USADA - Armstrong

[Cavalier]

Someone should tell Greg Lemond's team that Armstrong's influence is minimal. Bet as they're watching the USPRO on TV they'd disagree.

 

[the big ring]

Someone should tell Greg Lemond's team that Armstrong's influence is minimal. Bet as they're watching the USPRO on TV they'd disagree.

Yeah there were a couple of exclusions from US races of teams not in favour from memory?

 

[Cavalier]

Yup, Lemond's team (name escapes me at the moment and google isn't being helpful) being the 'recipient' of those exclusions. Not a coincidence given that Livestrong-Trek's U23 team got an invite.

 

[the big ring]

Yup, Lemond's team (name escapes me at the moment and google isn't being helpful) being the 'recipient' of those exclusions. Not a coincidence given that Livestrong-Trek's U23 team got an invite.

For some reason I was thinking it was Frankie's team?

ETA: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...nergy-primes-for-old-pueblo-grand-prix_209517

Kenda 5 hour were not invited to AMGEN ToC.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I agree. Susan?

Obviously I disagree. Why shouldn't the legal aspects of this case not be discussed here?

It is the when the discusison goes away from Armstong-USADA that there is a problem.

Susan

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

 

[GreasyMonkey]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

WOW.... WOW...... absolutely gob-smacking.....

Good on Mr. Ashenden to come forward with this, it is certainly showing where his view on the matter lies, even if it was thouroughly vetted by his lawyers.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Nice take on this. In my view though, the arbitrators will, if they allow the matter to proceed as a consolidated case involving the other five "defendants", allow more than the minimum 5 days.'...'

So, does "consolidated case" refer to consolidating the miscreants or the misdeeds? If the power to bring a consolidated case would mean USADA could bring a single case covering all the allegations against one individual, I think 10.7.4 of the WADA code is very relevant....but I find the use of "consolidated" ambiguous in the current context.

One other observation: I am still sort of puzzled by the comments concerning witness intimidation at this rather late stage of the USADA charges. I've seen several posts here which criticized Armstrong's actions in prior litigation, in which it was claimed that he had engaged in "witness intimidation" simply by attending the deposition of, for example, Betsy Andreu, in the SCA matter. '...' I don't recall anywhere in their briefs in the federal case where they actually described the feared witness intimidation in any detail, so in that sense because they were vague about it, I think it came across as somewhat gamey and pretextual to Judge Sparks, thus drawing some of his ire.

I think this gets to the heart of why a number of clinic regulars perceive you as biased. Witness intimidation is too narrow a term, but Armstrong's history of finding a lever to exert power over people and ruthlessly exerting that power is so well known here that we tend to forget that most people have no understanding of it. Off the top of my head' it ranges from chashing down Simioni for talking about Michele Ferrari, to influencing the peloton to hound Bassons from the Tour, to threatening Greg Lemond with finding people who would say he was doping and influencing Trek to cause Lemond's bike brand to dwindle, to getting his fans to hound the original owner of Cycling News' employer to fire him, forcing him into a position of having to sell CN, to blacklisting reporters, to getting Stephanie Mcilvine to lie under oath, to using his media mouthpieces to stigmatize Betsy as fat and crazy, Mike Anderson as disaffected, Floyd as insane and alcoholic, and absolutely everyone who questions him as jelous.......and then there is the ominous question of why he gets favors from the UCI, while his former team mates get busted.....

You probably won't find those few random examples entirely compelling, but I hope it will at least give a bit more of the picture of how many of us view Armstrong. He is not hated primarily for the doping.

On the other hand, I think your perspective on the intimidation issue serves as a useful reminder for anyone involved in the anti doping case against him. They will need to demonstrate the behavior pattern, or casual observers and judges alike will suspect that the ridiculous accusations of a USADA/WADA vendetta have merit. Then the fanboys add insult to injury by boring us all witless.

Thinking back to a previous discussion with you on this board, I was asking about witness tampering back then, as I believed it to be the biggest threat to the investigation. I think that was before the CacheCache episode.

 

[L'Etranger]

Ashenden intervention

Ashenden's comments are certainly welcome, but I was puzzled by this bit.

Could a test be covered up? “If procedures were followed correctly, no it should not have been possible. When the system functions properly, results are sent in parallel to the federation and to the WADA. But in a hypothetical example, if a lab did not report a result to WADA, and neither did the federation, then oversight bodies such as the WADA would be completely blind and under those circumstances a cover up would have been possible,” Ashenden said.

“It remains for an independent fact finder to ascertain how it came to be that the result was not reported. One obvious explanation that seems to meet those facts is that the result was indicative of EPO but fell short of the positivity criteria and was thus not reported.”

Isn't an even more obvious explanation that 2001 was before the creation of WADA, so the UCI could much more easily suppress a positive?

 

[bergibitz]

Campain contributions, McCain, USADA

USADA, John McCain, American Continental Group

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=htt...--gAQHbqyXg469fLBWgmAS5eomCNoop798n-7-g9Q&s=1

 

[Morbius]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

Reading the article, I can't find a source for the quotes. Anyone know where the original interview or press conference took place?

 

[hektoren]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

He recapitulates WADA's take on the organizations' turf war nicely, agreed, and he has a realistic explanation as to "how" burying a 2001-positive could have come about, but I think you read too much into that explanation. I don't believe for a minute that he "thinks there has been a UCI cover up", and frankly, what he might or might not believe, privately, is hardly interesting or relevant.
I believe he's too pragmatic and scientific in his approach for that. He just wants the UCI to be transparent and get the facts, the truth, out in the open.

 

[python]

nice to see that ashenden's thinking is alined with the usada's and wada's...but, did he devulge anything previously unknown ? not to my quick read. i'd much prefer ashenden giving usada help and information regarding some of the suspicion he saw during his bio passport panel days...and better yet, he should pick a phone and ring his compatriot ann gripper and interview her about her days in the uci...that would make a difference.

 

[spalco]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

He has until August 23 to either accept a lifetime ban and the loss of all results during the period of USADA's claims, which encompass most of his professional career including his Tour de France victories, or take the case to arbitration where all witness testimony and other evidence could be aired publicly.

That is midnight tonight - another 18 hours by US East Coast time?

Exciting.

 

[Cavalier]

For some reason I was thinking it was Frankie's team?

ETA: http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...nergy-primes-for-old-pueblo-grand-prix_209517

Kenda 5 hour were not invited to AMGEN ToC.

Ah you're right, my error.

 

[Cavalier]

Don't click that link posted by bergibitz btw, it's a phishing attempt

 

[Muriel]

I have no trouble if all tour titles are stripped, provided evidence exists of doping for each year. While statute of limitations are meant to prevent undo legal "persecution," when a criminal actively takes measures to cover crimes, statute of limitations no longer apply -- a very sound legal concept.

It's not the SOL issue I was unsure of, it's the results management. As WADA weren't tasked by UCI to handle that until 2004 can they reach back prior to then in their sanctioning? It's probably in the WADA protocols somewhere, I'm sure.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've seen the enemy and it is us

Chris Chomical does deserve to take some.

 

[the big ring]

Isn't an even more obvious explanation that 2001 was before the creation of WADA, so the UCI could much more easily suppress a positive?

wikipedia says this

It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland, as a result of what was called the "Declaration of Lausanne",[1] to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against drugs in sport.

ETA: Man Switzerland is a small country. The lab and WADA were in the same town - probably literally around the corner from one another...

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Reading the article, I can't find a source for the quotes. Anyone know where the original interview or press conference took place?

Most likely over the telephone. It was not a press conference, but an interview of Ashenden by Dan Benson, the CN managing editor.

The source is included where it says he "told Cyclingnews."

Susan

 

[python]

One possibility almost no one considered is that usada is NOT obligated to automatically react after a deadline.

say, Armstrong allowed the dead line to pass but files just in time with the appeals court.

this puts usada before a peculiar choice - to automatically trigger the disqualification letter at 1 minute past midnight or show more wisdom and restraint waiting for the reaction from the court of appeals.

Why would Armstrong do that ?

first, to stay consistent with his previous statement re usada arbitration.
second, it could be a psychological war trick (‘I don’t play by your rules’).
third, it could add to his lack of due process argument if usada knee jerks,
fourth, he would count on the court request to extend while it considers the case.
Fifth, having in mind marti’s case where usada reversed itself and allowed the hearing despite the lateness…

should it happen this way, it would indicate how desperate he is.

 

[Microchip]

Physician heal thyself

The plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General.

Your welcome

This is sure to start a brand new discussion!

 

[LauraLyn]

One possibility almost no one considered is that usada is NOT obligated to automatically react after a deadline.

say, Armstrong allowed the dead line to pass but files just in time with the appeals court.

this puts usada before a peculiar choice - to automatically trigger the disqualification letter at 1 minute past midnight or show more wisdom and restraint waiting for the reaction from the court of appeals.

The wisdom in the USADA accepting more delays from Armstrong does not appear all that obvious.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Ashenden's comments on the case here.

 

[python]

The wisdom in the USADA accepting more delays from Armstrong does not appear all that obvious.

i agree. i said this before - it is not clear at all if usada will voluntarily allow another delay.

moreover, more delays and stalling is exactly what team armstrong wants...but there are undeniable elements of legal maneuvering and politics here including some of the developments we, the outsiders, have no knowledge of.

acting on what is known publicly - and i tried to keep track with as much as was allowed - i would not grant another extension.

i would also, not write the dq letter until i sniffed the air around the 5th circuit.