USADA - Armstrong

[TechnicalDescent]

I noted.

Today on EuroSport English I noted a slip.

They were talking about skinsuit technology. Harmon mentioned Armstrong was always into tech in regards to skin suits. Kirby jumped and said "Are we going to talk about the cloud?" Harmon then quickly corrected himself "oh that cloud, I've been instructed not to talk about it" then moved onto another topic.

Money is spent all over the place and sounds like the commentators have either been paid off, warned by the UCI not to speak about it, or worried about dirt being spread by Magnum PI.

Like I said, they really don't want to talk about it. The frustration with the whole process is palpable. They're going to be peppered with questions about it throughout the tour - hopefully they can hold their nerve and just ignore it completely. Nobody in cycling wants this.

 

[Muriel]

From http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533665/armstrong-charged-with-doping-offences.html

The accused have until July 9 to inform USADA if they wish to challenge the evidence against them.

I've not read this anywhere else. Can anyone confirm?

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Only a small fraction of the evidence has been presented. USADA intentionally only presented evidence that was largely already in the public domain. There is much, much more

With respect, I don't think you know this. You were unaware of the process of the USADA charges and had to be corrected by Joe Papp, and for all your supposed sources in the USADA letting you know what's going on, you were strangely camping in the middle of nowhere when the charges were first proposed. You have no special knowledge of the USADA case so perhaps you should not repeatedly pretend to the forum that you do.

Thanks.

Somone once said "I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for being someone I am not."

 

[FitSsikS]

From http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533665/armstrong-charged-with-doping-offences.html



I've not read this anywhere else. Can anyone confirm?

The same story (Jim Vertuno - Associated Press) is being carried on many sites.

 

[Muriel]

Thanks. I'm finding it referenced in many reports now (all referencing the AP release).

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not sure RR is correct on this one - see section 11 of the USADA Protocol - "Results Management/ Anti-Doping Review Board Track"

My interpretation is that the process is in motion after the review board recommendation.

Yes, the process is in motion. I did not see anything in the original letter what the sanction would be, did I miss something?

There would have to be a clear idea of what sanctions will be handed out to Armstrong and his buddies before he can contest them. There has been talk of multiple years being stripped, lifetime bans, 4 year bans, etc. I have yet to see the official charges/sanctions be handed down.

 

[Race Radio]

USADA made it clear that the board requested that they limit public information because of potential harassment by Armstrong. The board gave this instruction before any judgement was made

The board "has expressed concern about the potential for intimidation and retaliation against USADA's witnesses and as part of their review, has asked USADA to only provide additional evidence of doping that is already in the public domain.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

USADA made it clear that the board requested that they limit public information because of potential harassment by Armstrong. The board gave this instruction before any judgement was made

Kindly do not alter my posts.

Make it clear you reading stuff off the net and do not have special inside knowledge.

Unfortunately you claimed to have outed all of the witnesses in the case and named all the riders you said were involved. So USADA's efforts were in vein.

 

[red_flanders]

Please stop discussing each other and discuss the topic. Replacing posts with insulting edits is insulting, and will be treated as such with sanctions. This applies to everyone, thank you.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Yes, the process is in motion. I did not see anything in the original letter what the sanction would be, did I miss something?

There would have to be a clear idea of what sanctions will be handed out to Armstrong and his buddies before he can contest them. There has been talk of multiple years being stripped, lifetime bans, 4 year bans, etc. I have yet to see the official charges/sanctions be handed down.

The period of ineligibility for the trafficking charge (which was leveled against all) is "a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility" per section 10.3.2 of the protocol. I have no idea if the length of period of ineligibility that USADA is seeking was communicated to LA et al, or if that will be presented during the hearing.

 

[Race Radio]

The period of ineligibility for the trafficking charge (which was leveled against all) is "a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility" per section 10.3.2 of the protocol. I have no idea if the length of period of ineligibility that USADA is seeking was communicated to LA et al, or if that will be presented during the hearing.

Yes, I saw that. 4 years to life is vague and does not address the actual sanction. How many years of results will they strip? They would need to give an official sanction for Lance to contest

 

[thehog]

Lance Armstrong launches 'sex offender' attack on anti-doping official as agency files charges against him

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-agency-files-charges-him.html#ixzz1zIJlv6wo

Charming.

 

[Merckx index]

Tough talk from the thug:

"I refuse to be distracted by @usantidoping's antics," the seven-time Tour de France champion said on Twitter, a day after USADA announced it had filed the charges that could cost him his seven titles in the world's most prestigious cycling race.

"It's 2012, I'm gonna continue to lead @LIVESTRONG, raise my 5 kids, and stay fit , sell my yellow jerseys to the highest bidder while they're still worth something, and not compete in the Ironman!" Armstrong tweeted.

http://news.yahoo.com/formal-charges-filed-against-armstrong-210839244--spt.html

Fixed that (Gooner's earlier post now noted).

RR, I don't think there has to be a definite known sanction in order to contest. When Contador’s positive was announced, there were multiple scenarios, ranging from no sanction to two years. The actual sanction was determined only at the hearing, and was dependent on the arbitrator’s weighing of the evidence.

It’s even more uncertain here. Surely the length and nature of the sanction depends on such unknown but to be determined factors as the number of separate doping events LA can be charged with, the evidence for compelling others to dope, possibility of trafficking, the weight of the blood value evidence, etc. At best they could say it will be so many years if this, this many years if that, and so on. Not to mention the situation with titles.

For anyone who thinks USADA isn’t willing to settle, why did they invite LA to come in and talk? If you have a positive test, you don’t invite a rider to do anything except be present when the B sample is opened. OTOH, if you have a suspicious passport, you invite the rider to come in and explain it. Similar situation here. I’m sure USADA hoped LA would come in and confess everything, but realistically, the best they could have expected was a deal.

The original letter has many points that at best are only suspicious, and which could be used as bargaining chips. The Saugy incident. Probably the blood values. And the SOL argument is very iffy. Based on what I’ve read, I would say at a minimum it would take another deliberation that could be a separate hearing by itself just to determine whether the SoL can be extended.

I think that is key to whether there will be or might be a settlement. If USADA’s lawyers have assured it that they have a strong case for extending the SOL, then they will go for everything. But if the outcome looks uncertain, a settlement might look good. And I expect attacking the SOL argument will be a major focal point for LA’s team. If they win that, it doesn’t matter how damaging the testimony is, they have saved five of seven Tours. But they may not have to fight it if going in it becomes apparent that it will take a very long and difficult process, with an uncertain outcome, to determine whether it can be extended.

In that case, everyone might welcome a settlement. USADA would save time and money, and maybe get all the TDFs removed that they were going to get, anyway. LA would save time and money, maybe get a shorter suspension, would get to keep five titles, and wouldn’t have to have all the dirty laundry exposed, And don’t forget all the other riders, who may get sanctioned, but would surely prefer that the world did not hear their stories.

The counter argument is that USADA wants all this to get out, to put on a show, as someone said. Maybe. But they know they're going up against someone with deep pockets. A settlement, carefully worded, might get them enough.

 

[MR_Sarcastic]

Should be interesting to see if any dirt comes out about the other two members. The USADA must be crappin' their pants now.
I guess that if you want to play hardball, you have to be ready to get some thrown back at you.
I notice that there is a thread titled " Lance Armstrong - An exercise in corruption"
Maybe this one should be renamed "The USADA - an exercise in perversion".
.
.

 

[D-Queued]

The period of ineligibility for the trafficking charge (which was leveled against all) is "a minimum of four (4) years up to lifetime Ineligibility" per section 10.3.2 of the protocol. I have no idea if the length of period of ineligibility that USADA is seeking was communicated to LA et al, or if that will be presented during the hearing.

As I recall the 4 yr minimum is a fairly recent rule change.

Question(s) for RR or others with some insight on the technicalities:

Depending upon how far back they go, what rule set applies? Are older rules grandfathered and applied? Will the rule set of the most recent infraction apply? Or, will today's rule set apply because this is when this action has been initiated?

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Tough talk from the thug:

"It's 2012, I'm gonna continue to lead @LIVESTRONG, raise my 5 kids, and stay fit, sell my yellow jerseys to the highest bidder while they're still worth something, and not ride the Ironman!" Armstrong tweeted.

....

Now we know he is desperate.

He probably doesn't even remember what their names are.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I know it's highly improbable, but wouldn't it be funny of the USADA made their case without Landis or Hamilton?

 

[college]

Now we know he is desperate.

He probably doesn't even remember what their names are.

Dave.

What makes that a desperate statement from Lance?


That is below the belt.

 

[college]

I know it's highly improbable, but wouldn't it be funny of the USADA made their case without Landis or Hamilton?

Well not having the two on the case might make it more believable considering Floyd and Tyler are not exactly model citizens.

 

[D-Queued]

What makes that a desperate statement from Lance?


That is below the belt.

You must be a newbie...

...this was the reason touted for the first retirement. Then forgotten as soon as it was uttered.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

I know it's highly improbable, but wouldn't it be funny of the USADA made their case without Landis or Hamilton?

Stranger things have happened.

 

[college]

You must be a newbie...

...this was the reason touted for the first retirement. Then forgotten as soon as it was uttered.

Dave.

I was not putting these two separate situations together like you have.
Once Lance’s private investigators get finished with the gentlemen at usada they will understand what it means to play hardball.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well not having the two on the case might make it more believable considering Floyd and Tyler are not exactly model citizens.

But Lance is the biggest scum of all, so in comparison, they are models of honesty.

 

[red_flanders]

I was not putting these two separate situations together like you have.
Once Lance’s private investigators get finished with the gentlemen at usada they will understand what it means to play hardball.

I would think an innocent man would simply provide counter-arguments to the evidence against him. But it would seem he decided not to do that when asked. I hope you're incorrect and slandering those involved isn't his only recourse, as surely that would only serve to confirm his guilt?

 

[thehog]

I would think an innocent man would simply provide counter-arguments to the evidence against him. But it would seem he decided not to do that when asked. I hope you're incorrect and slandering those involved isn't his only recourse, as surely that would only serve to confirm his guilt?

It wonderfully comforting to know that this is what we've come to. Lets take down the review board member even though he's not on the arbritration panel.

More senseless is this is how some want it to end. Losing 7 titles and smearing all involved.

Haven't we come far as a society. Such an inspiration that man.

I guess it proves the point that Armstrong is nothing but a bully and a thug.