USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[Semper Fidelis]

While I believe there are too many LA threads already, I think that's a good idea about the evidence thread.

Meanwhile, I feared that Lance would take his fight to the court of public opinion, and he's done just that. I thought it would work on some, but I didn't realize it would work on as many as it has. There is an alarming amount of dolts out there who choose to remain ignorant on this issue and completely side with Armstrong, almost repeating his exact words. There is also a real lack of critical thinking and analysis in the behavior and words of the media.

Just look at this USA Today article, and especially the comments. This is just one of many, most of the articles/comments I see out there are like this. It's probably 80/20 in his favor. Lance must look at this and think he's won.

What a sad day when something like this happens, a life-long cheater is exposed, and so very many people remain willfully ignorant of the facts and support him anyway.

I think you miscalculate the sentiment shown on cycling message boards as being the real popular sentiment. Most people who were cycling fans prior to 1999 would and do agree with what is posted on this forum. The people who came along after that point not so much (in my opinion). The same would go for the general population. It will be tough to change those minds of the casual observer, non-fans, LA fans etc.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Race Radio said the report will be out by Thursday.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=996800&postcount=10739

Thanks. Saw that. What I'm looking for is documentation from USADA.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Thanks for posting, John. I feel also some of the evidence is not going to be made public until the hearings of Bruyneel, Del Moral and Marti. We'll see though.

To be fair, they have not yet been exposed to the facts.

Sure. Let's see if anything transpires then. Or if it's viewed as "old news" buried at the back of the sports page.

Again, I have said that many will still support - we saw how people suspend their objectivity in the Penn State case. However overall his status has plummeted and as more info comes out more will abandon him.

Possible. Then again, it may be buried at the back of sports section, and considered old news, that is steamrolled by Lance's PR lemmings.

As to Sandusky. I think the general reference is that people screaming that Armstrong is being sanctioned on only eye-witness testimony and no hard evidence are failing to objectively accept that in many, many cases of law eye-witness testimony is widely accepted as being very valid. In Sandusky's trial there was zero physical evidence, none, to prove his guilt. It was entirely based on witness testimony, mostly from his victims. If one applied the same logic they use defending Armstrong, to Sandusky, they would then imply that all of his victims lied, and were seeking to gain something by accusing him, and since there was not a single shred of physical evidence, he therefore should not be charged with anything, and to do so is a witch hunt by a kangaroo court.

No one is implying that Armstrong is a child molester.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

By the way. The Washington Post has their own poll, and with nearly 14,000 votes, 58% believe he is innocent and never doped. Link here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Alpe, i think BroDeal is right here. He must have his guys writing all those comments. B/C when i look at this ESPN-Poll, there are 53% of 200.000+ (!) people who believe he doped. You see, he can´t manipulate everybody.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll/conversation/_/id/145298

Let the companies, who still stand behind him, know about this. And let them know the similarities to Sandusky (no hard evidence, but eye witnesses only). Ask them what they gain if the non believers stop to support them (boycott their products). Ask them what sign they show to kids to if they support a cheater. Ask them what does it tell parents who try to educate their children. Should they raise them by telling lies and cheating is good?

WTF?????????

 

[Velodude]

That's what I was going to say. I don't think there's a limit.

I bet they are paying you on a different basis to $5 per hour bot rates. Per 100 words, maybe?

 

[MarkvW]

The writer is using the Sandusky case as an historic or cultural marker, he isn't comparing it to Armstrong or to his case. I know you mean to emphasize the gravity of the case, the magnitude of his misdeeds, and the low character of LA, by making this comparison; but all you really do when you make the comparison is to minimize Sandusky and his crimes. The two things, Armstrong and Sandusky, are on completely different scales.

There is some utility in the argument. It's an a fortiori argument--arguing from the greater to the lesser.

If we can fairly base a conviction for a very serious crime on eyewitness testimony, then we can fairly base an athletic eligibility decision--an infinitely less serious infraction--also on eyewitness testimony.

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks for posting, John. I feel also some of the evidence is not going to be made public until the hearings of Bruyneel, Del Moral and Marti. We'll see though.


Sure. Let's see if anything transpires then. Or if it's viewed as "old news" buried at the back of the sports page.

Possible. Then again, it may be buried at the back of sports section, and considered old news, that is steamrolled by Lance's PR lemmings.

As to Sandusky. I think the general reference is that people screaming that Armstrong is being sanctioned on only eye-witness testimony and no hard evidence are failing to objectively accept that in many, many cases of law eye-witness testimony is widely accepted as being very valid. In Sandusky's trial there was zero physical evidence, none, to prove his guilt. It was entirely based on witness testimony, mostly from his victims. If one applied the same logic they use defending Armstrong, to Sandusky, they would then imply that all of his victims lied, and were seeking to gain something by accusing him, and since there was not a single shred of physical evidence, he therefore should not be charged with anything, and to do so is a witch hunt by a kangaroo court.

No one is implying that Armstrong is a child molester.

But there is.

There is the steroid positive at the 99TdF.

There are the EPO samples from the 99TdF.

There is the the blood anomolies in his blood passport. 9 riders have been busted for blood anomolies to date.

There is the proof of working with a doping Doctor.

There is the 2001 ToS positives that is seems will be proved.

I imagine there are more that i cannot remember, the high testerone levels from pre cancer. The high HGH levels that were very high that is a sign of doping from pre cancer.

 

[gree0232]

If we're talking the UCI-make-it-up-as-we-go-along rules, then I suppose they will manufacture a way to get it into CAS. But, if we're talking the anti-doping code for many other athletes like FuYu Li, there needed to be an arbitration hearing to appeal.



The process as I understand it requires some formal documentation be sent to the federation. Give it some time.

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.

The formal documentation, given that a determination of guilt, inclusing a lifetime ban and disregarding all results from 17 years, is apparently already there. Guilt has already been determined by USADA, as well as punishment administered, without the arbitration hearing.

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?

I realize people are anxious to get LA at any cost, but the fact of the matter is that this is not the first judical inquiry into LA's activities, its not the first accusation of doping, and a criminal probe was deemed not strong enough to get a conviction.

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?

http://arbitrationhorrorstories.wordpress.com/

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

As we can see, the arbitration process is not exactly on the same fairness level as an actual court proceeding, and a process being heavily abused throughout industry.

Now, why should LA submit to this? Other than because the Lance Haters REALLY want to get him at all costs?

 

[ManInFull]

By the way. The Washington Post has their own poll, and with nearly 14,000 votes, 58% believe he is innocent and never doped. Link here.

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!

 

[Maxiton]

Thanks for posting, John. I feel also some of the evidence is not going to be made public until the hearings of Bruyneel, Del Moral and Marti. We'll see though.


Sure. Let's see if anything transpires then. Or if it's viewed as "old news" buried at the back of the sports page.

Possible. Then again, it may be buried at the back of sports section, and considered old news, that is steamrolled by Lance's PR lemmings.

As to Sandusky. I think the general reference is that people screaming that Armstrong is being sanctioned on only eye-witness testimony and no hard evidence are failing to objectively accept that in many, many cases of law eye-witness testimony is widely accepted as being very valid. In Sandusky's trial there was zero physical evidence, none, to prove his guilt. It was entirely based on witness testimony, mostly from his victims. If one applied the same logic they use defending Armstrong, to Sandusky, they would then imply that all of his victims lied, and were seeking to gain something by accusing him, and since there was not a single shred of physical evidence, he therefore should not be charged with anything, and to do so is a witch hunt by a kangaroo court.

No one is implying that Armstrong is a child molester.

Sure. But the thing is, because the cases are on different scales they are not comparable. People naturally accept eyewitness testimony in the Sandusky case, just as they would in a murder case. They discount eyewitness testimony in the Armstrong case because: we are talking about sporting fraud, and the testimony is not in a court of law. People are far less inclined to lie about witnessing murder and rape and so on, and everyone takes those things a lot more seriously, as they should.

Nevertheless, if the Department of Justice had actually brought charges against Armstrong, and we were in a court of law, I think people would be less likely to discount the eyewitness testimony. As it is, though, outside a court, many people probably view it as gossip, or as some American version of tall poppy syndrome.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

As to Sandusky. I think the general reference is that people screaming that Armstrong is being sanctioned on only eye-witness testimony and no hard evidence are failing to objectively accept that in many, many cases of law eye-witness testimony is widely accepted as being very valid. In Sandusky's trial there was zero physical evidence, none, to prove his guilt. It was entirely based on witness testimony, mostly from his victims. If one applied the same logic they use defending Armstrong, to Sandusky, they would then imply that all of his victims lied, and were seeking to gain something by accusing him, and since there was not a single shred of physical evidence, he therefore should not be charged with anything, and to do so is a witch hunt by a kangaroo court.

No one is implying that Armstrong is a child molester.

Thanks for clarifying. That´s what i wanted to say in one sentence. I thought it´s obvious.

By the way. The Washington Post has their own poll, and with nearly 14,000 votes, 58% believe he is innocent and never doped. Link here.

Ok. But 14.000 voters is easier to manipulate than 215.000. I´ll go with the law of the big number btw.

Anyway, basically we can say it´s a 50/50 thing. If i would be a sponsor, i´d really re-think my sponsorship, when half of my possible customers connect my products with a cheater.

For example, is Pete Rose still advertising (ouside of the gambling industry)?

 

[Maxiton]

There is some utility in the argument. It's an a fortiori argument--arguing from the greater to the lesser.

If we can fairly base a conviction for a very serious crime on eyewitness testimony, then we can fairly base an athletic eligibility decision--an infinitely less serious infraction--also on eyewitness testimony.

That's what logic says. But people, often, aren't logical.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Thanks for posting, John. I feel also some of the evidence is not going to be made public until the hearings of Bruyneel, Del Moral and Marti. We'll see though.


Sure. Let's see if anything transpires then. Or if it's viewed as "old news" buried at the back of the sports page.

Possible. Then again, it may be buried at the back of sports section, and considered old news, that is steamrolled by Lance's PR lemmings.

Much of the facts and evidence won't get aired until after the others have been heard.
Also, I believe many of the witnesses themselves will be heard and sanctioned - although most will accept their sanction so details may be scarce.
Then there is Tylers book....

As to Sandusky. I think the general reference is that people screaming that Armstrong is being sanctioned on only eye-witness testimony and no hard evidence are failing to objectively accept that in many, many cases of law eye-witness testimony is widely accepted as being very valid. In Sandusky's trial there was zero physical evidence, none, to prove his guilt. It was entirely based on witness testimony, mostly from his victims. If one applied the same logic they use defending Armstrong, to Sandusky, they would then imply that all of his victims lied, and were seeking to gain something by accusing him, and since there was not a single shred of physical evidence, he therefore should not be charged with anything, and to do so is a witch hunt by a kangaroo court.

No one is implying that Armstrong is a child molester.

The only reason I mentioned Sandusky was because his deeds were indeed disgraceful and it makes everything in regards to Armstrong petty and irrelevant.
However, there are many who still support Paterno and Penn State.
Fanatics are always ruled by emotion, and often suspend rational judgement.

 

[gree0232]

But there is.

There is the steroid positive at the 99TdF.

There are the EPO samples from the 99TdF.

There is the the blood anomolies in his blood passport. 9 riders have been busted for blood anomolies to date.

There is the proof of working with a doping Doctor.

There is the 2001 ToS positives that is seems will be proved.

I imagine there are more that i cannot remember, the high testerone levels from pre cancer. The high HGH levels that were very high that is a sign of doping from pre cancer.

#1 - that is not steroids, its a corticosteroid, as in an Antihistamine. You know the same thing you take when you get hay fever, which undoubtedly boosts you to TdF winning levels?

A TUE was also presented and accepted by all parties. Only the extremely biased would call that a positive test.

#2 - the 'positive' EPO samples would never pass muster based on the processes used to determine them 'positive'.

Here is a look at the rebuttal to that positive: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NjA2OQ&Menuld=MTI2Mjc

" 1.15 [It is] completely irresponsible for anyone involved in doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported (by the Paris Laboratory – LNDD – on the 1998 and 1999 Tour de France samples) constitute evidence of anything.

1.15 […] complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples...

Those are the results of an independant analysis of the process, one WADA refused to cooperate with, but which LA haters have completely reversed today calling Armstrongs refusal to cooperate with USADA and its hearing .... well, you get the point.

In short, the claim has been examined, and no agency in 17 years has even touched it ... until USADA does ... outside the statute of limitations.

The Lance Haters are simply using hyperbolye.

#3 - There are allegations of inconsistencies. Inconsistencies that neither WADA nor the UCI, not too mention US Cycling and a criminal inquiry, chose the believe equated to doping.

The Lance Haters think the allegation is proof.

#4 - The 2001 TdS was a claim made only by Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamiltion who 'heard about it' - possibly from Floyd. No other evidence, merely more speculation, has been turned up on the allegation - which is an allegation not proof.

Where are the results? Did WADA hide them, as well as the UCI?

#5 - THe doping doctor? You mean Ferrari? A doctor who was aquitted by a court of law in Italy?

In short, we have a lot on unproven allegations and past dirt dug up that has already been examined and disproven.

When people refuse to let it go, well, CPT Ahab and his white whale offer a precautionary tale of such antics.

 

[D-Queued]

By the way. The Washington Post has their own poll, and with nearly 14,000 votes, 58% believe he is innocent and never doped. Link here.

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

Almost certainly taken advantage of by Public Strategies

Dave.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.

The formal documentation, given that a determination of guilt, inclusing a lifetime ban and disregarding all results from 17 years, is apparently already there. Guilt has already been determined by USADA, as well as punishment administered, without the arbitration hearing.

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?

I realize people are anxious to get LA at any cost, but the fact of the matter is that this is not the first judical inquiry into LA's activities, its not the first accusation of doping, and a criminal probe was deemed not strong enough to get a conviction.

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?

http://arbitrationhorrorstories.wordpress.com/

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

As we can see, the arbitration process is not exactly on the same fairness level as an actual court proceeding, and a process being heavily abused throughout industry.

Now, why should LA submit to this? Other than because the Lance Haters REALLY want to get him at all costs?

T R O L L.
He had his chance. He waived.
BTW, you remember Judge Sparks?

 

[MacRoadie]

I imagine there are more that i cannot remember, the high testerone levels from pre cancer. The high HGH levels that were very high that is a sign of doping from pre cancer.

Don't forget the curiously non-existent elevated hCG levels, pre-cancer.

 

[ManInFull]

In short, we have a lot on unproven allegations and past dirt dug up that has already been examined and disproven.

When people refuse to let it go, well, CPT Ahab and his white whale offer a precautionary tale of such antics.

While I don't agree with your assessment, it's an assessment that resonates with Lance fans. The bottom line is that everything hinges on making people understand and believe that a conspiracy involving a number of people was used to enable Lance and his teammates to get away with systematic doping.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

@gree0232 Anti-histamines and corticosteroids are not synonymous, they act on different receptors.

Is it a coincidence that Armstrong tested positive just after UCI brought in a new test for them?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

#1 - that is not steroids, its a corticosteroid, as in an Antihistamine. You know the same thing you take when you get hay fever, which undoubtedly boosts you to TdF winning levels?

A TUE was also presented and accepted by all parties. Only the extremely biased would call that a positive test.

#2 - the 'positive' EPO samples would never pass muster based on the processes used to determine them 'positive'.

Here is a look at the rebuttal to that positive: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NjA2OQ&Menuld=MTI2Mjc

" 1.15 [It is] completely irresponsible for anyone involved in doping control testing to even suggest that the analyses results that were reported (by the Paris Laboratory – LNDD – on the 1998 and 1999 Tour de France samples) constitute evidence of anything.

1.15 […] complete absence of an internal or external chain of custody, proper record keeping and security with respect to the urine samples...

Those are the results of an independant analysis of the process, one WADA refused to cooperate with, but which LA haters have completely reversed today calling Armstrongs refusal to cooperate with USADA and its hearing .... well, you get the point.

In short, the claim has been examined, and no agency in 17 years has even touched it ... until USADA does ... outside the statute of limitations.

The Lance Haters are simply using hyperbolye.

#3 - There are allegations of inconsistencies. Inconsistencies that neither WADA nor the UCI, not too mention US Cycling and a criminal inquiry, chose the believe equated to doping.

The Lance Haters think the allegation is proof.

#4 - The 2001 TdS was a claim made only by Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamiltion who 'heard about it' - possibly from Floyd. No other evidence, merely more speculation, has been turned up on the allegation - which is an allegation not proof.

Where are the results? Did WADA hide them, as well as the UCI?

#5 - THe doping doctor? You mean Ferrari? A doctor who was aquitted by a court of law in Italy?

In short, we have a lot on unproven allegations and past dirt dug up that has already been examined and disproven.

When people refuse to let it go, well, CPT Ahab and his white whale offer a precautionary tale of such antics.

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.

 

[Benotti69]

#1 Pure teamliestrong obfuscation.

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?

 

[gree0232]

That's what logic says. But people, often, aren't logical.

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.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Don't forget the curiously non-existent elevated hCG levels, pre-cancer.

Your Testosterone : Epitestosterone ratio (which is the main urinary steroid test and the test which Landis eventually failed) is supposed to get distorted when you have testicular cancer but this never showed up for Lance.

 

[Maxiton]

Much of the facts and evidence won't get aired until after the others have been heard.
Also, I believe many of the witnesses themselves will be heard and sanctioned - although most will accept their sanction so details may be scarce.
Then there is Tylers book....


The only reason I mentioned Sandusky was because his deeds were indeed disgraceful and it makes everything in regards to Armstrong petty and irrelevant.
However, there are many who still support Paterno and Penn State.
Fanatics are always ruled by emotion, and often suspend rational judgement.

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.