USADA - Armstrong

[straydog]

Have you tried bullet points?

USADA has a some leeway on reduced sanctions after aiding in an investigation. Given the wide range of SOL and actual involvement I don't think it is possible to predict the results for each.

Armstrong's paid liars are pushing out as much garbage as possible to clog the toilet. Despite what was reported 2 weeks ago no sanctions have been decided and none will be decided until after riders testify.

Smart move by USADA as Wonderboy is actively trying to "Flip" witnesses.

Ha Ha. Brevity has never been my strength.

I know USADA has some leeway, but it's pretty rare. In Joe's case it meant it wasn't a lifetime ban, but is still 8 years as far as I remember.

And I agree guessing ban lengths is just that....a guess....but my point was essentially that I think there is going to be some serious meltdown here if what ends up happening is that LA gets a backdated ban, carries on competing and "living strong" (copyrighted) and Floyd, Tyler, Levi, Dave and CVDV and possibly even Vaughters are kicked out of cycling for a few years. For those who really just want LA "outed", then maybe that will be fine. For those who wanted something else....I suspect they will be haunting these threads for quite a while.

Peace

Incidentally, why do you think Och hasn't been included in the USADA indictment?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Have you tried bullet points?

USADA has a some leeway on reduced sanctions after aiding in an investigation. Given the wide range of SOL and actual involvement I don't think it is possible to predict the results for each.

Armstrong's paid liars are pushing out as much garbage as possible to clog the toilet. Despite what was reported 2 weeks ago no sanctions have been decided and none will be decided until after riders testify.

Smart move by USADA as Wonderboy is actively trying to "Flip" witnesses.

Hincapie seems ripe for the picking considering his imminent retirement...and his continued "Lance did so much for so many people" comments.

 

[straydog]

Hincapie seems ripe for the picking considering his imminent retirement...and his continued "Lance did so much for so many people" comments.

I suspect you might be right...but I see more flips when a long non cycling related "career" ahead of them becomes a distinct possibility.

Imagine Vaughters gets two years with no association to Pro Cycling. Do you think Sharp will stick by? Garmin even? Everything he has worked so hard for?

Suspect his pragmatic side will suddenly remember he "forgot".

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I suspect you might be right...but I see more flips when a long non cycling related "career" ahead of them becomes a distinct possibility.

Imagine Vaughters gets two years with no association to Pro Cycling. Do you think Sharp will stick by? Garmin even? Everything he has worked so hard for?

Suspect his pragmatic side will suddenly remember he "forgot".

The thing I am most certain of is that your suggestion about Vaughters will never happen. Never.

The other little wrinkle in this is that they have all previously given the testimony that they will give live during the arbitration, and they did it under oath, so I would think the Lance fans licking their lips over possible flips probably should be salivating much less than they are. Everything suggests that there is other evidence that bolsters the case, and changing your story in the face of something like that is stupid considering the ramifications in criminal law.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Ha Ha. Brevity has never been my strength.

I know USADA has some leeway, but it's pretty rare. In Joe's case it meant it wasn't a lifetime ban, but is still 8 years as far as I remember.

And I agree guessing ban lengths is just that....a guess....but my point was essentially that I think there is going to be some serious meltdown here if what ends up happening is that LA gets a backdated ban, carries on competing and "living strong" (copyrighted) and Floyd, Tyler, Levi, Dave and CVDV and possibly even Vaughters are kicked out of cycling for a few years. For those who really just want LA "outed", then maybe that will be fine. For those who wanted something else....I suspect they will be haunting these threads for quite a while.

Peace

Incidentally, why do you think Och hasn't been included in the USADA indictment?

I know you prefer to be vague - but who are you on about in this passage?
Because it sounds like a made up argument.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I suspect you might be right...but I see more flips when a long non cycling related "career" ahead of them becomes a distinct possibility.

Imagine Vaughters gets two years with no association to Pro Cycling. Do you think Sharp will stick by? Garmin even? Everything he has worked so hard for?

Suspect his pragmatic side will suddenly remember he "forgot".

And my pontification about Hincapie also didn't take into account the fact that a couple of days ago, the article on him testifying mentioned that he also provided EVIDENCE. You can't take back evidence.

 

[Race Radio]

Ha Ha. Brevity has never been my strength.

I know USADA has some leeway, but it's pretty rare. In Joe's case it meant it wasn't a lifetime ban, but is still 8 years as far as I remember.

And I agree guessing ban lengths is just that....a guess....but my point was essentially that I think there is going to be some serious meltdown here if what ends up happening is that LA gets a backdated ban, carries on competing and "living strong" (copyrighted) and Floyd, Tyler, Levi, Dave and CVDV and possibly even Vaughters are kicked out of cycling for a few years. For those who really just want LA "outed", then maybe that will be fine. For those who wanted something else....I suspect they will be haunting these threads for quite a while.

Peace

Incidentally, why do you think Och hasn't been included in the USADA indictment?

I can't image how Armstrong would not get a long ban and have much of his "Wins" stripped.

If USADA was going to kick JV out they would have done it years ago. I do not see much similarity with the riders and what Joe did so long bans make no sense.

There is a lot more to this story then just the USADA action. Over the next few months there will be an avalanche of information about not just how Armstrong doped but the very disturbing stuff he did to cover up the truth.

 

[Radway]

Everything suggests that there is other evidence that bolsters the case...

I agree. Do you state this at least in part because "the evidence is overwhelming" suggests more?

http://www.usada.org/media/release-sensenbrenner

 

[Turner29]

You see, in your total post you mention riders, the individuals.

If LA goes to CAS and wins some meaningless legal point while being exposed as a fraud, then I am quite happy with that.

What you have missed is that this is about cycling, not the individuals - this case is perhaps an opportunity to expose the past and all those who facilitated the fraud, and finally deal with it.

I completely agree. Regarding statue of limitations:

"Although a statute of limitations of eight years normally applies under the WADA Code, USADA issued a ruling yesterday in relation to the track and field athlete Eddy Hellebuyck which extended further back than this.

He tested positive for EPO in 2004 and served a two year suspension. However information received recently plus his own statements led USADA to conclude that his doping extended back to 2001.

He argued that the statue of limitations prevented further penalty, but the American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel concluded that his previous denials meant this was not the case.

“We are pleased the Panel has upheld the fundamental principle of fairness for clean athletes,” stated Tygart yesterday. “This decision sends a clear message that you can’t use performance enhancing drugs to cheat, conceal your violations, and when the truth is revealed, attempt to hide behind the statute of limitations.”"


However, read this: http://somerandomthursday.blogspot.com/2012/06/lance-and-law-part-2-statutes-of.html

 

[straydog]

I completely agree. Regarding statue of limitations:

"Although a statute of limitations of eight years normally applies under the WADA Code, USADA issued a ruling yesterday in relation to the track and field athlete Eddy Hellebuyck which extended further back than this.

He tested positive for EPO in 2004 and served a two year suspension. However information received recently plus his own statements led USADA to conclude that his doping extended back to 2001.

He argued that the statue of limitations prevented further penalty, but the American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel concluded that his previous denials meant this was not the case.

“We are pleased the Panel has upheld the fundamental principle of fairness for clean athletes,” stated Tygart yesterday. “This decision sends a clear message that you can’t use performance enhancing drugs to cheat, conceal your violations, and when the truth is revealed, attempt to hide behind the statute of limitations.”"


However, read this: http://somerandomthursday.blogspot.com/2012/06/lance-and-law-part-2-statutes-of.html

OK last time on Helleybuck.....didn't go to CAS...USADA Arbitration ruling very different ball game

 

[straydog]

The thing I am most certain of is that your suggestion about Vaughters will never happen. Never.

The other little wrinkle in this is that they have all previously given the testimony that they will give live during the arbitration, and they did it under oath, so I would think the Lance fans licking their lips over possible flips probably should be salivating much less than they are. Everything suggests that there is other evidence that bolsters the case, and changing your story in the face of something like that is stupid considering the ramifications in criminal law.

they don't have to change stories....just not testify....USADA can't force them....not sure it's likely to be honest....but worth mentioning.

As to Vaughters being banned or anyone else and no similarities to Joe P or not. I'ts kind of irrelevant. If they testify involvement with doping to USADA, they will be sanctioned.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I agree. Do you state this at least in part because "the evidence is overwhelming" suggests more?

http://www.usada.org/media/release-sensenbrenner

That and the fact that the Hincapie article mentioned that he not only told them what happened, but provided evidence.

 

[straydog]

I know you prefer to be vague - but who are you on about in this passage?
Because it sounds like a made up argument.

Apologies if you can't understand it. I thought it was pretty clear. If LA ends up after a CAS ruling serving no ban, but GH, LL, JV, TH, FL, VDV etc do then I think this or at least another LA thread will be running for many many years here. Which frankly, I think all of us would agree would be a bad thing.

I think there would be some tears too if this irony came to pass.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

they don't have to change stories....just not testify....USADA can't force them....not sure it's likely to be honest....but worth mentioning.

As to Vaughters being banned or anyone else and no similarities to Joe P or not. I'ts kind of irrelevant. If they testify involvement in with doping to USADA, they will be sanctioned.

Cross your fingers, click your heels together 7 times and repeat "Lets hope they stay home, lets hope they stay home."

No, I think at this point, the dance is pretty well choreographed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK last time on Helleybuck.....didn't go to CAS...USADA Arbitration ruling very different ball game

So?
If you read the Hellebuyck USADA decision it is quite clear that USADA used prior civil and criminal law to toll the charges.

If you are looking for CAS to over rule that - and use it to celebrate some sort of moral victory, then best of luck with that.

Also, I might think you read the decison on Hellebuyck if you spelled his name correctly

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Apologies if you can't understand it. I thought it was pretty clear. If LA ends up after a CAS ruling serving no ban, but GH, LL, JV, TH, FL, VDV etc do then I think this or at least another LA thread will be running for many many years here. Which frankly, I think all of us would agree would be a bad thing.

I think there would be some tears too if this irony came to pass.

Your point was clear - but who you attribute this point is not.
Which makes the point moot.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Apologies if you can't understand it. I thought it was pretty clear. If LA ends up after a CAS ruling serving no ban, but GH, LL, JV, TH, FL, VDV etc do then I think this or at least another LA thread will be running for many many years here. Which frankly, I think all of us would agree would be a bad thing.

I think there would be some tears too if this irony came to pass.

Nah, having Cancer Jesus exposed is its own reward.

 

[Microchip]

I can't image how Armstrong would not get a long ban and have much of his "Wins" stripped.

If USADA was going to kick JV out they would have done it years ago. I do not see much similarity with the riders and what Joe did so long bans make no sense.

There is a lot more to this story then just the USADA action. Over the next few months there will be an avalanche of information about not just how Armstrong doped but the very disturbing stuff he did to cover up the truth.

I was hoping that word would've been "all".

To the bolded: Sounds like this is out of the ordinary!

 

[Race Radio]

I was hoping that word would've been "all".

To the bolded: Sounds like this is out of the ordinary!

He will likely keep that 4th place swimming medal from when he was 12

 

[ruamruam]

He will likely keep that 4th place swimming medal from when he was 12

He can't find the medal so he won't be able to give it back even if they want it.

 

[Deagol]

Armstrong must be sustaining some damage from these events, even if there are those who stubbornly stick by him.
My question is: when will his ability to harm, intimidate, and attack the potential witnesses diminish? Won't there be a tipping point where he losses enough public support to effectively lash out at these messengers? What about critical mass -i.e. ten people at once has got to give each one of the ten some feeling of security in that they are not alone, don't have to face his onslaught by themselves?

To put this another way, would the witnesses realize that they have strength in numbers and finally stand up to this guy and not be afraid anymore? Would this case encourage others who may know something to finally come forward?

 

[la.margna]

Armstrong must be sustaining some damage from these events, even if there are those who stubbornly stick by him.
My question is: when will his ability to harm, intimidate, and attack the potential witnesses diminish? Won't there be a tipping point where he losses enough public support to effectively lash out at these messengers? What about critical mass -i.e. ten people at once has got to give each one of the ten some feeling of security in that they are not alone, don't have to face his onslaught by themselves?

To put this another way, would the witnesses realize that they have strength in numbers and finally stand up to this guy and not be afraid anymore? Would this case encourage others who may know something to finally come forward?

Lance is a maniac. He will never stop bullying all those who told the truth or who conducted this process to get him banned. As long as he has a lot of money, he will continue to harrass and destroy (to use his words) all of them.

My only hope is that he gets convicted and banned, takens his 7 titles away and subsequently an avalanche of lawsuits and class action suits floods the guy, claiming back millions and millions on the fact that all his money and his entire empire was built on cheating, deception and lies. But even then, he will take revenge. One by one. The guy is dangerous and has no limits.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Apologies if you can't understand it. I thought it was pretty clear. If LA ends up after a CAS ruling serving no ban, but GH, LL, JV, TH, FL, VDV etc do then I think this or at least another LA thread will be running for many many years here. Which frankly, I think all of us would agree would be a bad thing.

Holy "What if?" Batman!

If we put the proverbial million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years we could generate any number of other possible scenarios to dissect. If your proposed scenario were to occur I wouldn't consider it an ideal outcome, but I'd still say even in hindsight that USADA going forward was the right thing to do. To bake a cake you need to crack a few eggs.

 

[Benotti69]

Can USADA sanction people form the date of admission of doping?

eg, Vaughter's admits he was on the program at USPS and he finished his last PEDs in October of the year 1999. Can USADA retroactivley ban him from Oct'99 to Oct'01 and nullify all results. A bit like Contador received a retroactive ban (obv Contador competed during that time)?

Riis admitted to doping and received no ban. Would Vaughter's be the same?

I cannot see anyone flipping their evidence at this stage.

 

[Turner29]

Lance is a maniac. He will never stop bullying all those who told the truth or who conducted this process to get him banned. As long as he has a lot of money, he will continue to harrass and destroy (to use his words) all of them.

My only hope is that he gets convicted and banned, takens his 7 titles away and subsequently an avalanche of lawsuits and class action suits floods the guy, claiming back millions and millions on the fact that all his money and his entire empire was built on cheating, deception and lies. But even then, he will take revenge. One by one. The guy is dangerous and has no limits.

His power to take revenge will be greatly diminished...