USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[JMBeaushrimp]

Never been to the UK or Australia I see...

I'm still voting for the US to be the dumbest country on the planet.

What was your point?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

its damage limitation. USADA are hugely embarrassed that armstrong didn't go to arbitration and gets stripped of 14 years worth of results. they know it looks patently unfair to all observers. their whole strategy was to go big on the charges on the basis it went to arbitration and CAS would maintain the eight year rule. the other riders are not getting eight years of results stripped anyway so what Tygart said here doesn't make sense even on those terms. the rumor is the UCI will help out the USADA by offering a compromise.

When you say "rumour" - you mean the one you start in one thread and then repeat in another?

So - the UCI are working on a compromise eh?
Funny thing is USADA have offered a very nice incentive, but of course that would mean he has to admit his fraudulent dealings with the UCI.

Its saying to Armstrong - Fat Pat & Hein are equal to 5 Tours.

 

[JA.Tri]

contrary tales

Lance quit cycling
Lance cameback...no big deal people change their minds

Lance indicates he will assist in investigation
Lance decides not to assist
Lance indicates he will not fight

Lance faces charges
Lance appeals to Fifth Circuit for intervention, Fifth Circuit declines
Lance states he gives up

Somehow I think Lance may change his mind???

UCI indicate USADA should look after investigation in Lance's doping
UCI ...after a decent passage of time... change their collective (hive?) mind
UCI indicate that USADA should hand matter back to UCI AND declare USADA have no jurisdiction (HUHHH?)
UCI not only give no explanation to apparent reversal, they seem to wipe out all recollection of same (time machine anybody)
UCI say ok, we accept, when Fifth Circuit OK USADA's actions
UCI then thru' proxy, Aus UCI rep, effectively reverse this approval.


Boy, I thought politicians are inconsistent. Generally the media will call such politicians out. Even if the politicians use weasel words they generally address these reversals to some degree.

I would love to see the media approach them on this...better yet to hear UCI and Lance's explanations for their change of mind/s.

 

[eyemgh]

I don't think so. If UCI doesn't deal with this properly and eventually clean house, the IOC will exclude cycling from the Olympics. The UCI is in between a rock and a hard place. Heads will roll. If this plays he way it should, LA will be the beginning, not the end.

M

Well, according to the few loose articles we've read on the matter, it seems the situation at the moment is something like this:

UCI: "Sorry, USADA, Armstrong is still champion. It's up to us to decide and we decide we don't give a f*** about your ruling. Your ruling is unenforceable and Armstrong will forever be the champion."
USADA: "I'm terribly sorry, UCI, but you are wrong: Armstrong's titles are gone. Can't you see? It's written right here, in black and white."
UCI: "Well, you can stick your black and white up where the sun don't shine."
USADA: "Well, if you don't like it, you need to appeal to the CAS."
UCI: "No, YOU need to appeal."
USADA: "Appeal what?"
UCI: "Errr... it don't matter. Armstrong's still champion."
USADA: "No, he isn't."
UCI: "Yes, he is.
USADA: "Right, ASO, what do you think?"
ASO: "I don't know, guys; you sort it out between yourselves. We don't give a f***."

So does anybody have any idea what's going to happen next? Or is the Wikipedia article going to stay as it is now forever?

 

[QuickStepper]

Hey Quickstepper, would you now quit spouting the ignorance that Lance was not offered the same deal as everyone else?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ce-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Ok, let's take one last chance at having a civilized discussion about this.

First, I never said he wasn't offered the same deal as everyone else.

What I wrote was that I was unclear what the deal was that was actually offered to others.

This was in response to MarkvW's post which speculated on whether LA might have cut a "secret deal" with the prosecutors in the fed case (see Post 408 in this thread).

I never said though that LA wasn't offered the "same deal". I just wondered, and asked Mark in post 409 if he actually had any information on what the terms of the "deal" that had been offered to everyone, including LA actually were.

I already knew, as did everyone else, from reading USADA's case "disposition" letter posted on USADA's site this past Friday that USADA stated it had offered LA the opportunity to come in and share information truthfully, but that he had declined the offer. Nowhere in that letter though are the terms of any deals or offers, much less any reduced sanctions, set forth.

The link you posted to the USA Today story is interesting. If this is what the "deal" was, I am not sure still what precisely the terms of the offer were, other than a conditional offer with no real guarantees of leniency. It's helpful to explain the USADA's position, but Mr. Tygart's statements don't seem very definitive, and it's clearly dependent on what Armstrong might have to say and the reception that what he might have to say would get.

On Friday, USADA hit Armstrong with a lifetime ban and stripped him of all cycling results since 1998, which includes his seven titles in the Tour de France from 1999-2005. USADA charged that Armstrong used banned drugs and blood transfusions to gain an advantage, and sanctioned him when he declined to fight the case.

The statute of limitations for such charges is eight years, but it can be extended in cases involving a cover-up. USADA determined that Armstrong and others fraudulently concealed their doping, dating to the 1990s.

If Armstrong had "come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply," Tygart says, adding that "would have been fine by us." Tygart confirmed that would have meant USADA stripping Armstrong of only two of his seven titles, in 2004 and '05.

I think it's clear that Mr. Tygart is saying that they wouldn't have had any problem if the evidence demonstrated that the 8 year statute should apply. But it would have been dependent on whether the evidence warranted such a result. Other than that, I don't think this sheds any further light on any other additional terms of the offer. So I guess we have to conclude that the offer was "come in and tell us what you know, and if we think you're being honest and sincere, we may decide to go easy on you." So if that's what the offer consisted of, then so be it. Thanks for posting the link. Now we know.

Tygart, the agency's chief executive officer, also says Armstrong's lifetime ban could be revisited if he comes clean about doping in cycling.

The agency would've reduced Armstrong's punishment "if he would have been truthful and willing to meet to help the sport move forward for the good," Tygart says. "Of course, this is still possible and we always remain open, because while the truth hurts, ultimately, from what we have seen in these types of cases, acknowledging the truth is the best way forward."

This statement that Armstrong's lifetime ban could be "revisited" is certainly new as I don't recall reading anywhere else that USADA would still extend some sort of leniency in exchange for Armstrong's cooperation. At least I don't remember seeing this in any of the published statements from USADA during the case or in any of the prior briefs or press releases.

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising though as I sense that USADA is trying to soften public perception that they are a bunch of hard-asses who were bent on a "witch hunt" against Armstrong. If that's what they're doing, I think it's a shrewd PR move, because they have to know that at this point, there's no way Armstrong is going to take them up on it unless he genuinely is worried about future lawsuits.

The one place that it could benefit LA would be if SCA came after him. If LA got to keep 5 titles, I think that would likely put an end to SCA attempting to resurrect their claims, since he would still have "won" those 5 tours (if indeed those are the five that triggered the payment of the bonus under the SCA Promostions insurance policy...and if I recall, I think the first five were).

I don't think the balance of the USA Today article really tells us anything else new that we didn't already know.

Armstrong's attorneys say USADA cannot sanction him - the International Cycling Union (UCI) holds such power, they argue.

Tygart stood by USADA's authority in the matter and says the World Anti-Doping Agency and UCI can appeal.

"Unless and until it is appealed and overturned, then under the world rules, it must be imposed," Tygart said.

See, we can have a civilized discussion. I'm interested in your take on it Chew, and other's of course, other than to use as a response to this post as a foil for insulting me or my prior posts. So please respond only if you want to actually talk about the article and the USADA offer to Armstrong and whether you think LA would ever compromise and make some sort of admission as a trade off to keep at least 5 of the titles now that we know USADA would still consider this.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm still voting for the US to be the dumbest country on the planet.

What was your point?

If you didn't understand my point, I would look in the mirror before passing judgments on anyone or anything else.

 

[MarkvW]

So you mean this whole investigation was a waste of taxpayers' money?
I just want to see Armstrong finally out of Wikipedia. It would be nice to see them all out with the exception of Christophe Bassons and a few more, but since that's unrealistic, I'll settle for the biggest fraud of them all.

No, that's not my point. My point is that I'd like to see Jan Ullrich get his TdF wins because that's what the rules say he should get, and that a sport without rules is not much of a sport at all. But I don't care very much--it's like a debate over whether Hulk Hogan or Macho Man Randy Savage should get get the championship belt in any particular year.

I don't think that the investigation was a waste. Organized team doping is a plague on the sport because it is so destructive to vulnerable racers.

But pro race results? They're a joke, aren't they? Isn't the sport itself a joke? I mean if the UCI is favoring riders by helping them dope. . . what kind of a sport is that? Is the sport worthy of its fans?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ok, let's take one last chance at having a civilized discussion about this.

First, I never said he wasn't offered the same deal as everyone else.

What I wrote was that I was unclear what the deal was that was actually offered to others.

This was in response to MarkvW's post which speculated on whether LA might have cut a "secret deal" with the prosecutors in the fed case (see Post 408 in this thread).

I never said though that LA wasn't offered the "same deal". I just wondered, and asked Mark in post 409 if he actually had any information on what the terms of the "deal" that had been offered to everyone, including LA actually were.

I already knew, as did everyone else, from reading USADA's case "disposition" letter posted on USADA's site this past Friday that USADA stated it had offered LA the opportunity to come in and share information truthfully, but that he had declined the offer. Nowhere in that letter though are the terms of any deals or offers, much less any reduced sanctions, set forth.

The link you posted to the USA Today story is interesting. If this is what the "deal" was, I am not sure still what precisely the terms of the offer were, other than a conditional offer with no real guarantees of leniency. It's helpful to explain the USADA's position, but Mr. Tygart's statements don't seem very definitive, and it's clearly dependent on what Armstrong might have to say and the reception that what he might have to say would get.



I think it's clear that Mr. Tygart is saying that they wouldn't have had any problem if the evidence demonstrated that the 8 year statute should apply. But it would have been dependent on whether the evidence warranted such a result. Other than that, I don't think this sheds any further light on any other additional terms of the offer. So I guess we have to conclude that the offer was "come in and tell us what you know, and if we think you're being honest and sincere, we may decide to go easy on you." So if that's what the offer consisted of, then so be it. Thanks for posting the link. Now we know.



This statement that Armstrong's lifetime ban could be "revisited" is certainly new as I don't recall reading anywhere else that USADA would still extend some sort of leniency in exchange for Armstrong's cooperation. At least I don't remember seeing this in any of the published statements from USADA during the case or in any of the prior briefs or press releases.

Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising though as I sense that USADA is trying to soften public perception that they are a bunch of hard-asses who were bent on a "witch hunt" against Armstrong. If that's what they're doing, I think it's a shrewd PR move, because they have to know that at this point, there's no way Armstrong is going to take them up on it unless he genuinely is worried about future lawsuits.

The one place that it could benefit LA would be if SCA came after him. If LA got to keep 5 titles, I think that would likely put an end to SCA attempting to resurrect their claims, since he would still have "won" those 5 tours (if indeed those are the five that triggered the payment of the bonus under the SCA Promostions insurance policy...and if I recall, I think the first five were).

I don't think the balance of the USA Today article really tells us anything else new that we didn't already know.



See, we can have a civilized discussion. I'm interested in your take on it Chew, and other's of course, other than to use as a response to this post as a foil for insulting me or my prior posts. So please respond only if you want to actually talk about the article and the USADA offer to Armstrong and whether you think LA would ever compromise and make some sort of admission as a trade off to keep at least 5 of the titles now that we know USADA would still consider this.

Then I misread your point previously. I apologize.

As to your point regarding Tygart and the SOL, I think what he is saying is that there is leniency in the punishment they can pursue, but no reason to provide anything if there is no cooperation. I would think any prosecutor (as this is the most logical analogy) will pursue the fullest charges they can under similar circumstances. I find that pretty consistent with what I know of such things. I don't think his point is stripping the titles, and that is how I read the article. I think his point is for the truth of what happened to come out, and he is willing to be pretty generous if you ask me. Taking into account the information that is trickling out, it seems that he is undertaking anything like a vendetta. He just wants the whole episode to become public, and that is a logical goal. That is my take anyway.

Glad we could be civil.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm still voting for the US to be the dumbest country on the planet.

What was your point?

I'd say the dumbest country on the planet is North Korea, because (a) their emperor works hard to keep them dumb; and (b) because there are no North Koreans on this forum to argue with me.

 

[jackwolf]

No, that's not my point. My point is that I'd like to see Jan Ullrich get his TdF wins because that's what the rules say he should get, and that a sport without rules is not much of a sport at all. But I don't care very much--it's like a debate over whether Hulk Hogan or Macho Man Randy Savage should get get the championship belt in any particular year.

I don't think that the investigation was a waste. Organized team doping is a plague on the sport because it is so destructive to vulnerable racers.

But pro race results? They're a joke, aren't they? Isn't the sport itself a joke? I mean if the UCI is favoring riders by helping them dope. . . what kind of a sport is that? Is the sport worthy of its fans?

Yes, of course it's a joke. I don't have an opinion on whether Contador really doped or not, but the way they chased one and how brazenly they're trying to protect the other is more telling than anything else we've ever seen before (probably in any sport). Heads should definitely roll. What the solution for the future is and how you could prevent something like this from happening again, I haven't got a clue.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'd say the dumbest country on the planet is North Korea, because (a) their emperor works hard to keep them dumb; and (b) because there are no North Koreans on this forum to argue with me.

Careful, he isn't too keen on picking up on the point of posts. That will probably go right over his head.

 

[ManInFull]

As I stated previously, half of Americans don't believe in evolution or manmade global warming despite overwhelming evidence. It's no wonder we'd make a hero out of a cheat like Armstrong, and cling to that illusion beyond all reason. It's depressing.

Well, I can understand why many Americans would view Armstrong as a hero. And, most want to see what they consider to be "real" evidence before any sanctions are carried out against him. It's going to take a while for them to come around to digesting and believing that some big conspiracy enabled him to use PEDs and masking agents for years and that positive drug tests were never made official.

 

[Merckx index]

That USA Today story is really interesting. So USADA was willing to make a deal, with LA keeping 5 titles. I wondered if they expected stuff on UCI protection for that, or just “I doped”, period. Also wonder if after the charging letter came out they hinted to LA they would be open to a deal.

It also suggests that either they don’t have a lot of confidence in extending the SOL (and they shouldn’t), or that they feel taking all seven is excessive punishment. I think both, actually. It does seem odd that they would express a willingness to settle in public like this, though, revealing their hand. That is not evidence of real confidence in one’s position. And if it actually came to a hearing and then time to issue sanctions, they would pretty much forfeit their claim to getting seven stripped after an admission like this.

I don't think his point is stripping the titles, and that is how I read the article. I think his point is for the truth of what happened to come out, and he is willing to be pretty generous if you ask me. Taking into account the information that is trickling out, it seems that he is undertaking anything like a vendetta. He just wants the whole episode to become public, and that is a logical goal. That is my take anyway.

Seems like a reasonable interpretation, but still, you appear too generous in public and you lose leverage. If Tygart really feels this way, why didn't he before the charging letter communicate with LA that his intention was a relatively light sentence in return for an admission? Or maybe he did, and LA still blew him off? Which would explain why LA was shocked when the charge said all seven.

 

[ggusta]

its damage limitation. USADA are hugely embarrassed that armstrong didn't go to arbitration and gets stripped of 14 years worth of results. they know it looks patently unfair to all observers. their whole strategy was to go big on the charges on the basis it went to arbitration and CAS would maintain the eight year rule. the other riders are not getting eight years of results stripped anyway so what Tygart said here doesn't make sense even on those terms. the rumor is the UCI will help out the USADA by offering a compromise.

As I am fond of saying, 'can't afford to face the truth.'

 

[ggusta]

The mods have to know by now it's him. I cannot imagine why they haven't banned him yet. I guess they are buying the Sweden thing.

I don't see a lot of point in banning what we can all easily recognize as the same person who comes back over and over (and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ) to troll. We are free to ignore or not ignore. We don't need no stinkin mod to make the decision for us.

tbh, I don't see the harm. It's pretty entertaining. He's a fool.

 

[Carols]

The comments make me pretty sure that we are the stupidest country on the planet.

And these people Breed....scary isn't it????

 

[QuickStepper]

That USA Today story is really interesting. So USADA was willing to make a deal, with LA keeping 5 titles. I wondered if they expected stuff on UCI protection for that, or just “I doped”, period. Also wonder if after the charging letter came out they hinted to LA they would be open to a deal.

It also suggests that either they don’t have a lot of confidence in extending the SOL (and they shouldn’t), or that they feel taking all seven is excessive punishment. I think both, actually. It does seem odd that they would express a willingness to settle in public like this, though, revealing their hand. That is not evidence of real confidence in one’s position. And if it actually came to a hearing and then time to issue sanctions, they would pretty much forfeit their claim to getting seven stripped after an admission like this.

Seems like a reasonable interpretation, but still, you appear too generous in public and you lose leverage. If Tygart really feels this way, why didn't he before the charging letter communicate with LA that his intention was a relatively light sentence in return for an admission? Or maybe he did, and LA still blew him off? Which would explain why LA was shocked when the charge said all seven.

Yes. I think you make some very important points. Based on the Google News searches that I've done, I think about half the press tend to view this thing as USADA being too severe with the punishment and too heavy-handed in the approach. And up until now, LA has really been able to exploit the "I'm an underdog being persecuted" approach pretty effectively. So floating this offer of leniency out there in a USA Today interview may be a very smart move for USADA, assuming they care at all what people think about their approach. And clearly they do, otherwise Mr. Tygart wouldn't be doing interviews with the press.

The USA Today article does not make clear at all whether LA was offered such leniency in terms of the SOL expressly ahead of time, or whether like the rest of us, this is the first suggestion that USADA would have considered such an approach, and indeed still is open to it. Hopefully in the next few days or weeks to come, Mr. Tygart will clarify USADA's position.

 

[joe_papp]

Then I misread your point previously. I apologize.

As to your point regarding Tygart and the SOL, I think what he is saying is that there is leniency in the punishment they can pursue, but no reason to provide anything if there is no cooperation. I would think any prosecutor (as this is the most logical analogy) will pursue the fullest charges they can under similar circumstances. I find that pretty consistent with what I know of such things. I don't think his point is stripping the titles, and that is how I read the article. I think his point is for the truth of what happened to come out, and he is willing to be pretty generous if you ask me. Taking into account the information that is trickling out, it seems that he is undertaking anything like a vendetta. He just wants the whole episode to become public, and that is a logical goal. That is my take anyway.

Glad we could be civil.

Just to clarify for you guys, with this case seen from USADA's vantage, there were really only two possible outcomes were they (USADA) to prevail:

1) full and frank confession from Armstrong, acknowledgment of the extent of his doping in specifics, commitment to some anti-doping public service in USA - in exchange for agency's respecting the SOL and negotiating a settlement invalidating only those results that were "at-risk" or fair game under SOL, and not pursuing an enhanced sanction based on aggravating circumstances, or

2) anything less than the above = scorched-Earth, invalidation of entire career if/when USADA was to prevail at arbitration.

The talk of revisiting the lifetime ban is thrown in there as more of a bone that they're not too worried about actually being picked up, at least as long as LA retains current counsel. Though of course they could modify the sanction under the "substantial assistance" provision, which can apply even after a case has been adjudicated in USADA's favor. Extremely unlikely imo that that would ever happen though, as I would have to think that LA's legal exposure would be huge on an admission of guilt, and his resources not-very-huge by comparison - precluding him from admitting to what he's been denying vehemently for so long.

I don't think it's cynical of USADA to offer the possibility of a reduced sanction (from Life to 8 years; once you've identified aggravating circumstances, they can't pretend those didn't exist - so even if LA owns it now it's too late. he would've needed to do that before the formal charging took place). After all, look what happened w/ Floyd, after the fact.

I think USADA, TT, WB & others there much would've preferred to get a confession from LA and his cooperation fighting doping going fwd instead of beating him in arbitration or this pseudo-nolo contendere stuff. They're happy to work w/ former adversaries and they do an admirable job of not making it personal.

Haven't talked w/ TT about these specifics since the outcome tho, so don't quote me.

 

[Maxiton]

That USA Today story is really interesting. So USADA was willing to make a deal, with LA keeping 5 titles. I wondered if they expected stuff on UCI protection for that, or just “I doped”, period. Also wonder if after the charging letter came out they hinted to LA they would be open to a deal.

It also suggests that either they don’t have a lot of confidence in extending the SOL (and they shouldn’t), or that they feel taking all seven is excessive punishment. I think both, actually. It does seem odd that they would express a willingness to settle in public like this, though, revealing their hand. That is not evidence of real confidence in one’s position. And if it actually came to a hearing and then time to issue sanctions, they would pretty much forfeit their claim to getting seven stripped after an admission like this.



Seems like a reasonable interpretation, but still, you appear too generous in public and you lose leverage. If Tygart really feels this way, why didn't he before the charging letter communicate with LA that his intention was a relatively light sentence in return for an admission? Or maybe he did, and LA still blew him off? Which would explain why LA was shocked when the charge said all seven.

Yes. I think you make some very important points. Based on the Google News searches that I've done, I think about half the press tend to view this thing as USADA being too severe with the punishment and too heavy-handed in the approach. And up until now, LA has really been able to exploit the "I'm an underdog being persecuted" approach pretty effectively. So floating this offer of leniency out there in a USA Today interview may be a very smart move for USADA, assuming they care at all what people think about their approach. And clearly they do, otherwise Mr. Tygart wouldn't be doing interviews with the press.

The USA Today article does not make clear at all whether LA was offered such leniency in terms of the SOL expressly ahead of time, or whether like the rest of us, this is the first suggestion that USADA would have considered such an approach, and indeed still is open to it. Hopefully in the next few days or weeks to come, Mr. Tygart will clarify USADA's position.

What Tygart is (now?) offering sounds almost exactly like what LA indicated he'd be happy with in the Men's Journal interview. But if they were on the same page before hand, why then was there no formal agreement, or arbitration?

Could it be that, as our commenter from Sweden indicated, Tygart fears the sanction is seen as too heavy, and that the statute of limitations will come into play after all, so now he is trying to walk it back? After all, if he is seen as being less than even-handed, might that play into the hands of his adversaries?

And does anyone think LA will accept this offer, since it means preserving five Tour wins and avoiding a lifetime ban? (Which, again, is pretty much what LA said he'd be happy with as an outcome.)

 

[slowspoke]

I'd say the dumbest country on the planet is North Korea, because (a) their emperor works hard to keep them dumb; and (b) because there are no North Koreans on this forum to argue with me.

I like this post and I like your credibility.

 

[Maxiton]

Just to clarify for you guys, with this case seen from USADA's vantage, there were really only two possible outcomes were they (USADA) to prevail:

1) full and frank confession from Armstrong, acknowledgment of the extent of his doping in specifics, commitment to some anti-doping public service in USA - in exchange for agency's respecting the SOL and negotiating a settlement invalidating only those results that were "at-risk" or fair game under SOL, and not pursuing an enhanced sanction based on aggravating circumstances, or

2) anything less than the above = scorched-Earth, invalidation of entire career if/when USADA was to prevail at arbitration.

The talk of revisiting the lifetime ban is thrown in there as more of a bone that they're not too worried about actually being picked up, at least as long as LA retains current counsel. Though of course they could modify the sanction under the "substantial assistance" provision, which can apply even after a case has been adjudicated in USADA's favor. Extremely unlikely imo that that would ever happen though, as I would have to think that LA's legal exposure would be huge on an admission of guilt, and his resources not-very-huge by comparison - precluding him from admitting to what he's been denying vehemently for so long.

I don't think it's cynical of USADA to offer the possibility of a reduced sanction (from Life to 8 years; once you've identified aggravating circumstances, they can't pretend those didn't exist - so even if LA owns it now it's too late. he would've needed to do that before the formal charging took place). After all, look what happened w/ Floyd, after the fact.

I think USADA, TT, WB & others there much would've preferred to get a confession from LA and his cooperation fighting doping going fwd instead of beating him in arbitration or this pseudo-nolo contendere stuff. They're happy to work w/ former adversaries and they do an admirable job of not making it personal.

Haven't talked w/ TT about these specifics since the outcome tho, so don't quote me.

So you think he had too much exposure to fess up, even if he wanted to? I tend to agree. But why then did he indicate his willingness to give up two Tours? Did he think somehow that he could remain uncooperative and still only be sanctioned for two?

 

[Berzin]

Did he think somehow that he could remain uncooperative and still only be sanctioned for two?

No. He knew very clearly what the consequences were of remaining defiant. To spare five of his seven Tours he had to come completely clean.

Tygart is still leaving the door open for a reduction in the lifetime ban from competition, but as they say in the cooperating witness games, "You rat up, you never rat down".

He'll have to give a detailed account of his relationship with the UCI during the course of his reign as Tour champion, along with everything else he and his jolly crew were up to.

 

[Maxiton]

No. He knew very clearly what the consequences were of remaining defiant. To spare five of his seven Tours he had to come completely clean.

Tygart is still leaving the door open for a reduction in the lifetime ban from competition, but as they say in the cooperating witness games, "You rat up, you never rat down".

He'll have to give a detailed account of his relationship with the UCI during the course of his reign as Tour champion, along with everything else he and his jolly crew were up to.

Fair enough. But then why did he publicly offer that he would be "happy with that outcome" [losing one or two Tour titles]?

 

[Flux Capacity]

OMG!! Phil Bates (UCI) said today on Aus radio that it was "something like 760 tests". That's not an exact quote, but he did say 760 tests. He didn't state it as an absolute fact; more like how i 'quoted' him, like an educated estimation.
It sounds as though he's definitely on Armstrong's side

 

[python]

that usatoday article should be interpreted in light of WHO armstrong is and HOW he always deals with people and situations...

and it is only one way - his way. he wants to set the conditions and the rules.

only after that, he is willing to negotiate - on his conditions.

having this in mind, it is rather easy to see what happened - he turned down usada's invitation for talks because it was usada in the driving seat.

obviously, usada did not feel too gracious towards someone who continuously defied and ridiculed its authority.

this was armstrong's power struggle.he knew the price.

yet he proceeded and now he has to pay for his and his lawyers mistakes.