USADA - Armstrong

[python]

........... If, for example, a teammate said that he witnesses Armstrong take a transfusion or EPO on a certain date followed by a look at how his blood values fluctuated following that date this is compelling evidence of guilt

yep.

now let's recall what we heard and discussed to death 2 years ago but now seems all forgotten (smile)...floyd's doping diaries.

who said, that only floyd turned in his diaries ?? (another smiley)

 

[Cloxxki]

yep.

now let's recall what we heard and discussed to death 2 years ago but now seems all forgotten (smile)...floyd's doping diaries.

who said, that only floyd turned in his diaries ?? (another smiley)

That's too teasing for good taste. I'm practically drooling here.

More relevant that a back-dated TUE anyway, is a back dated diary. Take soms calendars, your own website's archives, email history (not only Russian speakers keep theirs) and start writing memories. Link stuff together, and come to truthful, accurate and complere desciptions of what you know to be the facts.

 

[Pastavore]

yep.

now let's recall what we heard and discussed to death 2 years ago but now seems all forgotten (smile)...floyd's doping diaries.

who said, that only floyd turned in his diaries ?? (another smiley)

Wishful thinking or inside knowledge? Please be the latter.....

 

[aphronesis]

Not exactly.

We have not seen the results of the UCI's Biopassport testing from 2010, only USADA's. The UCI refused to give USADA the Biopassport results for 2 years, then destroyed the samples.

The fluctuations also do no have to stand on their own. If, for example, a teammate said that he witnesses Armstrong take a transfusion or EPO on a certain date followed by a look at how his blood values fluctuated following that date this is compelling evidence of guilt

Although, I have to speculate that that testimony would be held to that present ( of circa 2009) and would therefore be thoroughly professionalized. No? So the unicity of the accusation-conspiracy- could still cut several ways.

 

[MacRoadie]

Just noticed Tygart and USADA filed a withdrawal of their objection to Lance's motion to exceed the page limit on his latest filing.

Is this a case of letting him have as much rope as he needs to hang himself? "Your honor, let Mr. Armstrong take as many pages as he needs to explain hmself, we're just fine thank you"...

 

[BroDeal]

Just noticed Tygart and USADA filed a withdrawal of their objection to Lance's motion to exceed the page limit on his latest filing.

Is this a case of letting him have as much rope as he needs to hang himself? "Your honor, let Mr. Armstrong take as many pages as he needs to explain hmself, we're just fine thank you"...

Why would they do that? Now they have a lot more material they have to analyze and respond to. Why not demand that Armstrong stay within the rules? There is enough of a pattern now that the pattern itself can be pointed to as an abuse of process and a reason for not agreeing to cede any more ground.

 

[MacRoadie]

Why would they do that? Now they have a lot more material they have to analyze and respond to. Why not demand that Armstrong stay within the rules? There is enough of a pattern now that the pattern itself can be pointed to as an abuse of process and a reason for not agreeing to cede any more ground.

Well, it was their decision so they must be ok with it.

 

[MarkvW]

Just noticed Tygart and USADA filed a withdrawal of their objection to Lance's motion to exceed the page limit on his latest filing.

Is this a case of letting him have as much rope as he needs to hang himself? "Your honor, let Mr. Armstrong take as many pages as he needs to explain hmself, we're just fine thank you"...

USADA gets to write a reply. Now Farm can't reasonably complain about USADA's overlength reply to his overlength response.

 

[thehog]

yep.

now let's recall what we heard and discussed to death 2 years ago but now seems all forgotten (smile)...floyd's doping diaries.

who said, that only floyd turned in his diaries ?? (another smiley)

Why turn in diaries when the witnesses will recount the events in person?

 

[Kennf1]

Why would they do that? Now they have a lot more material they have to analyze and respond to. Why not demand that Armstrong stay within the rules? There is enough of a pattern now that the pattern itself can be pointed to as an abuse of process and a reason for not agreeing to cede any more ground.

Confidence in their legal position. Putting themselves in a good light with the judge. Foreclosing additional whining by the Armstrong team if Sparks were to lop off the last eight pages of their brief and issue a ruling. Any or all of these.

Bear in mind that Sparks can deny the motion for leave and strike the offending portions of the brief with or without opposition from the other side. However, I suspect he would have issued an order on that today if that was his preference.
USADA will be filing a reply brief sometime before Friday.

 

[aphronesis]

Why turn in diaries when the witnesses will recount the events in person?

Day to day proof. Your memory that tight?

 

[MarkvW]

Why turn in diaries when the witnesses will recount the events in person?

Because memory fades, but 'present recollection recorded' endures.

 

[Race Radio]

Just noticed Tygart and USADA filed a withdrawal of their objection to Lance's motion to exceed the page limit on his latest filing.

Is this a case of letting him have as much rope as he needs to hang himself? "Your honor, let Mr. Armstrong take as many pages as he needs to explain hmself, we're just fine thank you"...

The guy just wants to run up my Pacer bill

It seems clear that Sparks does like lots of useless words. Let them try to clog the toilet, it will backfire

 

[MacRoadie]

USADA gets to write a reply. Now Farm can't reasonably complain about USADA's overlength reply to his overlength response.

Correct, the first order has been to cut his whining off at the knees, but I do see the potential danger in leaving yourelf too big a task.

 

[MacRoadie]

Why turn in diaries when the witnesses will recount the events in person?

I believe the best way is to produce diaries written contemporaneously with the doping, then support those written records with corroborative testimony.

Anyone can "remember" something, yet be challenged on the accuracy of the recollection (just ask Andy Pettitte). A bit harder to challenge when the event was chronicled in writing.

 

[MacRoadie]

The guy just wants to run up my Pacer bill

It seems clear that Sparks does like lots of useless words. Let them try to clog the toilet, it will backfire

Only $.10 a page and worth every penny...

 

[python]

That's too teasing for good taste. I'm practically drooling here.

More relevant that a back-dated TUE anyway, is a back dated diary. Take soms calendars, your own website's archives, email history (not only Russian speakers keep theirs) and start writing memories. Link stuff together, and come to truthful, accurate and complere desciptions of what you know to be the facts.

if that's how YOU keep diaries and think then i have no problem taking your word provided it has nothing to do with forensic evidence...about YOU.

otoh, diaries, including doping diaries, have been part of court evidences many times. if you care, look up cas rulings on ferrari and fuentes clients. that will help your drooling (a joke).

when someone claims to have records and turns them over, they always face the risk of scrutiny and cross- examination...once turned in, the records can not be altered - and that's where the dog is dug.

 

[python]

Wishful thinking or inside knowledge? Please be the latter.....

is that YOUR wishful thinking or you're fishing, that is phishing/phishful thinking ?

to give you a clue, though you must understand that no one in the 'speaking position' will ever entertain your question...

say you're Big George and you have been impelled to provide evidence (under a threat of perjury) and in exchange of immunity -- during the federal investigation about your own doping.

would you lie ? would you fake your own diaries to look good and risk prison?

or would you just decide to clean up and provide the experienced, shrewd investigators (who never told you which goods they got on you) with the whole truth and nothing but the truth ?

my experience is that most folks, including myself, would never dare the odds.

hence, take your own guess as to the odds of the scenario i just described.

 

[TheMight]

Sure, Ullrich doped. But did Ullrich have an opportunity to pay-off the UCI to turn a blind eye for a supercharged programme? How much more successful would Telekom's investment have been had Ulle won the TdF a few more times?

I'm not a lawyer... perhaps this isn't relevant. The UCI's behavior here strikes me as more than odd. Maybe the stakes are much higher than we know. My $0.02.

There are a couple degrees here. First off, the big time sponsors from the last 20 years should have some issues if any of this is true. They signed up for something and didn't have a sporting fair chance to maximize it. Whether or not they could make legal claims to something (ASO has some money) seems like a fairly complex question. Not all of these sponsors are made the same either, there have been some that have dropped out because of the scandals, some long time sponsors have become continental sponsors instead of top tier ones. Of course, they aren't stupid either, they can look at things and decide what its worth and they knew on some level what was going on.

The other degree of this equation is that the more this plays out, the more difficulty I see in the IOC recognizing the UCI. It makes me sick, if the teams are talking about a breakaway league with any seriousness, I don't see how they can't be getting more serious about it. That and I could see national federations breaking away from UCI, it's just more inconsistency.

 

[Pastavore]

is that YOUR wishful thinking or you're fishing, that is phishing/phishful thinking ?

to give you a clue, though you must understand that no one in the 'speaking position' will ever entertain your question...

say you're Big George and you have been impelled to provide evidence (under a threat of perjury) and in exchange of immunity -- during the federal investigation about your own doping.

would you lie ? would you fake your own diaries to look good and risk prison?

or would you just decide to clean up and provide the experienced, shrewd investigators (who never told you which goods they got on you) with the whole truth and nothing but the truth ?

my experience is that most folks, including myself, would never dare the odds.

hence, take your own guess as to the odds of the scenario i just described.

I am hopeful that there is evidence of the quality that you are implying. I was thinking it would be surprising if athletes kept written records of their doping, but I think Landis and hamilton have demonstrated otherwise. I suupose if you think you are untouchable......

 

[MarkvW]

I am hopeful that there is evidence of the quality that you are implying. I was thinking it would be surprising if athletes kept written records of their doping, but I think Landis and hamilton have demonstrated otherwise. I suupose if you think you are untouchable......

Landis and Hamilton obviously kept training logs, and they would have been beyond stupid not to keep records of what they took. The only sane reason not to keep such records is if someone else kept them for you. The only question is whether they retained the records.

If you have logs w/dope, plus blood/urine, plus expert testimony, plus the rider's event calendar, plus the rider, then you have a compelling case.

 

[python]

I am hopeful that there is evidence of the quality that you are implying. I was thinking it would be surprising if athletes kept written records of their doping, but I think Landis and hamilton have demonstrated otherwise. I suupose if you think you are untouchable......

my dear lord, i hope you're as naive as you sound...otherwise, yes, you have phishfull thinking (a joke)

an athlete on a sophisticated doping programme like doc ferrari's ABSOLUTELY must keep accurate record ! the reasons have been described in multiple documented records:

one, to avoid testing positive (the basis is half-life of the hormones/steroids taken). for example, micro-dosing epo into one's own veins - the method described by floyd - renders that rider immune to any test within about 8 hours.

two, to keep track of own blood re-infusions/withdrawals. for example, if the blood doping scheme involves the blood banking method, then, one has to withdraw/reinfuse rouphly every 30-35 days because blood spoils after 42 days

....

i can continue with many more examples but you have to get the idea by now - any sophisticated doper HAS to act in accordance with accurate calendar

lance armstrong was not only a sophisticated doper, he was in control of doping his team for which he shared ownership.

 

[thehog]

I believe the best way is to produce diaries written contemporaneously with the doping, then support those written records with corroborative testimony.

Anyone can "remember" something, yet be challenged on the accuracy of the recollection (just ask Andy Pettitte). A bit harder to challenge when the event was chronicled in writing.

Sure. Every doper has to keep immaculate training logs. I've seen Hamilton's. Very detailed. But when they recount in person it's much more complelling.

I think we're both saying the same thing just in different ways.

 

[Pastavore]

my dear lord, i hope you're as naive as you sound...otherwise, yes, you have phishfull thinking (a joke)

an athlete on a sophisticated doping programme like doc ferrari's ABSOLUTELY must keep accurate record ! the reasons have been described in multiple documented records:

one, to avoid testing positive (the basis is half-life of the hormones/steroids taken). for example, micro-dosing epo into one's own veins - the method described by floyd - renders that rider immune to any test within about 8 hours.

two, to keep track of own blood re-infusions/withdrawals. for example, if the blood doping scheme involves the blood banking method, then, one has to withdraw/reinfuse rouphly every 30-35 days because blood spoils after 42 days

....

i can continue with many more examples but you have to get the idea by now - any sophisticated doper HAS to act in accordance with accurate calendar

lance armstrong was not only a sophisticated doper, he was in control of doping his team for which he shared ownership.

Naive?? Guilty as charged. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

 

[formerlyfastfreddyp]

You think he'll talk about his case with USADA?

The latest issue of Pasadena California's Arroyo magazine has an ad indicating that Lance is scheduled to speak in their Distinguished Speaker's Series. Mark your calendar for 8:00 PM on May 20, 2013.

You think he'll talk about his fight with USADA? I doubt it.

Be there and watch him get heckled. It will be a blast!