USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[gree0232]

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

Really? He knew about this process, one that didn't exist until Tygart used it, when he signed up?

Now I wonder, for 17 years we have listened to LA haters demand justice, and not one has demanded this apparently transparaent and well known process? One that has never been used before?

Odd.

 

[the asian]

It will be very interesting to see what Johan will do. If he is banned for life from the sport, he will take a huge financial hit, and will have to be dependent on Lance.
So how can he escape a life ban? Would implicating Lance as the man who was responsible for the USPS doping, and he merely had to follow Lance because of intimidation or in the words of the Godfather, stating that lance made an offer that he could not refuse, be enough,
or
If he provides a detailed account of how USPS conspired with UCI and ASO to exercise their doping regime, thereby implicating Hein and Pat, will it be enough to save him from a life time ban?
If he feels that he has no way of escaping a lifetime ban, he will follow Lance and opt out of arbitration.
It would be much better if the Evidence comes out in Arbitration than in a USADA letter.

 

[gree0232]

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.

BS. Facts don't change simply because you want the white whale.

As soon as you are charged, you are entitled to the evidence and accusations against you. How else do you mount a proper defense? Determine whether or not a defense is even possible?

Again, I am charging you with murder, but I cannot tell you why until you agree to the trail?

The whole witness intimidation thing is even more silly. We are talking about cycling, not murder or terrorism. Cycling, not breaking up the Mexican Drug Cartels ... who do murder witnesses in court cases against them.

The legal processes that are being used here are extreme. They ar emeant for getting hardened killers, not ... because proving sporting fraud is suddenly so risky and death defying that we have to suspend legal processes, which we deliberately make public, because the risk to life and limb?

Who exactly is being intimidated?

When we see someone chaging processes so drastically, it should raise alarm. Its why, despite the dancing lance haters declaring their revenge so sweet, are suddenly finding that CPT Ahab is really no role model after all.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

To the bolded.

You are not interested in the minutae of sport, yet you have picked through the minutae in a pro Armstrong manner since your arrival!

Well there plenty of threads were the discussion is general. There are threads on Jonathan Vaughters, Levi Leipheimer, Alexi Grewal, Team Garmin and Greg Lemond. All these USA cycling related. You're not posting in them.

As a legal person, you state, you have read various claims of Armstrong's character and yet a so called legal person like you cant do any research to find out where these claims are coming from and who are making them based on what?

Some of the people Armstrong has bullied post here and under their real names. Do some research and you may if you are inclined to seek the truth find that Armstrong wanted to find evidence of LeMond doping with a $300,000 reward to whoever had proof. He failed. He bad mouthed (and worse) Betsy Andreu(member here)destroyed Mike Anderson's life in USA he emigrated to NZ(member here TexPat) tried to do same for RaceRadio etc... the list is long.

Look at the Simoni incidnet in the 2004 TdF. Even ligget said it was wrong. There are plenty of examples of his sociopathic behavious if you have thew it and intelligence to peal that oh so thin layer of cancer shiled back look at the real Armstrong. It is not pretty.

If you are gonna come in here, where there are plenty of shrewd minds and people, playing one side you had better be good at it. Till now you have convinced others but me no.

You are here for Wonderboy in some manner, to obfuscate as a fanboy or fish in the hope that you catch something. But in my book it is still trolling.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Vendetta - drink.

I'm not playing this game anymore, with the way this guy is spouting off I'll waste my whole Saturday being drunk.

 

[Benotti69]

BS. Facts don't change simply because you want the white whale.

As soon as you are charged, you are entitled to the evidence and accusations against you. How else do you mount a proper defense? Determine whether or not a defense is even possible?

Again, I am charging you with murder, but I cannot tell you why until you agree to the trail?

The whole witness intimidation thing is even more silly. We are talking about cycling, not murder or terrorism. Cycling, not breaking up the Mexican Drug Cartels ... who do murder witnesses in court cases against them.

The legal processes that are being used here are extreme. They ar emeant for getting hardened killers, not ... because proving sporting fraud is suddenly so risky and death defying that we have to suspend legal processes, which we deliberately make public, because the risk to life and limb?

Who exactly is being intimidated?

When we see someone chaging processes so drastically, it should raise alarm. Its why, despite the dancing lance haters declaring their revenge so sweet, are suddenly finding that CPT Ahab is really no role model after all.

Mike Anderson was so bullied an intimidated by Armstrong he emigrated to NZ.

Dont be such a blind fan because this guy survived cancer.

You think he didn't dope? great go home sink a few michelbubs or whatever ,watch some old 1999 -05 tours and remains in bliss.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Absolutement.

It's " absolument " if it's the French word you are looking for....

 

[MarkvW]

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).

There is a very good argument that the USADA charging instrument is defective because it failed to give Armstrong adequate notice of what he was charged with. That defective charging document was one of Judge Sparks' most telling criticisms of USADA.

Had this gone to arbitration, Lance would have had an opportunity to ask the arbitration board to direct USADA to provide more notice in its charging document. But Lance waived that argument when he failed to fight the charges.

Now, after he has waived proper notice, he argues that the notice that he got was bad. That kind of an argument is only persuasive to children.

But USADA's charging document did suck. They should have done better. It's just that the entire anti-doping process afforded Lance an opportunity to correct USADA's error. Lance spurned that opportunity and chose instead to cry to the media. Sooner or later people will recognize this and see Lance's silly posturing for what it is.

 

[Benotti69]

Really? He knew about this process, one that didn't exist until Tygart used it, when he signed up?

Now I wonder, for 17 years we have listened to LA haters demand justice, and not one has demanded this apparently transparaent and well known process? One that has never been used before?

Odd.

Since Armstrong became a pro and got his first racing licence he signed up. He aint some wet behind the ears 18year old in a brand new sport.

Big deal.

Like saying you never knew drink driving was illegal even though you have a driving licence.

Anyway gonna watch the only American winner of a Tour De France tonight. 1986, 1989 and 1990. A 3 time winner too.

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

Some of the people Armstrong has bullied post here and under their real names. Do some research and you may if you are inclined to seek the truth find that Armstrong wanted to find evidence of LeMond doping with a $300,000 reward to whoever had proof. He failed. He bad mouthed (and worse) Betsy Andreu(member here)destroyed Mike Anderson's life in USA he emigrated to NZ(member here TexPat) tried to do same for RaceRadio etc... the list is long.

Look at the Simoni incidnet in the 2004 TdF. Even ligget said it was wrong. There are plenty of examples of his sociopathic behavious if you have thew it and intelligence to peal that oh so thin layer of cancer shiled back look at the real Armstrong. It is not pretty.

be honest, these aren't exactly crimes of the century. some of those people have remorsely trolled armstrong and anyone who supported him, so they get little sympathy from me. but it is the same highly strung apsect of armstrong's character that makes him an effective charity person. humans are complex.

 

[eyemgh]

Gree, it just doesn't work that way. You can pound the table that it does, but it doesn't. You never see all of the other side's cards until later in the process.

Judge Sparks did complain that the charging documents were soft, but given the potential for witness intimidation and manipulation, let it pass with one caveat. He cautioned that the USADA would not like the result they got when returning to his court if they didn't follow their protocol as outlined. If they did, he stated that it was adequate to ensure the defendant's right to due process.

M

BS. Facts don't change simply because you want the white whale.

As soon as you are charged, you are entitled to the evidence and accusations against you. How else do you mount a proper defense? Determine whether or not a defense is even possible?

Again, I am charging you with murder, but I cannot tell you why until you agree to the trail?

The whole witness intimidation thing is even more silly. We are talking about cycling, not murder or terrorism. Cycling, not breaking up the Mexican Drug Cartels ... who do murder witnesses in court cases against them.

The legal processes that are being used here are extreme. They ar emeant for getting hardened killers, not ... because proving sporting fraud is suddenly so risky and death defying that we have to suspend legal processes, which we deliberately make public, because the risk to life and limb?

Who exactly is being intimidated?

When we see someone chaging processes so drastically, it should raise alarm. Its why, despite the dancing lance haters declaring their revenge so sweet, are suddenly finding that CPT Ahab is really no role model after all.

 

[henryg]

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

Read Judge Sparks decision. He determined Armstrong's due process rights had NOT been violated and that there was no reason to believe the arbitration would not be fair.

LA would have had plenty of time to review evidence, depose witnesses, etc., before the arbitration. He chose not to participate in the process.

He knows who his teammates where and he knows what they did together so he is fully aware of the evidence they gave. That's why he declined to participate.

 

[l.Harm]

I read an article someone wrote and posted here. Great article, but I've a few questions.

Except that, in 2008, he announced a comeback. This is important today for two reasons:
1) Without this comeback, he wouldn’t have finally been caught and banned.
2) It provided the evidence that finally caught Lance Armstrong.

Maybe it's me, but the first note didn't become clear to me. Maybe the writer could explain it to me.

Regardless, science and the sport had moved on somewhat, and Lance’s blood values ultimately assisted in bringing him down - his values in the Tour of Italy in May were largely what should be expected of an athlete competing in endurance sport. But in the Tour de France, they were the opposite, and displayed evidence that he had been receiving blood transfusions during the race. This was to form part of USADA’s case against Armstrong - and he knew it.

1. Well, I've to say I never followed his dope career. So I could be wrong, but why I never heard before his blood values during that Tour were very suspicious?

2. How could he be so stupid to use during his comeback? I mean, he knew dope controls were more developed and when he would use, the chance of getting caught would be very high. Why would he risk seven TdF's and his reputation for this? That must be stupid.

 

[Pazuzu]

Many stories emerged yesterday regarding the tight-lipped responses of the majority of pros both at the Vuelta and the Pro Tour Challenge. This is understandable. In my profession, I would never publicly deride a colleague or former colleague no matter how much of an amoral, thieving a**hole I thought they were. And for the younger generation of cyclists - they want the focus of attention on what they are trying to do - not on the past. Fine. Check.

But what I am BEYOND frustrated about is the complete lack of backlash from the public on Armstrong. Consider:

1) Livestrong donations were up 25X yesterday over the previous day.

2) He is racing today in a mountain bike race where he will no doubt be cheered on.

3) Spectators at the Pro Tour Challenge were holding "Free Lance" signs.

4) This video polling opinions at the Pro Tour - all angry with USADA: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-c...usa-pro-challenge-2012#/video/all/created/d/1

5) He's not lost a single sponsorship dollar.

I used to think that once USADA acted, LA would finally be seen for what he is by the majority. Didn't happen. Then I thought, well maybe if USADA releases the evidence, people will wake up. That won't happen either. I think USADA could come out with photographs of him torturing puppies and he will still be adored, and Nike will design a new shoe for him to kick dogs' head in.

Like I said in an earlier post in the USADA phase I thread, he's just a man. A man who has cleverly duped millions into believing he's a saint. But he is no more to blame for that than the stupidity of the millions who have allowed themselves to be duped, quite honestly. I fear that I'm never going to be satisfied with this outcome.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks ever to everyone in the Clinic. Despite my blinding frustration, it has become a place of refuge....

I'm disapointed in the public response too, although not entirely surprised. After all this, is a country where half the population don't believe in either evolution or anthropogenic global warming. Willful ignorance is the norm. The downside of this of course, is that it may embolden the UCI in resisting the nullification of Armstrong's TdF titles. However, I do think that if more evidence comes out, especially evidence clearly pointing toward the UCIs complicity in the conspiracy, then the public may take a different view of things. Time will tell.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

be honest, these aren't exactly crimes of the century. some of those people have remorsely trolled armstrong and anyone who supported him, so they get little sympathy from me. but it is the same highly strung apsect of armstrong's character that makes him an effective charity person. humans are complex.

Hi BPC - I see your latest stuff is on Armstrong being a "human".

Funny thing is the satirical site The Onion picked up on that too in the piece "Haven't We All done Steroids In A Way":

No. It merely means that I am a human being. A human being with a real, living, beating heart. A heart that circulates an unnatural, chemically stimulated number of red blood cells through my veins in order to achieve superhuman levels of stamina. Just like yours.

 

[frenchfry]

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..

The Armstrong team certainly knew who most, if not all, the witnesses were and of course they knew what evidence was likely to be presented. This, assuredly, is the reason why arbitration was refused as they must have calculated that there was no way to get out of this unscathed. Because there was due process, not a lack thereof.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm disapointed in the public response too, although not entirely surprised. After all this, is a country where half the population don't believe in either evolution or anthropogenic global warming. Willful ignorance is the norm. The downside of this of course, is that it may embolden the UCI in resisting the nullification of Armstrong's TdF titles. However, I do think that if more evidence comes out, especially evidence clearly pointing toward the UCIs complicity in the conspiracy, then the public may take a different view of things. Time will tell.

It hasn't even been two full days since the disclosure, give it time . . ..

The beauty of this thing is that it is NOT one single hit on the Armstrong myth, it is going to be a cascading series of disclosures over time.

The slowness of this is the excellence of it. A single bomb blows up, the public digests it, and the public moves on. A cascading series of events gets people thinking--and that's the last thing Lance and his conglomerate want--they want pure faith-healer style emotion.

 

[frenchfry]

I read an article someone wrote and posted here. Great article, but I've a few questions.


Maybe it's me, but the first note didn't become clear to me. Maybe the writer could explain it to me.



1. Well, I've to say I never followed his dope career. So I could be wrong, but why I never heard before his blood values during that Tour were very suspicious?

2. How could he be so stupid to use during his comeback? I mean, he knew dope controls were more developed and when he would use, the chance of getting caught would be very high. Why would he risk seven TdF's and his reputation for this? That must be stupid.

1. Because you didn't see those threads right here in the clinic? The information was there, you just had to look for it. There was much debate about the suspicous blood parameters he posted on internet, before they were modified then eventually taken off.

2. He wasn't stupid, he had the UCI in his back pocket and advance warning of controls. On top that, he had already had 2 positives covered up in the past. Plus a proven logistics setup and the best doping "doctor" on call. Why worry? The financial windfall came calling and he went for it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

+1. The sad reality is that guys like Benotti and Chewie are really the trolls in disguise in this forum. Is there such a thing as a "reverse troll"? They evidently find it impossible to respond with civil discourse (well, in all fairness, Benotti at least appears to be slightly more rational and less pendatic), but for the most part, they must instead attack the messenger as Chewie did with the little one-liner drive-by swipe at your post that you are naive. Instead of any substantive reply, you're met with a silly little ad hominem reply that makes any continued rational discussion impossible to carry on. They are so emotionally attached to, as Gree0232 put it, "getting their White Whale," that any suggestion of another version of reality sends them into such emotional turmoil they lose the ability to respond intelligently, and instead must mock those who have had cancer or who have been touched by the disease in their family (ETA: see Benotti's response to Gree0232 below this post).

I think you're wasting your time here I know I am. And yes, I expect to see the same sort of insipid responses to this that have become routine here. I really don't give a sh!t anymore what some second year law student thinksm, someone who is so obsessed with whatever I write that he has to not only repond, but destroy the post and the poster to whom he's replying. It's not enough to disagree, or to state a different opinion. No we have to deal with insults and personal barbs that are anathema to any civilized discourse. Again though, I don't give a sh!t. Really. Gonna go ride my bike. Adios.

Speaking on a purely psychological level, if you didn't care, you wouldn't bother addressing me in any way. And I am a 3L. But I digress. It seems almost pointless to once again point out that your posts have almost all pointed out some positive in Armstrong's arguments, or some supposed deficiency in the USADA's case. That many of your effervescent recitations of the validity of Armstrong's claims didn't take into account the actual case law on the subject makes me question if you really will ever see your bias. I doubt you will, but here's to hope!

Have a nice ride.

 

[frenchfry]

It hasn't even been two full days since the disclosure, give it time . . ..

The beauty of this thing is that it is NOT one single hit on the Armstrong myth, it is going to be a cascading series of disclosures over time.

The slowness of this is the excellence of it. A single bomb blows up, the public digests it, and the public moves on. A cascading series of events gets people thinking--and that's the last thing Lance and his conglomerate want--they want pure faith-healer style emotion.

Short term this is frustrating, but longer term you might just be right. We will know in a few months (or years).

 

[MarkvW]

That's just sad.

What's sad is that the pro riders may still support Armstrong even after disclosures such as this. The pro peloton is a bunch of sheep. Wiggins is not the patron, he is merely the bellwether.

 

[Elagabalus]

BS. Facts don't change simply because you want the white whale.

As soon as you are charged, you are entitled to the evidence and accusations against you. How else do you mount a proper defense? Determine whether or not a defense is even possible?

Again, I am charging you with murder, but I cannot tell you why until you agree to the trail?

The whole witness intimidation thing is even more silly. We are talking about cycling, not murder or terrorism. Cycling, not breaking up the Mexican Drug Cartels ... who do murder witnesses in court cases against them.

The legal processes that are being used here are extreme. They ar emeant for getting hardened killers, not ... because proving sporting fraud is suddenly so risky and death defying that we have to suspend legal processes, which we deliberately make public, because the risk to life and limb?

Who exactly is being intimidated?

When we see someone chaging processes so drastically, it should raise alarm. Its why, despite the dancing lance haters declaring their revenge so sweet, are suddenly finding that CPT Ahab is really no role model after all.

Gree, we've already been through this ad naseum and you've been out of the loop (discounting today's ... ah ...contribution your last post was from 03/06/11). It's time to get up to speed. And you can start by reading the USADA-Armstrong thread (the original) and the All Things Legal - The Law for Non-Lawyers thread and then get back to us. And, no, we don't have to do the heavy llifting for you ...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Very childish response, I'm afraid.
I'm just using logic.
USADA has not shared any evidence it claims to have with UCI, who have the identical blood test values. Even the Olympics got fooled? They caught Hamilton but couldn't detect any drugs in Lance's blood?
He wasn't satisfied with one drug but had to take every single one?
That is just plain ignorant, sorry to say.
Who was his drug mule? Where did he store his blood?
Why do so many cyclists claim to have had drugs on the team, but none of them can say who their supplier was? Where are the guys who claim, "I sold drugs to Lance"?
Funny how other guys who were caught using drugs NEVER had other teammates who claimed "He took them in front of the whole team."
Every teammate I have read was either shocked or suspicious, never an eyewitness.

EDIT: sorry forgot to put quote to chewy for saying simply that I am naive without any substance.

Oh, that is what it is? I thought logic was "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" when really, it's cretinism. Wow. Good to know, good to know...

 

[MarkvW]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ong-was-regularly-tipped-off-about-tests.aspx

Wow! This is the AFLD!

Armstrong was cheating at cheating! This is more corrupt than I ever imagined!

 

[urban attacker]

<a href="http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls">here</a>
Again if true this is HUGE!
How did he pass hundreds of tests? He cheated with lots of help