USADA - Armstrong

[Race Radio]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

Have you seen his 2010 values?

Plenty of experts believed he doping in 2009, why would he change?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I like Hellebuyck because a person who lies to an adjudicatory body should never be able to benefit from a favorable adjudication secured because of that lie.

Any kind of cheating, however, depends intrinsically upon concealment. USADA is going to have to come up with an argument that doesn't render the antidoping statute of limitations meaningless. If you stretch the concealment doctrine to its fullest extent, an antidoping official could ask each person before each race whether or not that person doped. If the person lies, then there effectively would be no limitation period.

It will be interesting to see how that issue sorts out.

Conspiracy and concealment are not the same thing, though the former always involves the latter and the latter is generally easily deemed to be the former so long as there is more than one person involved. Your set of facts doesn't appear to be anything like what the charges against Armstrong, Johan, and the doctors suggest. To say that it's a slippery slope to distinguish that from the situation you describe is not realistic in any way. We aren't talking about Lance lying, we are talking about a chain conspiracy which has much more to do with the players instituting a systematic doping program, and they have everyone from the suppliers on down. That is nothing like asking some dude if he doped after a race and then popping him with no SOL when you find out several years later that he did dope.

It may not turn out that the USADA can toll the SOL in the manner they want, but if I were betting, I'd say they have a much better shot than not.

EDIT: I just realized that you and I were arguing different arguments. You were talking about tolling based on Lance lying. I was talking about the fact that there is an extremely strong case to do it with the conspiracy charges as the case law (which obviously not precedent in this case, but should be strongly persuasive IMO) provides STRONG reasoning to toll SOL's. And I think the base reasoning in Hellebuyck has an equitable component (think English common law, not equity judgments) which can be applied here and is also applied in conspiracy cases. Even if that reasoning is a stretch, I think that in comparison, allowing tolling based on concealment (when there was no precedent or statute that said they had to) is a weaker argument than allowing it for conspiracy.

 

[thehog]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

But one of the reasons for blood doping’s popularity is that until recently athletes could not test positive for their own blood. In the last few years, however, anti-doping laboratories have developed techniques for detecting blood transfusions by looking for suspicious fluctuations in various blood measurements and ratios. They look at reticulocytes and hemoglobin levels, and even look for traces of plasticizers that leach out of blood bags. The more blood samples are collected from an athlete, with scores compared over months and years, the more glaring a sudden spike in one blood value might look. A study of Armstrong’s blood samples, combined with testimony from cooperating witnesses who can pinpoint the dates of alleged transfusions, would make for a compelling presentation if USADA’s action advances into arbitration proceedings.

...that athletes on the blood-doping program would withdraw their blood eight to 10 weeks before the Tour de France, wait for their body to replenish the red blood cells, reinfuse the stored blood, and repeat the process. “You reinsert the older blood, then withdraw the same amount, but this time you withdraw a little more,” the person said. The goal was to get a mixed population of red blood cells in the stored blood bag so that anti-doping officers wouldn’t notice a suspicious spike in the number of old cells. “Any introduction of blood shows a different population of red blood cells,” the person said. “They’ve been sitting in a bag for a month. It doesn’t make sense — a jump in aging red blood cells? If you reinfuse several times you get a count of this many old ones, this many new ones. It’s very balanced... It has a lot of precision and variables.”

 

[DirtyWorks]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

What facts support this? His clean days under Wenzel/Carmichael and Ferrari? It seems reality is working against your opinion. But, don't let the facts get in the way of being right.

 

[nevada]

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/t...479/___Bizarre_deal_in_zaak-Armstrong___.html

Tip my hat to these fellas.

 

[luckyboy]

hehe remember this?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hincapie-leipheimer-vande-velde-zabriskie-opted-out-of-olympics

 

[silverrocket]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

If he doped in 2009 it makes absolutely no sense that he would not dope in 2010, since there is no way Armstrong would come back to the tour to do worse than he had in 2009. The fact that he rode more poorly in 2010 is weak evidence for "not doping". It is strong evidence that he was inadequately trained compared to 2009, or perhaps that he was trying a "new and improved" doping regimen that didn't work out as well as 2009's.

 

[maxmartin]

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/t...479/___Bizarre_deal_in_zaak-Armstrong___.html

Tip my hat to these fellas.

English version

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rep...kie-vaughters-give-evidence-against-armstrong

 

[Stingray34]

Interesting

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rep...kie-vaughters-give-evidence-against-armstrong

OK, we've inferred already these four or five did testify against LA. The delayed six month ban may fuel LA's 'deals and incitement' argument/obfuscation, though.

 

[D-Queued]

Interesting

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rep...kie-vaughters-give-evidence-against-armstrong

OK, we've inferred already these four or five did testify against LA. The delayed six month ban may fuel LA's 'deals and incitement' argument/obfuscation, though.

Yes, nice to have it confirmed... so far.

BTW - doesn't George know he is supposed to raise his right hand?

Dave.

 

[burning]

I'm still curious about exact list of other 6 guys

 

[McLovin]

George didn't knew they are going to tell Lance that he told. George was told that they would not name names. George is getting upset!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEyaxm26YBI

 

[TexPat]

They're all lying of course. Haters.

 

[ExRower]

Naturally, Hincapie, Vaughters, CVV, DZ, LL are bitter at Lance....naturally.

I wonder how this will impact on Lance's lawyers' billable hours? Must be kaching week for them LOL

 

[JA.Tri]

If he doped in 2009 it makes absolutely no sense that he would not dope in 2010, since there is no way Armstrong would come back to the tour to do worse than he had in 2009. The fact that he rode more poorly in 2010 is weak evidence for "not doping". It is strong evidence that he was inadequately trained compared to 2009, or perhaps that he was trying a "new and improved" doping regimen that didn't work out as well as 2009's.

+1 nicely reasoned

 

[barn yard]

these dopers are just trying to sell books

i like our credibility

 

[BroDeal]

George didn't knew they are going to tell Lance that he told. George was told that they would not name names. George is getting upset!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEyaxm26YBI

The summer of George ruined again.

Those five are gonna leave a mark.

There is a big downside to this. I may have to stop hatin' on Leipheimer and give him some credit. Plus Vaughters might have earned the benefit of the doubt.

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

Dave Z is a good dude he's been clean for a long time now, wouldn't mind if he never had to confess.

 

[Mellow Velo]

They're all lying of course. Haters.

Well of course. Since we now know all cheated, that must mean they are only capable of lying, right?
Lance's lawyer legions will try to fly the no credibility kite, once again, only this time it's weighed down by 5 shiny, new lead weights.

 

[JA.Tri]

JV is mentioned....however he last raced with Lance in 1999 and ceased racing in 2003(?). Therefore I infer he is likely clear of sanctions. N'est pas??

 

[rhubroma]

This just in from la Gazzetta dello Sport and it fills in some of the blanks of what has been already reported in this regard on this site.

Cheers.

Armstrong, his accusers are at the Tour?

New files from the USA: a secret pact to delay their disqualifications until 2 months from now

By Claudio Ghisalberti

At the start from Liege Pat McQuaid, president of the UCI, didn’t have any doubts: “I fear that the Armstrong case will blight the Tour.” In the meanwhile there have been some other most interesting documents “leaked” from the United States, which regard the complex case of the 7 time king of the Tour. It would seem to emerge from these files that in the caravan in France there would be 5 people (4 of which still active cyclists), who in the past had doings with the Texan.

The five would have also been interrogated during the past months by USADA (the American anti-doping agency) and from this a real and genuine deal was supposedly struck. We’ll “sing” in exchange for your “help.” The five would have thus explained how the doping system work and would have also admitted to have used prohibited substances themselves. In exchange for their testimony, they would have supposedly obtained a ¾ reduction in the penalty, which is the maximum consented by the rules: that is, not a 2 year disqualification, but just 6 months. A discount that would, furthermore, evade for them having to pay the hefty fine imposed by the UCI for who gets stopped for 2 years.

Though that isn’t all, because this sanction, in order to not disturb the Tour (however the race organizers would supposedly know the names in question), is to be inflicted only in September after the Vuelta, when it is hoped that someone will already be retired. The “problem” is that this summer there are also the Olympics. The United States can’t risk finding itself with a scandal in its hands, rather than a medal. Consequently, there shall be no London games for those involved. However these are racers of value and, therefore, not bringing them to the games could also instigate malcontent.

Saturday 16 June the AP agency had announced that Levy Leipheimer, David Zabrinskie, Christian Vande Velde and George Hincapie (who wanted his sixth Olympics before retiring in August at the Tour of Colorado), that is 4 ex-teammates of Armstrong, had communicated to the US cycling federation that they didn’t want to be taken into consideration for the Games. “We didn’t comment on the situation then – said a spokesperson of USA Cycling. So ask your questions to the cyclists.” AP tried to ask those directly involved, though none had provided a response as to why they had renounced the Games. The fifth person, on the other hand, has been retired for some time. Yet he is still directly involved with more than one of these four athletes (Jonathan Vaughters? – yours truly). And his position would be the most decisive.

 

[JA.Tri]

Well of course. Since we now know all cheated, that must mean they are only capable of lying, right?
Lance's lawyer legions will try to fly the no credibility kite, once again, only this time it's weighed down by 5 shiny, new lead weights.

Magnificent imagery!

I have loathed LA's use of his credibility vs others.

 

[Andrichuk]

Horner is going to the Olympics, what will happen to him? I guess there are no charges against him, but why did the other riders admit to anything when nothing is going to happen to Horner, while they get 6 month bans.

 

[JA.Tri]

Horner is going to the Olympics, what will happen to him? I guess there are no charges against him, but why did the other riders admit to anything when nothing is going to happen to Horner, while they get 6 month bans.

I am guessing that Mr Horner faces troubled waters a little way down the track.

 

[Mshengu]

Damn right they 'em, damn right they got him