USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

Just curious. Was Armstrong ever linked to doping prior to his 1993 world championship victory? Or is that victory considered by haters to be clean?

I am not a hater of LA- but to answer your question, no.

From 1990 to 2000, Armstrong was tested more than two dozen times by Catlin's UCLA lab, according to Catlin's estimate. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn't recover a total of five of the cyclist's test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, "The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low." The letter went on to detail the cyclist's testosterone-epitestosterone results from 1991 to 1998, with one missing season: 1997, the only year during that span in which Armstrong didn't compete. Three results stand out: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.

 

[ManInFull]

Just curious. Was Armstrong ever linked to doping prior to his 1993 world championship victory? Or is that victory considered by haters to be clean?

Troll Alert..

We're not haters, we're simply crusaders for truth.

 

[MarkvW]

Troll Alert..

We're not haters, we're simply crusaders for truth.

If only that were true . . ..

 

[ManInFull]

You obviously are more knowledgeable than many on this subject, so could you explain

Why do you think USADA has chosen to take action 3 weeks before the Tour and just over a month before the Olympics?

Why did it not take action immediatley after Federal investigation ended? Instead of the focus on the cycling and sport, the media focus will be on this.

As Armstrong is not competing in either, why not leave it until August? What is to be gained by raising it now?

Unfortunately, the process is never a short one. And I don't have a problem with that as long as the truth eventually comes out. I think this will be the final verdict on Armstrong's cycling career. The investigation will either leave him basically unscathed or his legacy will be permanently destroyed.

 

[D-Queued]

Just curious. Was Armstrong ever linked to doping prior to his 1993 world championship victory? Or is that victory considered by haters to be clean?

I am not a hater of LA- but to answer your question, no.

Well, maybe not doping, but more than a decent rumor regarding bribery during the $1m Thrift Drug (... there we go again with that drug word) Triple Crown. This was June '93 and pre-Worlds.

Dave.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If only that were true . . ..

Eh? Nobody here gets rich if Lance goes down. We have every reason to want some semblance of justice in this sport. This is what this whole thing is about. It's about a guy who got very rich by cheating and gave people false hope. Now, his defense is that, if you bust him, all those people who put their faith in Lance lose their false hope. So, the defense goes, it's better for everyone if the lie stays hidden.

Hiding behind the lie told to millions of cancer sufferers is perhaps Lance's most disgraceful act.

 

[BroDeal]

Just curious. Was Armstrong ever linked to doping prior to his 1993 world championship victory? Or is that victory considered by haters to be clean?

Armstrong was doping while on the U.S. national team as an amateur. Chris Carmichael injected the riders with dope. Funny that this dirtbag is the one Armstrong chose to pretend to be his beard to deflect questions about Dr. Ferrari.

 

[thehog]

You obviously are more knowledgeable than many on this subject, so could you explain

Why do you think USADA has chosen to take action 3 weeks before the Tour and just over a month before the Olympics?

Why did it not take action immediatley after Federal investigation ended? Instead of the focus on the cycling and sport, the media focus will be on this.

As Armstrong is not competing in either, why not leave it until August? What is to be gained by raising it now?

They were hopeful that evidence would passed on from the Federal investigation. There's due process for these formalities. It takes time dealing with Government agencies.

 

[Benotti69]

I knew Chris Horner was one of the good, the proud,......who would not just sit idle at his SoCal training camp, and let a bunch of losers throw dirt i.e. assisting, encourage, aiding, abetting, covering up, complicity,....to dope! Then how come everyone just does not win 7 in a row, if everyone is doing it! EPO, testosterone, HGH, corticoesteroids, ephedrine, uppers, downers,....... It looks like the MLB probe. 10% of all players tested positive for a substance which was not illegal at the time. Only the Platinum Rappers-Big Leagues Dominican Batters names were disclosed.....witch hunt, vendetta, envy,.....I will suggest to Lance and Johan not to dignify answers to any questions from now on....and once cleared of wrongdoing just as the Justice Department did with its fraud scheme, file a counter demand for a zillion dollars against The Agency!!

stop injecting michelob before posting

 

[Benotti69]

Geraint Thomas is pulling for Armstrong. He hopes we can all let it go to protect the reputation of cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/wales/18442349

UK Postal seems to be official.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Good to have some back up from Geraint Thomas. His remarks are almost verbatim what I have been saying in this thread. He could even be me! This is the view of the young clean pros and their teams - they want this investigation like a hole in the head. It doesn't relate to what's happening now.

On a lighter note, Chris Horner did have a serious case of amnesia resulting from a head injury last year. Maybe it effected his memory of the previous tours as well.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Statute of Limitations for 8 years goes to 2004. Take away two titles. Give one to Kloden and the other one to Basso. Both of them already negotiated with their federations so nothing will happen to them and problem solved.

Having said that, USADA sounds very mad. I think they are going for the whole thing unless they are persuaded by ASO. Just crazy thinking. I don't think that ASO wants all the Tour de France being stripped. It would be a complete mess.

If they feel they have to do something, that would have been the best option. It's something that Armstrong was laying the ground work to accept and it would have been a fair and reasonable settlement. LA would still be recognized as the great tour champ everyone in the sport knows he is, but his career would be officially tainted by losing two tours. He would no longer have the record.

The heavy handed decision by USADA is otherworldly, completely out of touch with the mood of the sport and natural justice. As you rightly point out, if they get what they want it will be an absolute mess. Who on earth wants this?

 

[Animal]

Whistling in the dark. Saying those things won't help.

 

[BillytheKid]

I knew Chris Horner was one of the good, the proud,......who would not just sit idle at his SoCal training camp, and let a bunch of losers throw dirt i.e. assisting, encourage, aiding, abetting, covering up, complicity,....to dope! Then how come everyone just does not win 7 in a row, if everyone is doing it! EPO, testosterone, HGH, corticoesteroids, ephedrine, uppers, downers,....... It looks like the MLB probe. 10% of all players tested positive for a substance which was not illegal at the time. Only the Platinum Rappers-Big Leagues Dominican Batters names were disclosed.....witch hunt, vendetta, envy,.....I will suggest to Lance and Johan not to dignify answers to any questions from now on....and once cleared of wrongdoing just as the Justice Department did with its fraud scheme, file a counter demand for a zillion dollars against The Agency!!

Horner's actually got it right in terms of actual evidence we've seen so far.

I assume that you are not familar with "innocent until proven guilty" here in the U.S. as opposed to "guilty until proven innocent" which still exists in many country's today. I believe France still runs it that way.

The Fifth Amendment "Bill of Rights" of the U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

Since the the Criminal "Grand Jury" failed to find evidence to bring charges, suspicion does not count, in light of any new evidence, we should presume him innocent of criminal charges.

“fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

This quote, from the letter, was in the Washinton Post's first story second paragraph. It is now gone from it original place in the story. (I need reread it to see if its been buried down) It sounds pretty damming. Maybe that's why they pulled it form up top in the story. What exactly does "fully consistent" mean. Sounds like an expert witness or witnesses to me. That means Lance will come back with his expert witness. If its biopassport stuff, then this will drag out and the outcome possibly effect the whole system.

The big question is why is it now only coming to light..again just ahead of the Tour as so much of the unammed source press accounts against Armstrong have in the past.

Horner, like myself, is mearly pointing out the "the innocent until proven guilty" protection afforded by the constitution in criminal cases. Guilt has been establish in many people minds by press account, but the GJ did not see it that way. In this case, it may be different under law that governs doping violations and the USADA and Armstrong may have more of a burden to disprove the alligations.

My guess is expert vs. expert.

I am complaining more about the trial-by-press "yellow journalism" here than anything.

This does seem to be more aimed at cycling sometimes, and I wonder about those who post solely about doping in "The Clinic," but have no interest in the sport and don't post elsewhere in the forum much, if at all.

 

[Caruut]

Good to have some back up from Geraint Thomas. His remarks are almost verbatim what I have been saying in this thread. He could even be me! This is the view of the young clean pros and their teams - they want this investigation like a hole in the head. It doesn't relate to what's happening now.

On a lighter note, Chris Horner did have a serious case of amnesia resulting from a head injury last year. Maybe it effected his memory of the previous tours as well.

If by "the young clean pros and their teams", you mean "a young pro" then I would definitely agree. Thomas has an obvious interest in hoping that Omerta stays, whether or not he is doping, because his wages depend on the public thinking that the sport is clean. I've thought of him as a bit slimey ever since I read about him being the "spokesman" for a bunch of frauds selling powerband-type-things. This news does nothing to change that.

 

[GotDropped]

Okay thanks. Doesn't make much sense though...

Well, look at it like this... the first strike becomes the second strike, so that makes 2 strikes and he's out! (and that is not even including puerto).

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Whistling in the dark. Saying those things won't help.

I'm sorry, won't help what? It's my view of what would be the best option. It still could well be what happens.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

No, you have it totally wrong. It's not a criminal case. USADA has no authority to lay criminal charges. They can apply sporting sanctions only. The rest of your post is therefore invalid.

Horner's actually got it right in terms of actual evidence we've seen so far.

I assume that you are not familar with "innocent until proven guilty" here in the U.S. as opposed to "guilty until proven innocent" which still exists in many country's today. I believe France still runs it that way.

The Fifth Amendment "Bill of Rights" of the U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

Since the the Criminal "Grand Jury" failed to find evidence to bring charges, suspicion does not count, in light of any new evidence, we should presume him innocent of criminal charges.

“fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

This quote, from the letter, was in the Washinton Post's first story second paragraph. It is now gone from it original place in the story. (I need reread it to see if its been buried down) It sounds pretty damming. Maybe that's why they pulled it form up top in the story. What exactly does "fully consistent" mean. Sounds like an expert witness or witnesses to me. That means Lance will come back with his expert witness. If its biopassport stuff, then this will drag out and the outcome possibly effect the whole system.

The big question is why is it now only coming to light..again just ahead of the Tour as so much of the unammed source press accounts against Armstrong have in the past.

Horner, like myself, is mearly pointing out the "the innocent until proven guilty" protection afforded by the constitution in criminal cases. Guilt has been establish in many people minds by press account, but the GJ did not see it that way. In this case, it may be different under law that governs doping violations and the USADA and Armstrong may have more of a burden to disprove the alligations.

My guess is expert vs. expert.

I am complaining more about the trial-by-press "yellow journalism" here than anything.

This does seem to be more aimed at cycling sometimes, and I wonder about those who post solely about doping in "The Clinic," but have no interest in the sport and don't post elsewhere in the forum much if at all.

 

[BillytheKid]

Well, look at it like this... the first strike becomes the second strike, so that makes 2 strikes and he's out! (and that is not even including puerto).

I am glad you could never sit on jury in the U.S. Nor would you judge yourself that way.

 

[mastersracer]

I'm sorry, won't help what? It's my view of what would be the best option. It still could well be what happens.

The USADA (and UCI codes they are following) only makes provisions for sanctioning and disqualifying racers, the latter of which can be made outside of statute of limitations in cases in which doping was fraudulently concealed, which is the USADA intent. Their charter is to prosecute doping violations - the issue of who becomes the official winner following a disqualification is of 0 concern to them.

 

[armstrong]

Troll Alert..

We're not haters, we're simply crusaders for truth.

Nope, not a troll. I'm an arms-length cycling fan.

I wasn't sure how to pose the question. I had never heard of his 1993 win being tainted - so I was wondering if whether even his cynics (his "haters") acknowledged it to be clean. I had thought he started into doping after cancer, but I guess not.

So I guess that's why there's all those references that the doping CAUSED his cancer. How reliable is that theory?

 

[BillytheKid]

No, you have it totally wrong. It's not a criminal case. USADA has no authority to lay criminal charges. They can apply sporting sanctions only. The rest of your post is therefore invalid.

You did not read it carefully to the end. That's what I said????

It's the idea that's he's guilty, established by "unammed sources close to the investigation" the first time through that imply guilt. Horners only saying, wait for the evidence. It still does apply in any legal action, duh!

 

[TechnicalDescent]

The USADA (and UCI codes they are following) only makes provisions for sanctioning and disqualifying racers, the latter of which can be made outside of statute of limitations in cases in which doping was fraudulently concealed, which is the USADA intent. Their charter is to prosecute doping violations - the issue of who becomes the official winner following a disqualification is of 0 concern to them.

All of these bodies are made up of individuals who use discretion and judgement all the time. It was a judgement call to let off ten riders who apparently doped as much as Armstrong during the same period. They could easily decide to keep it within the statue of limitations if they wanted to. They're not robots. They seem to have taken it all a bit too personally.

 

[BillytheKid]

Nope, not a troll. I'm an arms-length cycling fan.

I wasn't sure how to pose the question. I had never heard of his 1993 win being tainted - so I was wondering if whether even his cynics (his "haters") acknowledged it to be clean. I had thought he started into doping after cancer, but I guess not.

So I guess that's why there's all those references that the doping CAUSED his cancer. How reliable is that theory?

Prove it in any court and its gold.

 

[armstrong]

Statute of Limitations for 8 years goes to 2004. Take away two titles. Give one to Kloden and the other one to Basso. Both of them already negotiated with their federations so nothing will happen to them and problem solved.

According to this article, all 7 victories are in jeopardy, even though most fall outside the 8 year SoLs. (although they seem to err in saying the SoL goes back to 2005 - should be 2004?)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...rsus-lance-armstrong/index.html#ixzz1xoKM7tbH
What of Armstrong's seven Tour titles? WADA has imposed eight-year statute of limitation for doping charges; USADA's letter arrived a month and a half before that eight-year window closed on the Texan's final Tour win in 2005. Yet, all seven of those titles could be in jeopardy. As USADA argues in its letter, according to the Post, "Evidence of banned acts outside of the eight-year limit can be used to corroborate evidence within the limit, and the statute of limitations can be waived when the alleged violations were fraudulently concealed."