USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[AcademyCC]

When someone trying to make a pro Lance argument says the evidence needs to be outed now it really shows their level of ignorance regarding this case. Actually not just ignorant but plain lazy as well.

I'm constantly amazed by fanboys who will take time to make long winded responses on this forum fighting Lances corner. Then have clearly done no research themselves and instead spew out the crap that Lances spin doctors have provided them with.

It truly amazes me.

 

[mastersracer]

He can't intimidate witnesses for very long if he's only given a few days with the evidence. Bottom line: Wonderboy had to stay out of arbitration. He would have perjured himself trying to make the lies fit the array of witnesses consistent stories.

My guess is that USADA's original letter was short on details mainly to avoid the UCI derailing the process (any more than they attempted to). The physical evidence is going to incriminate the UCI (as Race Radio has indicated) with complicity and coverups.

I'd assume Armstrong and his legal team knew who/what the eyewitness testimony was, so withholding those names didn't effect that knowledge. No doubt that legal team/Armstrong entourage has had private investigators following things since at least the Feds got involved..

 

[gree0232]

Jusge Sparks dismissed Armstrongs claim to dismiss USADA was not in his juristiciton as USADA had allowed for due process in their arbitration.

Now Travis Tygart has stated that the evidence will be revealed in due course. Whats your rush?

Should you not be out spreading the cancer awareness message of something or other about cancer?

Agh, only been waiting ... 17 years.

And the problem is that the entore process is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Its the evidence that determines whether or not Armstrong doped, and putting the proverbial cart before the horse is simply wrong - particularly in matters of justice.

USADA, knowing their own deadline was approaching, should have had a brief ready to go - one they have had YEARS to prepare to put a nail in the coffin. That brief, as a minimum, should have been transmitted to WADA, US Cycling, and the UCI within hours of LA'd decision.

That it was not? Seems USADA is only now attempting to build the case that they are apparently ready to issues stinging ban from ... they will eventually make the case.

Apparently though, Merckx has now become troll as well?

"“I haven’t spoken to Lance recently but I know that he is disillusioned. It’s really a regrettable affair. It’s bad for cycling, and it’s bad for everybody.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx-continues-support-of-armstrong

I find it absolutely amazing that people would suspend practices of due process simply to get their white whale at any cost. Any cyclist in any sport can now be subjected to a process that appears to be driven by anything but evidence.

But heh, at some point, we may just discover that this is just a rehash of the same old BS, and the point of this entore game was simply to force Armstrong onto a witness stand rather than actually produce evidence. All of which, including Armstrongs blood, etc. appears to already be out there.

In short, same ol' crap. But suddenly an agency in deliberate over reach is just?

Man the harpoon boys, the white whale has been spotted.

My issue is that this process is deeply flawed. Is that clear enough for the Lance haters? Is it clear that I think allowing hate and a personal agenda to blur processes of justice to be extremely wrong?

If you want Lance? Show the evidence, just like we do with every other criminal in the world - where we use courts and established sets of rules rather than suddenly created tribunals and cohercive threats.

There is a reason that, aside from the lance haters, the peloton, and indeed the general public are deeply suspicious about this process. As they should be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

When someone trying to make a pro Lance argument says the evidence needs to be outed now it really shows their level of ignorance regarding this case. Actually not just ignorant but plain lazy as well.

I'm constantly amazed by fanboys who will take time to make long winded responses on this forum fighting Lances corner. Then have clearly done no research themselves and instead spew out the crap that Lances spin doctors have provided them with.

It truly amazes me.

Yip.
And the irony is that Armstrong does not want that evidence to come out as he will lose a lot of those who still cling to the myth. It actually shows the contempt that he has for his fans that he would not make an honest disclosure or even a tacit admission.

Watch the about turn if USADA announce that they will release evidence.

 

[frenchfry]

This was posted (and translated) higher in the thread, but the link was to a different site.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Armstrong-prevenu-avant-les-tests/308442

A scientific consultant to the ALFD says that Armstrong was warned before each control. He also mentions techniques that can be used in 20 minutes or less to avoid positives. Not a lot of detail, but no ambiguity about the statement. He also states the UCI and IOC were involved in the warnings.

 

[the asian]

I spent the better part of tonight writing this up. If you get the chance, have a read through it - I know I missed some stuff, so if you can think of something I omitted, let me know, and I'll edit it in if it's relevant. But if you agree with it, every chance you get, send a Lance worshipper to read it. Slowly but surely, we can stop falsification. Retweet it, facebook it, post it on forums. 60% of people believing in Lance polls is far too high, and it's only through misinformation that they do so.

It's not about the bike. It is about the behaviour and the drugs. A truthful look at Armstrong's history: http://tmblr.co/ZDdCpuS6QClQ

That certainly is well written!

 

[TubularBills]

Livestrong is engaged in the commercialisation of the cancer movement and the exploitation of human generosity, hope and trust.

Touche & Chapeau

 

[gree0232]

For some reason, the "Lance Lovers" are convinced that all evidence should have been made available when USADA filed its charges. Why? What's wrong with Lance receiving all evidence once he's decided to fight the charges?

Because its how our system works. When you are charged with a crime, you get the evidence, not when you agree to disgree.

BTW - Armstrong disagrees with USADA's assesment, he also disagrees that the arbitration hearing being the proper format for these antics.

I believe such disagreement entitles him to the full evidence against him, just as we guarantee such right to everyone ... including most terrorists in GITMO.

But heh, if its gets the white whale of cycling, then the process is fair and balanced and does not matter.

BTW - I have ten anonymous sources, all willing to testify, that you torture animals in my back yard. You can only recieve the information, evidence, and accuisers statements if you agree to partake in a panel arbitritration process of my choosing, rather than use courts, or else you will be barred from your job for life?

Does such a process strike you as fundamentally fair?

Well, as YOU are now the white whale, I am sure its kosher correct?

 

[ManInFull]

Yip.
And the irony is that Armstrong does not want that evidence to come out as he will lose a lot of those who still cling to the myth. It actually shows the contempt that he has for his fans that he would not make an honest disclosure or even a tacit admission.

Watch the about turn if USADA announce that they will release evidence.

Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, stated that the evidence will be eventually released in written form. Go to the link below to hear a 14 minute interview with Tygart:

http://www.danpatrick.com/2012/08/2...-to-strip-armstrong-of-tour-de-france-titles/

 

[K-0tic]

But absolutely none of them can provide a reasonable answer to a very simple question--why would 10 or more people be willing to lie under oath in order to frame Lance?

The fact is that Floyd Landis, regardless of the lies he's told, finally came clean in July 2010 and provided information that eventually resulted in Lance saying "Screw it" on August 23, 2012.

Lots of people lie "under oath", doesn't mean so much in fact. Obviously they might have been threatened by a trial (several rumours occurred during TdF). You really think 10 or more witnesses are that much? Obviously Armstrong could have called all the other people who worked at the team and let them state he did not dope. I think that's more than 10-15 people in fact.

He did not however. That's really interesting. It's good to see one of the biggest cheaters in history gets caught. Almost everyone out of the top-10 in the TdF in these years wasn't clean, so how the hell can the big champion in every year be clean?

But I still think USADA is doing a bad job. Scrapping all his results would mean a whole new era. They never did this with Riis because 8 years had gone since then. Does this period still apply? Also they never ever scrapped all results. Are you going to take all the results from the others too ? Because there will be quite some witnesses who are no better.

It's still indirect evidence, years and years after the big period. And the more it gets into the direction he must hang, the more credibility the USADA loses. Despite doing a good job with this trial.

 

[frenchfry]

When someone trying to make a pro Lance argument says the evidence needs to be outed now it really shows their level of ignorance regarding this case. Actually not just ignorant but plain lazy as well.

I'm constantly amazed by fanboys who will take time to make long winded responses on this forum fighting Lances corner. Then have clearly done no research themselves and instead spew out the crap that Lances spin doctors have provided them with.

It truly amazes me.

If they made their arguments with the facts, they wouldn't get very far would they.

In many cases it is from a paid service who's mission is to innondate the web with mindless babble in order to distort and manipulate public opinion.

 

[QuickStepper]

Not emotionally attached to Armstrong, emotionally attached to cycling.

We are fans of clean cycling. Armstrong is the antithesis of what we want from cycling.

Armstrong from the day he put his backside on a bike has done no good for the sport. There are thousands in pro cycling like him and the clinic calls them out on their cheating and doping too.

If you were a fan of the sport we wouldn't only find you rambling in the Armstrong threads but in other threads discussing other riders, DS, Doctors, methods, Wattages, VAMS etc.

But we find you in here with your long winded pro Armstrong speil.

Enjoy your ride. Mind yer yella bracelet doesn't catch on the hoods.

See, this is exactly what I mean by ad hominem bullsh!t. You can't just respond to TShame's post but have to belittle another poster, ridicule and claim that I'm wearing a "yellow bracelet" that I've never owned.

Look, I'm a fan of cycling. I'm not a fan though who delves into the minutae of the sport. As I've previously written, I don't race and never have. I have though followed professional cycling as a fan of the sport, reading obscure European mags before it was popular, following Jacque Anquetil as a kid, Merckx when I was in my teens (and traveled to Euorpe to see him race in the 1972 TdF), Hinault, Lemond, Fignon, et.al. And we must be living in different universes because I happen to recall that when Armstrong first arrived on the scene, he was viewed as the one who was going to pick up the mantle that Lemond first raised. His story and the narrative around it popularized the sport in America in ways that have never been seen. Unlike Race Radio, or others here, I don't pretend to be an insider with any special inside knowledge into the pro peloton, so my perceptions have been shaped instead by what I have read and watched, and the "inside" dope, so to speak, wasn't widely being discussed in most media, with the exception of a lot of stories that began to come out in the early and mid-1990's about EPO in publications like VeloNews. But Cycle Sport at the time had nothing on that, at least nothing I recall.

Everyone here seems convinced that LA is an a##hole. Ok, I have no idea whether he is or isn't, but I'll take your word for it. Is he what everone else here calls a sociopath? Has he engaged in stupid behaviors that have given people here a reason to hate him. Evidently.

I understand your hatred of him. I understand why people often detest those that others see as heroes, and why those who see these people as hereoes are viewed as part of the unintiate, the great unwashed who have no real idea what a flawed and evil creep this alleged hero really is.

I get why you and others are now questioning Wiggins' and Froome's successes too. But they aren't American's and nothing that has happened or will happen to them in terms of allegations of doping affects the U.S. justice system. I'm a lawyer. I was interested in the "All Things Legal" thread when I first saw it here, and that's where I chose to spend time posting, trying to help others gain a better and more well-informed understanding about the nature of the U.S. legal system, the grand jury and criminal investigations. I didn't and haven't posted on other threads because I don't have time, nor the inclination. As I said, I ride, love cycling, but I'm not in love with professional cycling. I ride to work. I still do some long-distance stuff. But I'm not a pro-peoloton groupie who dotes on every word or gesture from every pro in the bunch. I have a life, and I live it.

It's interesting here that people are always questioning the motives and degree of "fanhood" of anyone who expresses a slightly different point of view here. Whatever. Life's too short to worry about what you think of me.

Yea, another long-winded apologistic screed. But at least you should appreciate that I though your post deserved the courtesy of a reply. Read it or don't. Ignore or not, it makes little difference in the end.

 

[gree0232]

If they made their arguments with the facts, they wouldn't get very far would they.

In many cases it is from a paid service who's mission is to innondate the web with mindless babble in order to distort and manipulate public opinion.

Yes, Armstrong isn't popular, everyone who disagrees is actually paid ... the lance haters of course are not paid by Landis, Hamilton, Andreau, LeMond, Walsh, Ballister, Kimmage, etc.

Its exactly the lack of objective standards that has made this so polarizing and silly.

 

[Epicycle]

If you want Lance? Show the evidence, just like we do with every other criminal in the world - where we use courts and established sets of rules rather than suddenly created tribunals and cohercive threats.

All the evidence is not shown if the accused pleads no contest and there is no trial. It's a very common outcome that happens many thousands of times each year across the US.

That's what Lance did...he pleaded no contest. He had the right to a hearing and the right to make that hearing public, but he decided against it. It's not hard to understand, the evidence wasn't heard because of the choice Lance made.

 

[urban attacker]

This was posted (and translated) higher in the thread, but the link was to a different site.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Armstrong-prevenu-avant-les-tests/308442

A scientific consultant to the ALFD says that Armstrong was warned before each control. He also mentions techniques that can be used in 20 minutes or less to avoid positives. Not a lot of detail, but no ambiguity about the statement. He also states the UCI and IOC were involved in the warnings.

I saw early link and my jaw dropped it's so crazy i thought it was from the Onion. The bigger they are the harder they fall.

 

[gree0232]

All the evidence is not shown if the accused pleads no contest and there is no trial. It's a very common outcome that happens many thousands of times each year across the US.

That's what Lance did...he pleaded no contest. He had the right to a hearing and the right to make that hearing public, but he decided against it. It's not hard to understand, the evidence wasn't heard because of the choice Lance made.

Mayeb you should go back and read what Armstrong lawyer wrote.

He's stated that he wants the UCI to look at it, as per the rules rather than follow a fundamentally flawed process where he gets to do the same thing up to four times.

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

Once again, do we see the difference between public information and private witch hunt. Armstrong declares what and why, USADA declares ... you are guilty. Why? We'll let you know IF you submit to a process that anyone with a half a brain would have good reason to question.

LIke I said, I have your gay lovers lined up, either come to my kangaroo court, or live in a van down by the river for your entire life! The more you deny being gay, the more guilty you are. If you think my kangaroo court just might not give you a fair trial? Well, you have just abandoned any desire for your rights.

You are hereby granted the title gay lover with questionable sexual practices forever.

And this process is something you need to twist the rules to support? Is it good when aimed at you? Where anyone with an ax to grind against you can organize and bully you into an embarassing public process whose conclusion has already been decided?

.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mayeb you should go back and read what Armstrong lawyer wrote.

He's stated that he wants the UCI to look at it, as per the rules rather than follow a fundamentally flawed process where he gets to do the same thing up to four times.

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

Once again, do we see the difference between public information and private witch hunt. Armstrong declares what and why, USADA declares ... you are guilty. Why? We'll let you know IF you submit to a process that anyone with a half a brain would have good reason to question.

LIke I said, I have your gay lovers lined up, either come to my kangaroo court, or live in a van down by the river for your entire life! The more you deny being gay, the more guilty you are. If you think my kangaroo court just might not give you a fair trial? Well, you have just abandoned any desire for your rights.

You are hereby granted the title gay lover with questionable sexual practices forever.

And this process is something you need to twist the rules to support? Is it good when aimed at you? Where anyone with an ax to grind against you can organize and bully you into an embarassing public process whose conclusion has already been decided?

Well LeMond, we can do this to you too. LeMond is now a doper.

LeMond reference - drink.

 

[gree0232]

All the evidence is not shown if the accused pleads no contest and there is no trial. It's a very common outcome that happens many thousands of times each year across the US.

That's what Lance did...he pleaded no contest. He had the right to a hearing and the right to make that hearing public, but he decided against it. It's not hard to understand, the evidence wasn't heard because of the choice Lance made.

No, you are entitled to all the evidence as soon as you are charged.

That allows BOTH sides to determine what the best course of action is to solve the alleged dispute. If the evidence is overwhelming, then most lawyers recommend cutting a deal. If the evidence is shoddy, most lawyers wind up fighting it.

Most cases do not end in a court room for precisely this reason.

And when we are talking about professional sports like cyclists are mophia hit men? Demanding that we place protections in that are put in place to protect those who are under legitimate death threats?

That is a pretty damb high standard.

And that fact that Lance haters will so willfully change the system, willfully misunderstand the process to get their white whale is deeply troubling.

This entire process reeks of vendetta rather than justice.

 

[Animal]

That's just sad.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, you are entitled to all the evidence as soon as you are charged.

That allows BOTH sides to determine what the best course of action is to solve the alleged dispute. If the evidence is overwhelming, then most lawyers recommend cutting a deal. If the evidence is shoddy, most lawyers wind up fighting it.

Most cases do not end in a court room for precisely this reason.

And when we are talking about professional sports like cyclists are mophia hit men? Demanding that we place protections in that are put in place to protect those who are under legitimate death threats?

That is a pretty damb high standard.

And that fact that Lance haters will so willfully change the system, willfully misunderstand the process to get their white whale is deeply troubling.

This entire process reeks of vendetta rather than justice.

Vendetta - drink.

 

[Benotti69]

Agh, only been waiting ... 17 years.

And the problem is that the entore process is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Its the evidence that determines whether or not Armstrong doped, and putting the proverbial cart before the horse is simply wrong - particularly in matters of justice.

Judge Sparks disagrees in these matters of Justice.

Remember Armstrong does not play fair. Why does he have his paid cronies going to congressmen. That is hardly justice.

USADA, knowing their own deadline was approaching, should have had a brief ready to go - one they have had YEARS to prepare to put a nail in the coffin. That brief, as a minimum, should have been transmitted to WADA, US Cycling, and the UCI within hours of LA'd decision.

WADA are very happy with how USADA has handled this case and have recommended to UCI to comply to its findings and decision. That not good enough for you?

That it was not? Seems USADA is only now attempting to build the case that they are apparently ready to issues stinging ban from ... they will eventually make the case.

As i said WADA are content and find no fault with USADA.

please note USADA has busted around 50 athletes, including Marion Jones, who passed around 160 drugs tests in her career before being outed as a chronic doper

Apparently though, Merckx has now become troll as well?

"“I haven’t spoken to Lance recently but I know that he is disillusioned. It’s really a regrettable affair. It’s bad for cycling, and it’s bad for everybody.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx-continues-support-of-armstrong

Merckx failed at leat 2 doping tests in his career. He introduced Armstrong to Ferarri and had to convince Ferarri to take on Armstrong. I dont think Merckx is independent in these matters. His son is DS for the LieStrong team in USA.

I find it absolutely amazing that people would suspend practices of due process simply to get their white whale at any cost. Any cyclist in any sport can now be subjected to a process that appears to be driven by anything but evidence.

But why the lies. They have evidence. He failed 2 tests. The UCI covered up these tests. The USADA have the blood anomolies of Armstrong that testify to blood manipulation, therein doping. UCI did nothing with these becasue they are part of the conspiracy.

But heh, at some point, we may just discover that this is just a rehash of the same old BS, and the point of this entore game was simply to force Armstrong onto a witness stand rather than actually produce evidence. All of which, including Armstrongs blood, etc. appears to already be out there.

If this was all to get Armstrong onto a stand and deny the testimony of over 12 witnesses why did he quit? Where are all the other employees that Armstrong can get to say i was there they are lying. Team Garmin have 120 employees. Armstrong must have had over 150

This case against Armtrong goes back 17 years. Where are all his witnesses to say Landis and Hamilton, levi and Big George are lying?

In short, same ol' crap. But suddenly an agency in deliberate over reach is just?

Same ol'crap. I never heard Big George's testimoney yet have you? I am looking forward to Big George, who was like a brother to Lance will tell us what he did and saw. That should be good. The brother from another mother tell us what really happened

Man the harpoon boys, the white whale has been spotted.

You know I dont think Lance would be scared of a harpoon. he might think it is a big syringe full of good 'ol dope.

My issue is that this process is deeply flawed. Is that clear enough for the Lance haters? Is it clear that I think allowing hate and a personal agenda to blur processes of justice to be extremely wrong?

Judge Sparks did not see any flaws and has advised arbitration.

If you want Lance? Show the evidence, just like we do with every other criminal in the world - where we use courts and established sets of rules rather than suddenly created tribunals and cohercive threats.

Ooooh its a coming, you just hang on to your hat there now and settle down.

There is a reason that, aside from the lance haters, the peloton, and indeed the general public are deeply suspicious about this process. As they should be.

Who is suspicious. The public that has been blinded by the so called good deeds on the cancer front.

The IRS will be going through that soon enough to collect valuable tax dollars for the american public.

Again how can a process that is backed by WADA be called suspicious, even after it was recommended by the Amercian Judiciary, namely Judge Sparks.

 

[Epicycle]

No, you are entitled to all the evidence as soon as you are charged.

That allows BOTH sides to determine what the best course of action is to solve the alleged dispute. If the evidence is overwhelming, then most lawyers recommend cutting a deal. If the evidence is shoddy, most lawyers wind up fighting it.

Most cases do not end in a court room for precisely this reason.

And when we are talking about professional sports like cyclists are mophia hit men? Demanding that we place protections in that are put in place to protect those who are under legitimate death threats?

That is a pretty damb high standard.

And that fact that Lance haters will so willfully change the system, willfully misunderstand the process to get their white whale is deeply troubling.

This entire process reeks of vendetta rather than justice.

A prosecutor does not provide the accused all the evidence when the accused is charged. The accused enters a plea and then the discovery process starts as movement towards a trial occurs. But if the accused pleads no contest, that's it. No trial, no full disclosure of evidence.

I am extremely familiar with USADA's proces and I know that the same thing happens with them. If you enter a not guilty plea, you go to arbitration and the evidence is made available. If you don't contest it, plead no contest, you don't get to hear the evidence because there is no hearing. Lance had the choice and he chose no contest. It's the same as in criminal (or civil court).

 

[eyemgh]

BTW - Armstrong disagrees with USADA's assesment, he also disagrees that the arbitration hearing being the proper format for these antics.

I believe such disagreement entitles him to the full evidence against him, just as we guarantee such right to everyone ... including most terrorists in GITMO.

Lance knew the arbitration and appeal rules when he signed the dotted line to get his license. If he didn't like them, he shouldn't have raced.

M

 

[MarkvW]

Do we need to be quoting and responding to the bad faith troll?

All the troll is doing is getting you guys to repeat yourselves over and over. And he's not contributing anything.

And this isn't dead-time in the Armstrong case!! Use your ignore feature. There's lots of interesting stuff coming out now. Spurn the troll.

 

[eyemgh]

No, you are entitled to all the evidence as soon as you are charged.

This is simply not true. You are eventually entitled to everything the other side has, but not until deeper in the process.

M

Edit: Oops, didn't see epicycle's response. Uh...what he said.