by 10 or more people weak evidence? Or is the only evidence that will consider is an official positive drug test?

If its the same ten people who we have heard about, and whom numerous witnesses have ALREADY contradicted ... then yes.

You act like no one has disagreed, that there are no records, that contradict Betsy Andreau story.

You act like there are no test that confirm Lance's side of the story, rather than the accusers who know exactly what Lance was taking and when ...

You act like there was not just a recently dismissed criminal probe.

You act like there are not two sides to this question and that people are innocent until actually proven guilty.

Whether Lance actually doped are not? Few of us will ever actually know. But when we create processes used specifically to get LA, those processes don't just go away afterwards. If LA goes by this process, that the process is validated.

And, wouldn't you know it, Brad Wiggins is already facing the same kind accusations that LA did when he won his first TdF.

A process that allows the inquisition of anyone who is successul in cycling is wrong - for many, many reasons.

Those who want to get Lance would do better to actually produce evidence rather than the rumor thereof. Because in civilized places, is evidence and not whispers that convict people.

 

[Tubeless]

So the USADA decision is, per the WADA code, really a final decision (and there is no rule-based authority for UCI to take an appeal)?

If that is so, then the UCI doesn't have many cards to play.

When a national anti-doping body such as USADA issues sanctions, the sanctioned athlete or either the sports federation in question (UCI) or WADA can appeal that ruling to the CAS.

An example: when Contador was ruled innocent by the Spanish authorities, both UCI and WADA appealed to CAS and the ruling was overturned.

WADA has already expressed support for USADA so that would leave UCI alone to challenge the sanctions. I am not aware of any prior case where UCI has argued the penalties issued by a national anti-doping body were too harsh so this would be a first.

Also, since the CAS process is a "full review" - where all the facts and evidence get re-examined, UCI would end up exposing themselves to the corruption allegations.

UCI is making noises about trying to argue just the jurisdiction point - but given that the appeal process is the same whether USADA or UCI took the lead, CAS would end up hearing the entire case in either case.

So it's difficult to see the logic why UCI would proceed with a formal appeal of the USADA decision to the CAS. They'd face both USADA and WADA as the opposing organizations - and no Armstrong there to defend himself or to support the UCI side. My guess is that there will be no more appeals for the ruling.

 

[Stingray34]

Think that was the sound of his head exploding!

My one observation is not the opinion that people have on doping but the fact that they seem perfectly ok with being lied to. Repeatedly.

I guess some like the hero villain scenario.

Thinking about it logically for it to be true Armstrong would have to be victim to one of the biggest sporting conspiracies in any sport ever. And he's happy to step aside? Even off he wasn't to get fair trial why not show that? Why not show the world? Beggars belief that people actually think he's doing the noble honor of non-contest.

Alas evidence of all kinds of shapes and sizes will see light of date.

One should not worry what others think. Attempting to shape another's mind only leads to resistance.

The entire saga along with the players involved will one day become a fascinating study of human dynamics.

It's still early where he is, going to be a long day. A long week, in fact.

You know what they say about the Southern Ocean - keep going around in circles and it seems infinite.

 

[gree0232]

It's not that I hate Lance; it's just that yellow isn't my colour. Another personal problem. But enough about me, lay your legion on me.

Will you promise to go away when the evidence comes tumbling out on Thursday, or are you going to explain that away too, Ahab?

BTW, I prefer Billy Budd.

Well, I look forward to finally seeing something that we have not already seen in the past 17 years of this process.

And wouldn't you know it, I've only been saying for years that it has to be evidence that convicts people .... so lets see it.

The years of anonymous accusations have done nothing to help cycling or convict Lance. Only evidence can do that ...

What a shock! What a sentiment that has had LA haters branding me a troll for years! And what will it be that finally gets, or does not get, LA?

Why evidence of course!

How silly I have been all these years!!!!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I think you said that already?

Just because this person decided to post a rebuttal to what someone posted does not make them a troll does it?

Yes it does. Because he posts debunked nonsense. I don´t wanna get further into detail with him, since it´s a waste of time.

All is said and done by USADA, USADA revisory board, Sparks, and witnesses, Ashenden, postive tests and so on and so on.

Conclusion: He is a T R O L L