USADA - Armstrong

[ChrisE]

all true about MI, and you wonder why hog doesn't like him?

Hog doesn't like him because he doesn't make **** up to troll. The anti-hog.

 

[MarkvW]

A Theory

Why not USA Cycling as the source of the leak? It would explain the leak and it would explain why only current racers were identified?

There is the Weasel connection, after all...

Does this make any sense?

 

[ChrisE]

Yeah, I think the theory that they were given the choice to cooperate and get a relatively light negotiated sanction, or be charged along with Armstrong, makes sense.
It's consistent with what the USADA letter said: Armstrong is being charged because he is the only one that was approached who chose not to cooperate. It explains the Hincapie retirement announcements, the decisions to not take part in the Olympics, etc.

What's the alternative explanation for all of that?

That's about it. But, to cooperate with what? Everybody comes in and confesses to doping and **** everybody is free to do what they want and be sanctioned while they are skiing in December lol.

What's the end game? We all know. Again, I remind the orgasmic clinic denizens in here that this is not over, and it will be a bloodbath.

 

[ChrisE]

It doesn't.

For a couple of the riders there was some back and forth but for most of the over a dozen witnesses they gave their testimony willing with the full support of their current employers. Multiple witnesses had given evidence prior to the Landis' emails and not all are riders.

Don't fall for Armstrong's spin.

Whatever. I am sure GH, LL, nutjob DZ, JV, etc. just voluntarily walked in and started spewing. You know there will be "negotiated sanctions", much less than what they should be, so you stop spinning. Hey, perhaps LA should have "cooperated" and he could have served his suspension this winter in Cabo.

You are better at counting up LA's tests and exciting your nuthuggers. You were only off by about a factor of 2 in that one. This one is even further off the mark.

 

[BroDeal]

And from el Pais:

Pretty much confirms everything I said, including how they got these guys to confess in the first place. Yes, Chewy, it hasn't been confirmed by USADA yet (as I emphasized in my earlier post--how you missed that when you quoted that post I have no idea, just as I have no idea how Mas missed the sentence in the NYT article he quoted that I got my info from), but interesting that Ressiot believes this, too.

The el Pais explanation seems way too simplistic. For guys like Hincapie and Leipheimer, here is how it probably went down:

1) They were contacted by the feds, who want to talk to them.

2) If they had not already talked to a lawyer, they quickly did so. They were informed that no matter what, they need to avoid becoming the target of federal investigation.

3) After some negotiation with the feds, an immunity deal is cut that allows the client to talk without criminal repercussions. As long as a deal is being made with the feds, then why not protect the client's sporting career with a USADA deal? Whether the lawyer comes up with this or it is suggested by the feds, who knows.

4) Athlete is interviewed by the feds with representatives of the USADA in attendance. Maybe he also gives testimony to the grand jury.

5) Feds drop the case. Athlete yells, "Oh, sh!t!" The only reason he talked with the USADA was to avoid entaglement with the criminal case. Now his confession to the USADA means he will be sanctioned to one degree or another.

6) Athlete now faces the choice of keeping the deal by testifying and getting a reduced sanction or breaking the deal and getting a full sanction, which may include aggravating factors.

I am not convinced that a rider like Hincapie or Leipheimer won't welch on their deals. They may be needed to bridge recent doping to the older infractions. I think it is likely that testimony from Leipheimer will be corroborated with samples indicative of blood doping. The samples won't be used as primary evidence where they would have experts arguing about whether they should be deemed as a doping positive.

I could see Hincapie deciding that no matter what it will be known that he doped but he does not want to be known as a rat as well. He is retiring anyway.

One interesting twist is that new UCI rules prevent anyone with new doping sanctions from working as team management or staff, right down to mechanics. Anyone who welches on their deal won't be able to get a job in pro cycling.

 

[thehog]

You should appreciate his honest effort. He doesn't make stuff up, he stimulates thought, he's always civil, and he never trolls.

I appreciate honesty not honest efforts. The content is so far wide of the mark its not funny. Views from 20,000 feet are all wrong. I like MI but his posts are counter productive.

 

[D-Queued]

Slight correction: We expect that any of the witnesses would request leniency and reduced sanctions for any admission of doping. None of us (I hope) would think that any of them is dumb enough not to request this should they provide self-incriminating depositions.

As Joe P's case illustrates, however, and as he and others have pointed out on this thread, even appearing at an arbitration tribunal doesn't necessarily help and any 'deal' can ultimately be overruled.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

The el Pais explanation seems way too simplistic. For guys like Hincapie and Leipheimer, here is how it probably went down:

1) They were contacted by the feds, who want to talk to them.

2) If they had not already talked to a lawyer, they quickly did so. They were informed that no matter what, they need to avoid becoming the target of federal investigation.

3) After some negotiation with the feds, an immunity deal is cut that allows the client to talk without criminal repercussions. As long as a deal is being made with the feds, then why not protect the client's sporting career with a USADA deal? Whether the lawyer comes up with this or it is suggested by the feds, who knows.

4) Athlete is interviewed by the feds with representatives of the USADA in attendance. Maybe he also gives testimony to the grand jury.

5) Feds drop the case. Athlete yells, "Oh, sh!t!" The only reason he talked with the USADA was to avoid entaglement with the criminal case. Now his confession to the USADA means he will be sanctioned to one degree or another.

6) Athlete now faces the choice of keeping the deal by testifying and getting a reduced sanction or breaking the deal and getting a full sanction, which may include aggravating factors.

I am not convinced that a rider like Hincapie or Leipheimer won't welch on their deals. They may be needed to bridge recent doping to the older infractions. I think it is likely that testimony from Leipheimer will be corroborated with samples indicative of blood doping. The samples won't be used as primary evidence where they would have experts arguing about whether they should be deemed as a doping positive.

I could see Hincapie deciding that no matter what it will be known that he doped but he does not want to be known as a rat as well. He is retiring anyway.

One interesting twist is that new UCI rules prevent anyone with new doping sanctions from working as team management or staff, right down to mechanics. Anyone who welches on their deal won't be able to get a job in pro cycling.

A hand if I may...

Hincapie and LL smelt the coffee. They were advised if they offered testimony prior to subpoena that it would be used rather than facing a GJ. Smart play. Alas because it was "open" it could be used as a cross by USADA.

 

[Random Direction]

Any thoughts on where the funds for Lance's political level operation are coming from?
(a) Lance's personal funds
(b) Livestrong.org
(c) His rich backers
(d) Lance fairness fund
(e) other

 

[Race Radio]

Raymond Kerckhoffs, the "Reporter" who wrote the incorrect story in De Telegraaf, will have more on TV tomorrow.

Wonder if he will have something correct this time?

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm baaaaaaack!

Haters gotta hate....

Love it!

 

[Merckx index]

I appreciate honesty not honest efforts. The content is so far wide of the mark its not funny. Views from 20,000 feet are all wrong. I like MI but his posts are counter productive.

What exactly is wide of the mark? The way the confessions were obtained? OK, if RR says that wasn’t what happened, I defer (until and unless public confirmation emerges) to his more inside knowledge of the case. (I wasn’t falling for LA’s spin, though, as I put out that scenario well before that famous tweet a few days ago).

But what about the rest, that Ressiot also seems to believe? Do you think that these riders have not yet been sanctioned? That they have not been given six months? That part of the deal was not that they got to wait until after the TDF before they began serving?

If all of this speculation (and unlike you, I’m willing to call my views speculative) is counter-productive, I guess Ressiot is counter-productive, too. But if you are so certain that he’s dead wrong—that indeed, you know more about what’s going on than any journalist in the world—surely you should be able to provide some evidence for this?

I don’t mind being called wrong when someone provides facts or arguments against my views. I’ve admitted being wrong several times on this forum just in the past year. But when you make a blanket statement that everything is wrong, without providing any reasons for that, don’t expect me to stop whatever I’m doing and fall in line with you. That’s what I would call counter-productive.

 

[Race Radio]

Do you think that these riders have not yet been sanctioned? That they have not been given six months? .

If they were to be sanctioned it would not happen until Lance and his buddies either lose the AAA case or give up and wisely chose not to fight. If the "Reporter" had bothered to call USADA he would likely have got this answer....but veracity was not his goal.......his goal was to harass witnesses and get them tossed out of the Tour.

 

[DirtyWorks]

USADA would never officially leak. ... Who's left, other than the Co-Cons?

USADA had to send the details of the penalties to the federations so that's the UCI and/or USA Cycling. Most of Tailwind is/was the BOD at USACDF. For reasons not well known, Hein and Pat are still backing the myth 100%.

 

[Cloxxki]

Now that USADA has these riders by the balls, any chance they'll actually *gasp* ride clean this TdF, or in general remain clean all since their testimonies? You can't make a deal with USADA and expect to get away with any suspect samples just because you're so cozy with them now. No, you're a doper, you get a break by not being prime target, but one hick-up and you get to share a defendent seat with Lance in a very tiny room.

 

[AcademyCC]

I'm really struggling with the level of ignorance from LA fanboys on twitter and internet in general. They seem to have a complete inability to even contemplate doing a little bit more research into the case instead of regurgitating what is being spun to them by his team. Whilst i think there will be a few exploding heads if he is found guilty some of the fanboys support seems to go beyond caring whether he is guilty or not. I cant think of any other situation in sport where this is the case. Has it always been this bad? Do people think the general mood towards him is changing and finally to what extent does he still have influence with the media?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Adamastor, you have provided some great links today, thanks:

And from el Pais:

Pretty much confirms everything I said, including how they got these guys to confess in the first place. Yes, Chewy, it hasn't been confirmed by USADA yet (as I emphasized in my earlier post--how you missed that when you quoted that post I have no idea, just as I have no idea how Mas missed the sentence in the NYT article he quoted that I got my info from), but interesting that Ressiot believes this, too.

Just pointing out the problematic words again. You're welcome.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

USADA would never officially leak. If it were an unofficial leak from USADA, why would they only leak a subset of riders who are currently riding on the Tour? That doesn't make sense to me.

It's not the riders. First, because it is way against their interest. Second, because this story is a plant, the only way that would work is if all the riders got together and jointly planted the story.

Who's left, other than the Co-Cons?

And what about Vaughters' denial that a deal is in place? He puts a huge amount of effort into being perceived as honest. If he's lying, then it is a stupid lie that will eventually be uncovered. I believe him.

On the other hand, the NYT is a reliable paper.

Guess we'll find out sooner or later.

The exact reason I don't find any credibility in the report. Why only 5 of the 10 leaked?

 

[Zarvinov]

The exact reason I don't find any credibility in the report. Why only 5 of the 10 leaked?

These reports by some highly reputable news papers may yet prove, not to be erroneous.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

These reports by some highly reputable news papers may prove yet, not to be erroneous.

Just pointing out the problematic words in your assertion.

Edit: But if September rolls around, and these guys are handed out 6 month suspensions, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. I have to tell you that my worry over that happening is really minimal though.

 

[MarkvW]

The exact reason I don't find any credibility in the report. Why only 5 of the 10 leaked?

What about USA Cycling or the UCI (as DW suggests)? They'd know about suspensions, but they wouldn't know about the riders that don't have licenses anymore?

That would explain a lot.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm really struggling with the level of ignorance from LA fanboys on twitter and internet in general. They seem to have a complete inability to even contemplate doing a little bit more research into the case instead of regurgitating what is being spun to them by his team. Whilst i think there will be a few exploding heads if he is found guilty some of the fanboys support seems to go beyond caring whether he is guilty or not. I cant think of any other situation in sport where this is the case. Has it always been this bad? Do people think the general mood towards him is changing and finally to what extent does he still have influence with the media?

Good questions, and here is a perfect example of what you're talking about:

If you think you can complete a toturous course like the Tour de France WITHOUT any help from stimulants, you need your head read. They should just legalize them and let the riders choose whether to use. Who cares? And for what reason?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...with-accusers-in-doping-case-as-vendetta.html

Evolution has produced an ability in humans to rationalize the unacceptable behavior of family/tribe members. Everyone seems to have this at least to some degree. The evolutionary advantage of such a trait should be obvious. Family and tribe members who defend each other no matter what are likely to have a better survival rate.

In the modern world, where instinct honed in a very different environment is often confused, this circuitry is applied to certain members of the rich and famous, and of course the incredible comeback-from-cancer story has endeared Lance to millions, who in turn subconsciously feel about him as they would a family/tribe member, and so are prepared to defend/excuse him no matter what.

So I don't think it was always this bad. The Armstrong situation is unique in many ways, and one of its effects is this irrationality about doping and cheating.

That said, I've always detected a certain about of cynicism and let it slide attitude regarding doping in sports. I mean, most everyone knows about and doesn't seem to care much about doping in the NFL, for example.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

This is what happens when LL rides clean?

47 Andrey Kashechkin (Kaz) Astana Pro Team 0:03:11
48 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Omega Pharma-Quickstep

 

[sniper]

Raymond Kerckhoffs, the "Reporter" who wrote the incorrect story in De Telegraaf, will have more on TV tomorrow.

Wonder if he will have something correct this time?

I think you might be mistaking "teleVisie" for a television show.
As far as I understand it's just Kerckhoffs' sport's column in the Telegraaf that has that name.
But yes, he seems to be coming up with some extra (new?) details, though I can't (yet) read the full story.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/tour-de-france-2012/12510952/__televisie__Heksenjacht__.html

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Lance crib-sheet

Is this crib-sheet on Lance - over at cyclismas- any use use as a reference for Clinicians?

click it to get the full picture.