USADA - Armstrong

[Adamastor]

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.

What about your HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA no ???

LL winning a stage? Come on

 

[Adamastor]

Today's "El Pais", UCI totally out of the loop of USADA investigations, reason for UCI; ASO, Prudhomme and Co not wanting /not able to comment:

"...Todo ello llegó, por supuesto, a oídos de la Unión Ciclista Internacional (UCI), a quien la USADA ha dejado fuera de las investigaciones y del circuito informativo. Según fuentes cercanas a su presidente, el irlandés Pat McQuaid, la UCI, preocupada por el posible pasteleo, ha enviado dos cartas a la USADA solicitando información sobre si ciclistas sancionados estaban corriendo el Tour. Aún está esperando la respuesta..."

TRANSLATION:
"...This came, of course, the ears of the International Cycling Union (UCI), whom the USADA has been left out of research and circuit information. According to sources close to the president, Irish Pat McQuaid, the UCI, concerned about the possible pasteleo, has sent two letters requesting information on USADA sanctioned if cyclists were racing the Tour. He is still awaiting a response..."

http://deportes.elpais.com/deportes/2012/07/05/actualidad/1341440657_983520.html

 

[Adamastor]

Velonews article after yesterday's stage:

"...Garmin-Sharp boss Jonathan Vaughters briefly addressed reporters after the stage, calling the story “amateur.”

“That article was essentially irresponsible,” Vaughters said. “There was not any source. That’s not my choice. That’s their decision (to publish the names).”

Earlier in the morning, Vaughters reiterated the team’s strong anti-doping policy and his pledge that all Garmin riders and employees cooperate fully with anti-doping authorities without fear of retribution from the team.

Teams likely already had an idea that a story like this could erupt during the Tour and decided to bring their riders to the race, meaning it’s unlikely they would be removed from the race unless they were pressured by the UCI or ASO.

The story was simultaneously leaked to three European newspapers: De Telegraaf in Amsterdam, El País in Madrid and La Gazzetta dello Sport in Milan.

One of the reporters who wrote the stories confirmed that the source came from the United States, but would not disclose its identity."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ng-teammates-still-in-the-tour-for-now_227768

 

[JA.Tri]

Random thoughts

JV: has obliquely implied a doping past, his "colourful past". I have no reason to doubt that he or the relevant Garmin riders will be miserly in reporting their insights of LA.

JV probably was very careful with his wording, therefore I guess there were discussions on likely penalties and timing thereof.

Lance chose not to cooperate with USADA's investigation. Therefore why should his interests be placed above those of the witnesses who chose to fully cooperate. Why should they undergo sanctions before LA (esp if he is found to have committed one or more of the offences he is charged with) has not even had his case finalized?

Why should LA be (ethically or not) able to correctly state: "they are self admitted drug cheats, where is their credibility when I have not (YET) been found to be a drug cheat?"

Whatever the rules it seems *** about that cooperative participants are penalized up front, whereas the stick in the mud rises (temporarily?) clear of the quagmire!

 

[argyllflyer]

The UCI lets these guys hold licenses, what kind of code of conduct do they maintain ?. Vaughters should have to read all the riders rights,anti doping comments he has made to a jury or judge or cellmate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab1kWb_faBA

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Seems that " Anything Goes " with this USADA publicity stunt , from " tainted personalities " to review what they had already decided were " Facts " , thru to " witnesses " WHOM YOU , THE FORUM , ALREADY HAD ACCUSED OF BEING USERS being granted " suspended sentences "!

Will even 1% believe that Lance was treated in a fair manner Or give a monkeys for anything that the usada slide under the radar whilst the USA are busy electing the next President ?

Perhaps there should be a subsection of the forum called " THE GLEE CLUB "!

Meh, who cares. He's being treated more fairly than any of the people he has bullied and slandered and libeled in the past.

 

[Caruut]

In a Mafia case, no-one (other than the Don and his allies) gets annoyed when a few capos get given lighter sentences in order to bring down the big dog.

One has to also consider that a large part of the Armstrong case hinges on an accusation which none of the others have been alleged to have been guilty of. Namely, running a drug ring, and possibly trafficking, as well as the conspiracy to cover it up. Those charges are unique to Lance, so Lance is treated uniquely.

 

[RHRH19861986]

I can´t imagine anything will happen to Lance. He won´t be punished for anything, it all will lead to nothing at all.

I personally would have seen VandeVelde, Leipheimer and Hincapie as non-clean riders before, and Zabriskie as non-clean rider who rides non-clean only occassionally.

Tour-wise, mid 90ies to mid 00s have been the USPS/Telekom years. Telekom has been outed officially, so outing USPS is just fair, nothing more.

Lance is and stays the biggest rider of the Tour in history. Media had to write, the winners had to celebrate, fans had to cheer. The only ones who were cheated were the few clean guys. Look at Moncoutie, lokk at the 12 names who did better than him in the 2002 Tour, and you know who has reason to be angry.

Lance´s USADA case won´t change cycling, it will stay like it has always been. Cycling on world class level stays a battle of 98 % of guys on PEDs against 2 % on bread and water. Professional bodybuilding is 100 % - 0%, professional athletics maybe 90%-10%, tennis 70-30%, soccer 50-50, and so on. I can´t see anything can be changed or improved there; it´s good as it is in the moment.
I don´t like Francesco Mosers demand on legalizing PEDs, because then we have nearly 100-0 in cycling.

I have respect for Lance, I have also, and maybe even more, respect for Moncoutie.

 

[aphronesis]

In a Mafia case, no-one (other than the Don and his allies) gets annoyed when a few capos get given lighter sentences in order to bring down the big dog.

One has to also consider that a large part of the Armstrong case hinges on an accusation which none of the others have been alleged to have been guilty of. Namely, running a drug ring, and possibly trafficking, as well as the conspiracy to cover it up. Those charges are unique to Lance, so Lance is treated uniquely.

Ah, except in mafia cases (those we follow outside the local cinema house), they tend to be measured against a current degradation of life.

Thanks, though, for putting the irrational foot of the antipathy forward, usually (lately) it gets carried on the facts.

 

[aphronesis]

Hypocrisy has got nothing to do with it. This is purely about bringing LA down, not about properly dispensing justice to every doped rider in the sport. If deals need to be cut to get the big fish, so be it. Also because he certainly isn't going to be the easy prey, rather he has always been the greatest predator.

Lance is inevitably the person on whom everyone has to concentrate.

And I find it ironic that others have been accused of hypocrisy in their positions in favor of this or that rider, while never concealing their contempt for the Texan; when Armstorng is the most hypocritical person, a born charlatan (7 Tour wins), a born opportunist when his own interests are involved (Livestrong), not just his cylcing interests but his wholly despicable personal interests.

Are you speaking for the clinic or the US populace? Which workers, do you suppose, at US sanctioned agencies, went to their jobs because they believed strongly in the purpose and mission statement suggested by those jobs, and which do you suppose ended up there, aw shucks, out of a number of downward pressures, borne of various financial 'crises'?

 

[pelodee]

Apologies if this has been posted before (couldn't see it anywhere).

Here's an awful interview with Raymond Kerckhoffs by Anthony Tan. It's only 03.29 long but ~00.44-01.08 just about sums it up...muckraking lives!

Everyone loves Raymond indeed.

 

[ChrisE]

Nope.
You "assign" things to cults, and Clinic logic -because two people say Sastre is a nice guy??
I stated that if the criteria you use is on teams - that's quite alright.

As to the blue - as i didnt "implicate" anything I wont bother looking for something that you made up - as you say "don't act stupid".

BZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong. As I wrote to mewmew I could care less what type of person Sastre is.

This tiff about Sastre started when hog said he will be glad to see him have one more win than LA. I pointed out the hypocrisy in his logic (I know, logic/hog is a stretch) since Sastre rode for Saiz and Riis, which forever banishes one to doper status in the clinic.

 

[ChrisE]

I think you've gone off the deep end a little but I agree with you here somewhat.

Thanks. Does the "deep end" contain skepticism towards letting confessed dopers ride with sanctions after the LA hearing, along with ridicule of forum hypocrites being fans of dopers because they are nice guys? Does the deep end mean I think USADA knows what LL, GH, etc will testify to prior to USADA publishing the letter to LA? These "deep end" opinions? I like the deep end; all the clowns are in the kiddie pool with floaties.

Or, is there something else I have written pertaining to this whole issue that shows I am in the deep end vs reality?

 

[spetsa]

BZZZZZZZZZZ! Wrong. As I wrote to mewmew I could care less what type of person Sastre is.

This tiff about Sastre started when hog said he will be glad to see him have one more win than LA. I pointed out the hypocrisy in his logic (I know, logic/hog is a stretch) since Sastre rode for Saiz and Riis, which forever banishes one to doper status in the clinic.

Take your personal pi**ing matches to PM or give it up. It is sh*t like this that ruins this forum and discourages participation.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Ashenden speaks with some generalities on the differences between raising a Biopassport case, and the profile being consistent with blood doping.

Velonews article
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833/2

 

[ChrisE]

Take your personal pi**ing matches to PM or give it up. It is sh*t like this that ruins this forum and discourages participation.

After careful consideration I have decided not to take your advice.

 

[Merckx index]

That NYT article linked by 9 to 5 seems pretty significant to me. It confirms that those riders are being suspended for six months, and says the suspensions begin in September. Predictably, several in this forum immediately pointed out that the article is no proof that LA did not leak this information. I agree, but what these members did not add is that if this story is true, we can rule out fear of identifying them prior to a hearing as the reason for not suspending them now. We can also rule out the notion that they would not be suspended until the process against the six was complete. It sure looks to me like the suspensions were delayed in order to give them a chance to ride the TDF, not because of some WADA rules about delaying sanctions to fit some process. Since USADA has not confirmed any of this, I guess we'll have to wait till September to be sure.

Ashenden makes a good point about how LA’s blood values might have been strong indicators of doping even though UCI took no action on them at the time:

I think it is worthwhile here to pause briefly and clarify what I mean when I talk about the level of evidence. It should not be confused with statistical thresholds, which are used to define whether or not a sample has deviated by an abnormal amount from the athlete’s expected values. Those are purely statistical concepts, based on objective mathematics. Instead, what I am talking about is a subjective evaluation by the expert as to whether the data, without the benefit of any additional corroborating evidence, could conceivably support an anti-doping rule violation...

In my experience, the additional hurdle that a set of evidence needed to pass was not only whether I was convinced that the athlete had doped, but also whether I felt that the data were sufficiently straightforward that three independent arbitrators would also recognize the importance of the anomalies and draw the same conclusion as I had. That is a pretty significant hurdle.

Arbitrators are legal experts and fact finders, but not experts in how blood behaves when an athlete dopes. So what is patently obvious to a blood doping expert as being consistent with manipulation may be lost upon the arbitrator. No one can know ahead of time whether the arbitrators will grasp the arguments and explanations made by the expert. Therefore, running a Passport case is a risk that the anti-doping agency must take on, and it’s an unfortunate reality that the bigger and more successful the athlete, the more money and legal firepower they tend to throw against doping charges. Therefore the agency’s tenacity to confront dopers, as well as how risk averse they are to the prospect of lengthy legal proceedings, will also influence the outcome.

...I think that is as clear an insight as I can give as to why a profile consistent with doping might not necessarily lead to a case being opened.

A final point I would make is that a spreadsheet of data can take on a different complexion once the expert is advised of the athlete’s competition schedule.

For example, one case I worked on shifted from being a confusing mishmash of somewhat contradictory results, into what I felt was a compelling case of blood doping, only after I had seen the athlete’s competition schedule and was able to discern how modest deviations coincided with important race events.

That last statement is well illustrated by the 09 LA data that we have, where HT rose near the end of the TDF, and also at another time that could well have been when a pre-Tour transfusion took place. There well may be other such points in data we haven't seen.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The story was simultaneously leaked to three European newspapers: De Telegraaf in Amsterdam, El País in Madrid and La Gazzetta dello Sport in Milan.

Not to l'Equipe? How could that be? So we have the Gazzetto [cyclingpaper], El Pais [cyclingpaper], the Telegraaf [gossip paper, Bruyneel has a column] but not l'Equipe, the newspaper who has been at war with LA since 2001 I think.

Bad spindoctors at camp LA I must say.

 

[pelodee]

Ashenden speaks with some generalities on the differences between raising a Biopassport case, and the profile being consistent with blood doping.

Velonews article
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833/2

Particularly pertinent from this article is:
"Arbitrators are legal experts and fact finders, but not experts in how blood behaves when an athlete dopes. So what is patently obvious to a blood doping expert as being consistent with manipulation may be lost upon the arbitrator. No one can know ahead of time whether the arbitrators will grasp the arguments and explanations made by the expert. Therefore, running a Passport case is a risk that the anti-doping agency must take on, and it’s an unfortunate reality that the bigger and more successful the athlete, the more money and legal firepower they tend to throw against doping charges. Therefore the agency’s tenacity to confront dopers, as well as how risk averse they are to the prospect of lengthy legal proceedings, will also influence the outcome."

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That NYT article linked by 9 to 5 seems pretty significant to me. It confirms that those riders are being suspended for six months, and says the suspensions begin in September. Predictably, several in this forum immediately pointed out that the article is no proof that LA did not leak this information. I agree, but what these members did not add is that if this story is true, we can rule out fear of identifying them prior to a hearing as the reason for not suspending them now. We can also rule out the notion that they would not be suspended until the process against the six was complete. It sure looks to me like the suspensions were delayed in order to give them a chance to ride the TDF, not because of some WADA rules about delaying sanctions to fit some process. Since USADA has not confirmed any of this, I guess we'll have to wait till September to be sure.

Ashenden makes a good point about how LA’s blood values might have been strong indicators of doping even though UCI took no action on them at the time:



That last statement is well illustrated by the 09 LA data that we have, where HT rose near the end of the TDF, and also at another time that could well have been when a pre-Tour transfusion took place. There well may be other such points in data we haven't seen.

Where did you get that?
Here is the relevant section from the NYT piece:

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.

The Garmin-Sharp team, which is known for its stalwart stance on antidoping, said in a statement that “reports of suspensions are untrue.”

Pretty clear that no decision on the fate of the witnesses has been made - nor would I expect a decision until the USPS case is heard.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That NYT article linked by 9 to 5 seems pretty significant to me. It confirms that those riders are being suspended for six months, and says the suspensions begin in September. Predictably, several in this forum immediately pointed out that the article is no proof that LA did not leak this information. I agree, but what these members did not add is that if this story is true, we can rule out fear of identifying them prior to a hearing as the reason for not suspending them now. We can also rule out the notion that they would not be suspended until the process against the six was complete. It sure looks to me like the suspensions were delayed in order to give them a chance to ride the TDF, not because of some WADA rules about delaying sanctions to fit some process. Since USADA has not confirmed any of this, I guess we'll have to wait till September to be sure.

I pointed out the problems with your assertions for you again. It confirms what those sources said, but not that the information is indeed correct. I would suggest that the only source reliable enough to "confirm" such a thing is someone from the USADA. But you keep up with your theme. As for "if," it's hard to imagine a combination of two letters that cause any argument more trouble...

 

[Race Radio]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833/2

Ashenden on Armstrong and USADA

 

[Race Radio]

You know things are going bad when the Tri Geeks start turning on you

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum....8556;page=1;mh=-1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You know things are going bad when the Tri Geeks start turning on you

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum....8556;page=1;mh=-1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC

LOL. The Yes-Men don´t trust him anymore... thus saying yes, he did dope. I guess 90% of his fanbase. Pharmstrong forever smudged in the public opinion. That´s what counts. I love it. Soon this guy should be done, he´ll be alone.

 

[thehog]

Are you speaking for the clinic or the US populace? Which workers, do you suppose, at US sanctioned agencies, went to their jobs because they believed strongly in the purpose and mission statement suggested by those jobs, and which do you suppose ended up there, aw shucks, out of a number of downward pressures, borne of various financial 'crises'?

Eurosport today actually ended up talking a lot about Sastre.

He was voted the hardest worker with the least natural talent. A lot of comments about how hard he trained and how well he was respected in the peloton.

He beat Cadel Evans so nothing to say on the same form he couldn't win in 2012.