USADA - Armstrong

[python]

Re: charging letters and enclosed detail

In "passport" matters, I would guess that details are far less precise?? more vague?? Therefore is the lack of current detail inconsistent with passport cases?

while you are correct, that biopassport details could be imprecise, i'd relate THAT to the overall conclusion - the total picture in front of an observer - rather than the little bits it's composed of. iow, a fully stand along biopass positive for armstrong, was never claimed by usada. but they are saying, there is enough, IN COMBINATION with the other evidence, to charge a AD rule violation. the fuzzy piece related to biopassport is only partially available to usada. the rest of it - the multitude of other armstrong' blood tests is actually in the uci possession they refused to share with usada. hence, nothing to show... other than the uci complicity.

Carefully redacted evidence does seem to be a method of addressing USADA and Sparks, J concerns.i

i agree.

as to the rest of the witness intimidation argument by usada, it is very real.

but one has to also realize the very real, war-like, no-means-spared manner in which armstrong approaches his confrontations... you don' play softball with such a sociopath when you charge him based on reliable evidence.

i know that most decent and normal persons have difficulty understanding usada's 'secretiveness'. but in reality it is a well thought through tactic entirely within the limits of current anti doping rules aim to protect witnesses AND not to disadvantage yourself too early in the war with the rich, vindictive sociopath.

that said, current wada code, unlike with failed-test positives, is fuzzy on what data the accused is entitled to with non-analytical positives. undoubtedly usada is aware of it and is not in a position to play armstrong's games -all derived from a non-applicable CRIMINAL CODE for evidence discovery.

 

[JA.Tri]

Apparently, you have not read any first party documentation.

I have read all the links supplied.. in addition to a few others. I admit that I may have misunderstood a few and been confused by a few others.

IMO USADA have a better chance of meeting Spark's J implied "needs" than LA.

I was being exceedingly sarcastic (yes I should have simply stated my view...my bad). Those characteristics attributed to USADA more approximated my view of LA's submissions/actions and those characteristics attributed to LA are simply a poor attempt at comedy.

 

[JA.Tri]

@Python

Thank you. Sorry I was obtuse, the major thrust was by way of analogy.

That is, passport data might appear vague/imprecise at first (as Ashenden has discussed). Therefore such evidence prior to explanation might appear as vague as Sparks, J has assessed the charging docs currently before him??? Yes I still sound like Pat...sorry.

 

[Irish2009]

I think to many of the clinics cliental have assumed that the withnesses USADA have are riders. There may be a chance that some of them are ex usps staff and most damningly berhaps even a UCI employee.......or 2!

What chances are there that Dr Morel is going to turn witness for USADA in order for a more lenient ban?

Whats to stop WADA putting pressure on USADA to let Armstrong go as witness against the UCI, & save his TdeF victories?

 

[Cavalier]

I think to many of the clinics cliental have assumed that the withnesses USADA have are riders. There may be a chance that some of them are ex usps staff and most damningly berhaps even a UCI employee.......or 2!

Don't think anyone's said that they're all riders, but USADA were reported to have said "riders and staff".

 

[veganrob]

Yes, and now he can (and will) intimidate to his heart's content, as he has not been told who threw him under the bus.

Lance is a sociopath, and not the brightest bulb in the box but I can't see him attempting to intimidate potential witnesses now.
Of course I would not be the least bit surprised if he did.

 

[rickshaw]

Lance is a sociopath, and not the brightest bulb in the box but I can't see him attempting to intimidate potential witnesses now.
Of course I would not be the least bit surprised if he did.

No, Lance has "People" to do that now. Lawyers, PR teams, Congressman or two. Slick Mick in Switzerland would be at it now too, if only they'd give him some case file info to work with. He can't enforce "The Code" if he don't know who's talking'.

 

[thehog]

I think to many of the clinics cliental have assumed that the withnesses USADA have are riders. There may be a chance that some of them are ex usps staff and most damningly berhaps even a UCI employee.......or 2!

What chances are there that Dr Morel is going to turn witness for USADA in order for a more lenient ban?

Whats to stop WADA putting pressure on USADA to let Armstrong go as witness against the UCI, & save his TdeF victories?

There is a mole in the UCI. Or an ex-employee. I'm sure or that.

 

[Turner29]

There is a mole in the UCI. Or an ex-employee. I'm sure or that.

Never thought of that and you are probably correct.

 

[Turner29]

@Python

Thank you. Sorry I was obtuse, the major thrust was by way of analogy.

That is, passport data might appear vague/imprecise at first (as Ashenden has discussed). Therefore such evidence prior to explanation might appear as vague as Sparks, J has assessed the charging docs currently before him??? Yes I still sound like Pat...sorry.

A problem with Passport data is that to some degree it is subjective. As such, in a court any defense would be able to find an "expert witness" to refute the data's validity.

 

[sashimono]

Judges should be assessed penalties for slow play.
They're runining the entertainment value of the legal system.

 

[BillytheKid]

No GJ evidence was used

No, Very little of the evidence is public to limit intimidation of witnesses.

Yes, we all know that to be true from the complete transparency of the USADA ruling and its willingness to come forward with all evidence.

Much of this is never likely to see the light of day.

The big question: is the USADA is protecting the accusers from damage soley to get the big dog? I have very little doubt as to guilt in the matter. I have a problem with so many others walking away scott free to remain some kind of longevity heros with their careers intact.

Has there been a conviction or charges brought for witness intimidation? More fiction, and the reason to go dinning at an unlikely restaurant.

Where have we seen any means to achieve the ends before? This is shaping up to be one big bad precedent.

Wunderbar!

 

[henryg]

This is shaping up to be one big bad precedent.

Wunderbar!

No precedent is being set as the USADA is following the same rules to the letter of every previous doping investigation it has conducted. The UCI thought that was just fine until the subject was Lance. Suddenly we need a new set of rules.

 

[Poursuivant]

What do USADA have to provide for the judge?

 

[BillytheKid]

@Python

Thank you. Sorry I was obtuse, the major thrust was by way of analogy.

That is, passport data might appear vague/imprecise at first (as Ashenden has discussed). Therefore such evidence prior to explanation might appear as vague as Sparks, J has assessed the charging docs currently before him??? Yes I still sound like Pat...sorry.

If the USADA interprets the passport data one way to strip titles, does that mean all anti-doping angencies will be pressed by WADA to apply the same measures to all riders retroactively?

Or can riders with more freakish levels stay at the dance all night.

 

[BillytheKid]

No precedent is being set as the USADA is following the same rules to the letter of every previous doping investigation it has conducted. The UCI thought that was just fine until the subject was Lance. Suddenly we need a new set of rules.

The precident would be a ruling where little or no evidence in the matter is made public. The USADA is federal funded thus, I believe, the rule applies.
If the full body of evidence is discosed, then you would be right. If not, then it would be an unprecedented ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)

 

[Merckx index]

i know that most decent and normal persons have difficulty understanding usada's 'secretiveness'. but in reality it is a well thought through tactic entirely within the limits of current anti doping rules aim to protect witnesses AND not to disadvantage yourself too early in the war with the rich, vindictive sociopath.

The problem may be that Sparks is, I hope, a decent and normal person. Thus he may not be persuaded by this argument. I suppose providing him with examples of LA’s previous attempts at intimidation would help, but fairly or not, he may regard the secretiveness as too self-serving.

The big question I have is: did Sparks communicate to USADA exactly how much detail he wants? It seems probably not. So if they give him more details, with no names, are they gambling? Will he get p-d off at them for not giving him more? At this stage of the game, he is very unlikely to give either side one more chance.

A problem with Passport data is that to some degree it is subjective. As such, in a court any defense would be able to find an "expert witness" to refute the data's validity.

There is some subjectivity, yes, but I'm not sure it comes into play in this case. The usual procedure is that if the fluctuations exceed a certain level of probability, the passport is considered suspicious, and goes to an expert panel for further evaluation. Whether it ever gets to the panel is based on objective criteria, whereas the panel's final determination may be based on more subjective factors.

But--barring a coverup of a positive by UCI--none of LA's passport data was judged positive by a panel, so no subjective factors ever came into play. Most likely, though we don't know for sure, none of the data ever even reached a panel.

As others have noted, USADA will probably not be using the passport data as standalone evidence of doping, but only as supporting evidence. They don't have to demonstrate that any fluctuations indicate manipulation with very high probability IF they can show that certain fluctuations closely correlate with witness testimony that LA was blood doping at a particular time. E.g., if shortly after a date a witness claims LA transfused, there were fluctuations in his passport much greater than any in the days or weeks preceding that date, this would be powerful evidence. There isn't much an opposing expert could do except argue that such fluctuations might have happened by chance, illness, whatever. But subjectivity really doesn't play much of a role here. If one has a substantial record of LA's passports, one can determine an approximate probability of such fluctuations.

Anyway, I continue to think this case is almost entirely about witness testimony. The passport data are window dressing, an attempt to show that LA exceeded some scientific parameters. And their use could conceivably backfire on USADA, because it is possible to dope and not affect passport parameters. One thing an opposing expert could do that could really hurt USADA's case is show that other dates when witnesses claim LA manipulated his blood there were no unusual fluctuations at all. Ashenden knows this is easily possible, but try explaining to a panel why sometimes there are fluctuations and sometimes they aren't. If you're going to bring in passport data, you better be certain everything matches up. Otherwise, better to stick to witness testimony exclusively.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

Good news: Vaughters' NYT op-ed will make it harder for LA to find political cover. Most American pols and pundits read the NYT op-ed pages.

But Judge Sparks, a conservative Texan, might not see the Vaughters piece. Somebody please get it to him or his aides. Anyone who reads this piece is reminded of the moral stakes.

 

[Race Radio]

The precident would be a ruling where little or no evidence in the matter is made public. The USADA is federal funded thus, I believe, the rule applies.
If the full body of evidence is discosed, then you would be right. If not, then it would be an unprecedented ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)

You are confused. The only reason all the info would not be released during arbitration would be if Armstrong asks for it not to. USADA wants this to be open

You need to find another strawman to be angry about

 

[BillytheKid]

You are confused. The only reason all the info would not be released during arbitration would be if Armstrong asks for it not to. USADA wants this to be open

You need to find another strawman to be angry about

Arbitration would most likely be a loose for LA and the USADA knows that.

The tactic is obviously to most and arbitration would not necessarily mean that all the evidence would come to light, but your right in that LA would also have reason to surppress it. It cuts both ways.

 

[BillytheKid]

Good news: Vaughters' NYT op-ed will make it harder for LA to find political cover. Most American pols and pundits read the NYT op-ed pages.

But Judge Sparks, a conservative Texan, might not see the Vaughters piece. Somebody please get it to him or his aides. Anyone who reads this piece is reminded of the moral stakes.

I don't need a good lawyer. I need a good judge.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I don't need a good lawyer. I need a good judge.

Learn to downsize pictures or don't post.

 

[BillytheKid]

Good news: Vaughters' NYT op-ed will make it harder for LA to find political cover. Most American pols and pundits read the NYT op-ed pages.

But Judge Sparks, a conservative Texan, might not see the Vaughters piece. Somebody please get it to him or his aides. Anyone who reads this piece is reminded of the moral stakes.

I don't need a good lawyer. I need a good judge. Lucky Ned.

 

[BillytheKid]

Learn to downsize pictures or don't post.

Are you happy now?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Are you happy now?

I'm always happy.

I do get a bit vexed when a troll who only wants to distort realty keeps posting drivel that even he knows is a lie, but then again I am getting used to it, so I will be the ducks back here and just let it roll off. Carry on with your dissertation of fantasy land.

BTW, message your hero and tell him to make sure ALL of the evidence in the possession of the USADA is revealed publicly...you know, since obviously he would want this...