USADA - Armstrong

[Anonymous]

Understood, but delaying sanctions as I have stated could make things messy. Again, I use the unlikely case of LL winning the tour. I still haven't heard how you legal eagles would handle that without making the sport more of a trainwreck than it already is.

You don't have to worry about that.

 

[BroDeal]

Everyone in cycling has to know that Armstrong's people are responsible for leaking the names and false info on suspensions. They cannot be happy that this is interfering with media coverage of the biggest event on the calendar. Armstrong labeled the witnesses as "victims" of the USADA. Is this Armstrong trying to maintain his status as a stand up guy and pass blame for putting the hairy eyeball on the sport to the USADA? Or is it Armstrong trying to maintain a kinship with those who might testify against him?

The four riders, especially Hincapie and Leipheimer, have to be upset about the leak and the potential for being forced out of the TdF.

At what point does the sport turn on Armstrong?

 

[red_flanders]

Red, the nature of the suspensions may be in doubt, but surely not that there are suspensions. The USADA letter clearly states that these riders are testifying to doping. By the rules, they have to be sanctioned to some extent.

They may in fact be getting leniency for testimony. I have no idea, and don't see where anyone does. People seem to be arguing from a limited understanding of the USADA stance, and for me that makes little sense. I'm happy to see what they have on the 6 people in question. I hope those 6 people decide to have an open hearing so we can all hear what exactly is going on.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

OK man. I really don't care to get into another pizzing match with you.

Don't stop now, Chris. He only gave you a flesh wound! You can still bite his legs off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

 

[thehog]

Everyone in cycling has to know that Armstrong's people are responsible for leaking the names and false info on suspensions. They cannot be happy that this is interfering with media coverage of the biggest event on the calendar. Armstrong labeled the witnesses as "victims" of the USADA. Is this Armstrong trying to maintain his status as a stand up guy and pass blame for putting the hairy eyeball on the sport to the USADA? Or is it Armstrong trying to maintain a kinship with those who might testify against him?

The four riders, especially Hincapie and Leipheimer, have to be upset about the leak and the potential for being forced out of the TdF.

I think he proved to them all that they're right in what they are doing.

Imagine if Armstromg is successful. Where would that leave the sport? No rider will let that happen. They would never forgive themselves.

 

[ChrisE]

You don't have to worry about that.

I agree, but it doesn't mute my point. It is ok to agree with me.

 

[spetsa]

In regards to the fact that Levi has already been sanctioned once, is he facing and 8 year ban, or is their some crazy rule that will call this his first offence (if found guilty of anything that is)?

 

[BroDeal]

In regards to the fact that Levi has already been sanctioned once, is he facing and 8 year ban, or is their some crazy rule that will call this his first offence (if found guilty of anything that is)?

I think his first offense was before the "two strikes = permanent ban" policy, so the first would not count.

 

[ChrisE]

Don't stop now, Chris. He only gave you a flesh wound! You can still bite his legs off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Arguing with him tends to elevate my infraction points.

 

[thehog]

I think he proved to them all that they're right in what they are doing.

Imagine if Armstromg is successful. Where would that leave the sport? No rider will let that happen. They would never forgive themselves.

I would add; to the mothers (plural) of his children. I really hope they step in and stop him. What he's doing to them with his behavior is nothing short of disgusting. He can save himself, his family and cycling in one hit.

He should confess. At least for his family and not for himself.

 

[PedalPusher]

Armstrong is not an idiot. He's been navigating these waters and he knows how to sidestep a few mines. Giving a hard time to reluctant witnesses is hardly the way to sidestep the mines. It's more like stepping on them! That's why I think there's more to it than something as simple as Armstrong going psycho and can't helping himself from leaking info and writing delusional tweets.

I think you need to get your Google going and so some research on sociopaths. They are not "psycho", they are controlling, manipulative and prey pretty commonly on peoples compassion.

He didn't just go "psycho". It's about winning. Sociopaths like to control everything. Every person around them is a chess piece on the board. When you understand that, then you understand Armstrong. It explains his success, it will undoubtedly explain his demise.

 

[MarkvW]

"If Armstrong fights, he will not only learn in advance who the witnesses are, he will have a chance to interview them before the hearing."

Can you elaborate on your belief of Armstrong's right to interview the witnesses before the hearing?

Do you speculate the venue will be a restaurant of Armstrong's choice in Aspen, Colorado?

I reread R-18 of the supplemental rules. I was wrong. He might be able to persuade the arbitrators to authorize it, but a prehearing deposition is not a sure thing. It's probably not even an ordinary thing. Sorry for the misstatement.

 

[ChrisE]

I would add; to the mothers (plural) of his children. I really hope they step in and stop him. What he's doing to them with his behavior is nothing short of disgusting. He can save himself, his family and cycling in one hit.

He should confess. At least for his family and not for himself.

Polish gets banned for trolling and you are still here. You are the funniest gig running on this forum.

That interview with Kristen a year or two ago, she looks like she was likely to slide of the chair. Doubtful that gravy train is pleading with him to confess.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Understood, but delaying sanctions as I have stated could make things messy. Again, I use the unlikely case of LL winning the tour. I still haven't heard how you legal eagles would handle that without making the sport more of a trainwreck than it already is.

The only reason it has become messy is because someone leaked unsubstantiated suggestions about what those sanctions are or that there has even been a proceeding to impose sanctions...I have my theory, but it seems that today, so does everyone else so you know what they say about opinions.

As for how to handle a hypothetical situation regarding some rider who was in a race he could win and if he won the USADA would have to deal with the situation of him testifying later after having been told the truth already about sanctionable acts before the race and not having been pulled from the race beforehand...well, that sounds like the makings of an essay question on a law school exam, so I'll forward it to one of my professors and see if I can get that ****er on some poor 1L classes' final next fall. I'll get back to you then, but will preview the answer because I aced all my 1L classes and qualify to be a TA in any of them: When you have a new and unique situation like that, you make **** up as you go based on the best ethical guidelines and similar precedents at hand (unless you don't have any)...and then you just do the best you can (be the duck as my civ pro professor says-> Look calm on the surface and paddle like a mother****er below the water) knowing that some ******* will come along sooner or later and critique what you did.

 

[red_flanders]

Further personal comments from anyone will result in sanctions. Thank you.

 

[PedalPusher]

I would add; to the mothers (plural) of his children. I really hope they step in and stop him. What he's doing to them with his behavior is nothing short of disgusting. He can save himself, his family and cycling in one hit.

He should confess. At least for his family and not for himself.

His family is no more relevant than a bicycle in his garage. He has already shown that. He will never confess unless it has some tremendous upside for only him.

 

[ChrisE]

snipQUOTE]

OK. I am glad we agree there is a slight problem with this hypothetical. You can just say "I don't know" or "yes it would be ****ed but...." instead of all that.

 

[thehog]

Polish gets banned for trolling and you are still here. You are the funniest gig running on this forum.

That interview with Kristen a year or two ago, she looks like she was likely to slide of the chair. Doubtful that gravy train is pleading with him to confess.

Yay it's Chris 2002! Go Trek!

Good to see you're still quoting yourself from DPF in 2002. That I did laugh at. Yay!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Understood, but delaying sanctions as I have stated could make things messy. Again, I use the unlikely case of LL winning the tour. I still haven't heard how you legal eagles would handle that without making the sport more of a trainwreck than it already is.

I think LL winning is a poor example - but to entertain your theory, one of the riders could well win a stage.

If that happens, then really, so what? The sport is already a trainwreck having one more result derailed is not going to change that.

And, there have been plenty of examples of results obtained that have been taken away after the fact - eg; Contador 'winning' last years Giro.

 

[joe_papp]

-regarding the very likely possibility that USADA is withholding sanctions to protect the riders rather than a courtesy, the recent actions of LA make that more likely than I believed at first. But I disagree with your suggestion that means that their suspensions could be delayed indefinitely....

There's precedence for USADA to do this, too - my case. They were aware of my trafficking for a good four years before I ultimately recv'd sanction. Obviously I didn't race during that period, though I could've raced for the period b/w when the first sanction ended (july 2008) and when USADA and I signed the paperwork for my more serious, 2nd case (sept 2011, iirc). But then I would have had to serve a full 8 add'l years, whereas now I've only four to go (since I effectively suspended myself for the previous four years).

Actually, I just remembered there is precedence of delayed sanctions.

When Joe Papp was given his second sanction with USADA for trafficking it was not until last October and instead of the lifetime ban that a second offence could have gained it was reduced to 8 years.

From the CN article at the time:

haha oops just saw that you responded to that issue already.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

OK. I am glad we agree there is a slight problem with this hypothetical. You can just say "I don't know" or "yes it would be ****ed but...." instead of all that.

Yea, but then I wouldn't have gotten to flex my *** hole muscles as much..

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Apologies if already posted, but the NY Times confirms with two people close to the investigation, suggesting it's not a LA team leak after all.

Several of Lance Armstrong’s former teammates, including George Hincapie, the rider who was by his side for all of his seven Tour de France victories, will testify in the United States Anti-Doping Agency’s case against Armstrong and several of his associates, said two people close to the investigation.

Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie — American riders who are now competing in the Tour de France — will also be witnesses for the antidoping agency, which last week charged Armstrong with doping and playing a key role in a doping conspiracy while on the United States Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams. The two people with knowledge of the case insisted on anonymity because the investigation was continuing.
...
Tygart said that no individual cyclists had yet been punished in connection with the Armstrong case, contrary to a report Thursday in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. That report said that Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie and Jonathan Vaughters, a former Armstrong teammate who now runs the Garmin-Sharp team, arranged a deal with the antidoping agency to serve six-month suspensions for their own doping in connection with a suspected conspiracy. Those suspensions would begin in September, the newspaper said.

www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sports/cycling/former-teammates-to-testify-against-armstrong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[mewmewmew13]

The Hincapie statement: http://www.bicycling.com/tour-de-fr...-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Video-_-hincapie-usada

Looks prepared. Interesting how he speaks of Lance.

He said things that sounded somewhat 'supportive' of armstrong but the way he said them was pretty flat and canned ...like 'yeah, whatever'....

 

[thehog]

Apologies if already posted, but the NY Times confirms with two people close to the investigation, suggesting it's not a LA team leak after all.



www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/sports/cycling/former-teammates-to-testify-against-armstrong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Those two people Armstromg and Hog?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Apologies if already posted, but the NY Times confirms with two people close to the investigation, suggesting it's not a LA team leak after all.

Nope.
It says 2 people close to the investigation (could be anyone) confirmed the earlier story about the names - not that they said LA wasn't behind the earlier 'leak'.
Which wasn't really a leak, as it turned out to be untrue - more accurate would be an attempt at misinformation.