USADA - Armstrong

Page 452 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Carlo Algatrensig said:
Haven't we already had Vaughters (in his oped piece) and Andreu as reported by cyclingnews at the USA Pro Cycling Challenge today come out and sort of explained themselves. I am making an assumption here of course that they are 2 of the more than 10 to have testified against Armstrong
So, its the same old stuff that has not amounted to a conviction at this point? In short, there is nothing new here?

Where is Hincapie? Levi? The rest of the gang that supposedly was going to blow the lid off?

Or is LA going to intimidate Bestsy Andreau? Because clearly that is what has been happening for over a decade now, BA is clearly been intimidated into not speaking.

Generally, cross examination of a witness is considered essential to the legal process rather than intimidation.
 
Jul 13, 2009
283
0
0
gree0232 said:
So, its the same old stuff that has not amounted to a conviction at this point? In short, there is nothing new here?

Where is Hincapie? Levi? The rest of the gang that supposedly was going to blow the lid off?

Or is LA going to intimidate Bestsy Andreau? Because clearly that is what has been happening for over a decade now, BA is clearly been intimidated into not speaking.

Generally, cross examination of a witness is considered essential to the legal process rather than intimidation.
Hincapie and Levi? Well they might just be not talking till after Bruyneels arbitration hearing where I hope we get to see all the evidence presented in a public forum with the opportunity for cross examination which as you rightly say is an essential part of any legal process
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
barn yard said:
perhaps consider that some/most of these witnesses do not want to talk about it yet as they are facing significant suspensions themselves
I thought we were out to get dopers at all cost? Or is this a witch hunt for JUST LA?

I have been saying this about the LA case for years, and cycling in general. Anonymity is bad.

The same thing that was done to LA when he won his first Tour was done to Wiggins. Its was done to Cancellera when he won his races with crazy accusations of mechanical doping.

No cyclist can win a race these days without being smeared by the anonymous doping accusers. It is fundamentally flawed.

We must have a system that hangs on evidence, and if you cannot meet the bar of evidence ... then you lose. Its how every other legal process in the civilized world works.

There is a reason that we call them witch hunts and why they are considered so disgraceful. Moby **** was written a century ago to warn us about exactly what we see here.

Lance could be doped to the gills, but he is an American citizen and entitled to free, fair, process. Whether you like LA or not, to deny him that ... is wrong. Very wrong.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
QuickStepper said:
The key phrase in your comment are the words by which you qualify the rest of your statements,i.e., "I . . think". None of us here now yet knows what the evidence really is, or what Hincapie, Leipheimer, et.al., really testified to seeing or participating in over the years. So your statement that they didn't do something is really just speculation at this point. You don't know and neitehr do I.

What we can surmise though is that someone like George, who was Lance's teammate from the beginning to end, his roomate on the road for all those years, and his constant companion and loyal lieutenant, knows and saw most of what there was to see. If Armstrong showed Landis where the refrigerator was in his apartment in Spain that were filled with blood bags for transfusions....Landis, a guy who had only been on the team for one or two years at the time... then you can bet George saw, heard and knew a whole lot more than even Landis did. Let's give George the benefit of the doubt that he didn't use PED's himself. But if he knew about Lance's use for as many years as USADA claims, then why is he not part of the same conspiracy, why would you contend that he didn't engage in the same cover-up, the same conspiracy that Armstrong has been accused of, and for which he's receiving a lifetime ban.

The argument that the ban Armstrong is receiving is only for trafficking and that George, Levi, et.al, didn't actually "traffic" in the PED's is really not a logically consistent argument in my view. "Trafficking" in the classic sense of drug trafficking, usually refers to activities involving the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of substances that are illegal. The only way that term is understood to apply to the USPS "conspiracy" is that those alleged to have been involved help distribute it to others on the team. I suppose we'll never know, but if one aids and abets such distribution, one is also liable for the distribution itself. Aiding and abetting in this instance is the very act that USADA has alleged constitutes the conspiracy and the actions which justify tolling or not applying the ordinary 8 year statute, i.e., the fact that all these guys charged knew what was happening, concealed it and did nothing to cause it to be brought to light.

I think if USADA is insisting on a lifetime ban for a guy like Armstrong, and the rest of his teammates knew about the use, distribution and methods being employed for some or all the rest of the team to engage in prohibited doping, they all ought to get the same punishment, no more and no less.
On top of that, first people speaking up were already caught and totally arsed BEFORE they brought those selfless "huge, huge sacrifices" and "spoke up" to make cycling a better place to be. Totally selfless.
Heroic, and very impressive. Kudos. :D
Perhaps it was just Floyd running out of weed that set off that avalanche. Or he started to do the white line and was King Floyd for one day, writing emails the for whole night.

On top of that, Lance has much much more to lose than others.
For those guys it is much much harder, close to impossible, to just admit and tell everything that public or invetigators want to hear.
Of course interest in truth and really dirty details is huge, but I can also feel with those people who do not admit and "sing".
Most important, much hardest, but indespensible part is the admission to people very close to you, like your kids, parents etc.
Otherwise silence and keeping the dirty truth inside will destroy YOU, eat you up from inside, makes you crazy.
Of course just in case you lied to your beloved people all the time, and if they didn't have a clue about whats going on in the business or on planet earth.

Healthy and clever persons do not tend to destroy themselfes and everyone/everything involved. From a certain point on, it's just all about Schadensbegrenzung mixed with a good portion of egoismn.
Feeling the urge to survive is just human and should not be considered as a flaw or bad attribute.
So the healthy compromise would be to relieve your mind to people that seem important and are very close to you, and to the public and others....you just do Schadensbegrenzung, keep your head up, keep your mouth shut as much as possible, without looking too ridiculous.
Ridiculous like Ullrich looked many times. But often he just went full genius by doing and saying what advisors told him - has been listening to the wrong people, advisers and lawyers for most of the time. Didn't think, didn't act or speak for himself for a long time during this whole mess.
His biggest flaw, being totally dependent caused by very early success. Too early. Too big. Helpers for everything, probably even someone to tie his shoes. That sounds little bit overdone, but I'm pretty close.
Hijo Rudicio says it all.
But ok. Different person, different background and, compared to Lance, a little bit less to lose.

It's a very narrow path you have to walk. With mines all over the place. Impossible to serve everyone right.

That's what most Ullrich-haters over here never understood, and probably they never will.
While it is really easy to understand, isn't it ?
 
mewmewmew13 said:
I don't care if he ever comes clean if most/all of the evidence gets out there.

For those who think that there is no way that Armstrong could have done any of these things USADA have on him, then explain why several of the 'unknown' witnesses politely declined to go to the Olympics.
Precisely. As long as the evidence is there they can pick it apart forever, dissect it slice it dice it and it's just going to completely obliterate any legacy other than as a fraud and a hoax.

his groupies can do whatever they want, they're lost causes if they can't come to grips afaic. These are the people who's spouses have bangd everyone in the neighborhood, and everyone knows it but them. I can't be bothered.
 
ChewbaccaD said:
The precedent for arbitration is not the same case law as the GITMO stuff at all. Stick to things you understand, like unicorns and "miracles."

Nor do you understand the ruling Sparks made at all. Lance took his ball and went home. The USADA is under no obligation anymore to disclose anything, though thankfully, they will.

You really should quit posting about this because you are totally clueless.
I am not a big-time law stoodint like you are, but even I can grasp the concept that due process doesn't mean that the prosecutor hands you a list of the names and addresses of all the witnesses against you at the time you are bailed out of jail.:rolleyes:

You have to actually set a trail date in order to see any of that stuff. AFAIK
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Carlo Algatrensig said:
Hincapie and Levi? Well they might just be not talking till after Bruyneels arbitration hearing where I hope we get to see all the evidence presented in a public forum with the opportunity for cross examination which as you rightly say is an essential part of any legal process
So, JB has been intimidating witnesses into silence for decades? I guess that explains the general conspiracy theory nonsense now doesn't it?

How about we just see the evidence. USADA made this public, the ball is the court of their choosing, and you cannot blast omerta at the same time you use it.

I have never been a fan of anonymous accusations, and I believe I count Bradley Wiggins as at least one tallied vote on my side for disagreeing with anonymity.

All the cyclists claim that doping is endemic? Yet when specifics are needed they are silent? Except for Betsy Andreau?

This process reeks of witch hunt. If we invalidate our sport and its adjudicative processes tio facilitate a bunch of old grudges ... shame on us.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
gree0232 said:
I thought we were out to get dopers at all cost? Or is this a witch hunt for JUST LA?

I have been saying this about the LA case for years, and cycling in general. Anonymity is bad.

The same thing that was done to LA when he won his first Tour was done to Wiggins. Its was done to Cancellera when he won his races with crazy accusations of mechanical doping.

No cyclist can win a race these days without being smeared by the anonymous doping accusers. It is fundamentally flawed.

We must have a system that hangs on evidence, and if you cannot meet the bar of evidence ... then you lose. Its how every other legal process in the civilized world works.

There is a reason that we call them witch hunts and why they are considered so disgraceful. Moby **** was written a century ago to warn us about exactly what we see here.

Lance could be doped to the gills, but he is an American citizen and entitled to free, fair, process. Whether you like LA or not, to deny him that ... is wrong. Very wrong.
you have gone full genius
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
I am not a big-time law stoodint like you are, but even I can grasp the concept that due process doesn't mean that the prosecutor hands you a list of the names and addresses of all the witnesses against you at the time you are bailed out of jail.:rolleyes:

You have to actually set a trail date in order to see any of that stuff. AFAIK
Actually it does. When you are charged, you have a right to face all your accussers and all the evidence against you.

That process, known as discovery, begins with the charge ... not when you agree to go to trial. An open, unbiased, transparaent process is necessary for justice.

As soon as your attorney asks for it, he is entitled to it.

BTW - most BAR associations will kick a lawyer out for violating a code of ethics and deliberately with holding evidence.

But its good for USADA.

Once again, if the goal was to get LA to admit he doped, why hide the evidence? Why, when Betsy Andreau has been screaming for years, would you claim that LA, like some mophia hitman, has been silencing critics who have been anything but silenced for over a decade now?

You see, that is how evidence works, you claim initimidation ... and, well, the Italian Chap that lance rode down, not exactly silent is he?

This is a flawed process, and no one of sound mind should submit to it - definitely legal advice I would give a client.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
barn yard said:
you have gone full genius
And Lance is the one that is full of hate?

No point in attempting to discuss or diagree with the cult of lance hating ...

Wouldn't want important thing like due process to interrupt the hunt for the great white whale.
 
QuickStepper said:
The key phrase in your comment are the words by which you qualify the rest of your statements,i.e., "I . . think". None of us here now yet knows what the evidence really is, or what Hincapie, Leipheimer, et.al., really testified to seeing or participating in over the years. So your statement that they didn't do something is really just speculation at this point. You don't know and neitehr do I.

What we can surmise though is that someone like George, who was Lance's teammate from the beginning to end, his roomate on the road for all those years, and his constant companion and loyal lieutenant, knows and saw most of what there was to see. If Armstrong showed Landis where the refrigerator was in his apartment in Spain that were filled with blood bags for transfusions....Landis, a guy who had only been on the team for one or two years at the time... then you can bet George saw, heard and knew a whole lot more than even Landis did. Let's give George the benefit of the doubt that he didn't use PED's himself. But if he knew about Lance's use for as many years as USADA claims, then why is he not part of the same conspiracy, why would you contend that he didn't engage in the same cover-up, the same conspiracy that Armstrong has been accused of, and for which he's receiving a lifetime ban.

The argument that the ban Armstrong is receiving is only for trafficking and that George, Levi, et.al, didn't actually "traffic" in the PED's is really not a logically consistent argument in my view. "Trafficking" in the classic sense of drug trafficking, usually refers to activities involving the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and/or sale of substances that are illegal. The only way that term is understood to apply to the USPS "conspiracy" is that those alleged to have been involved help distribute it to others on the team. I suppose we'll never know, but if one aids and abets such distribution, one is also liable for the distribution itself. Aiding and abetting in this instance is the very act that USADA has alleged constitutes the conspiracy and the actions which justify tolling or not applying the ordinary 8 year statute, i.e., the fact that all these guys charged knew what was happening, concealed it and did nothing to cause it to be brought to light.

I think if USADA is insisting on a lifetime ban for a guy like Armstrong, and the rest of his teammates knew about the use, distribution and methods being employed for some or all the rest of the team to engage in prohibited doping, they all ought to get the same punishment, no more and no less.
Did anyone watch the intro to the us procycling challenge today? I found it interesting that Hincapie, probably his closest confidante in the race did not have any interview whatsoever. To me that tells me Hincapie is not in a position to say a word right now. Maybe I am wrong and just speculating but I found it remarkable.

Landis? It's pretty obvious that he found freedom when he had nothing left to lose. He lost a lot more than the tdf. He lost his family, his marriage, there was a suicide. If those things don't clarify in a person's mind what matters in this world then nothing will. It cleared it up for him and he unburdened himself.
 
gree0232 said:
So, JB has been intimidating witnesses into silence for decades? I guess that explains the general conspiracy theory nonsense now doesn't it?

How about we just see the evidence. USADA made this public, the ball is the court of their choosing, and you cannot blast omerta at the same time you use it.

I have never been a fan of anonymous accusations, and I believe I count Bradley Wiggins as at least one tallied vote on my side for disagreeing with anonymity.

All the cyclists claim that doping is endemic? Yet when specifics are needed they are silent? Except for Betsy Andreau?

This process reeks of witch hunt. If we invalidate our sport and its adjudicative processes tio facilitate a bunch of old grudges ... shame on us.
Good job, you got that in there, your check is in the mail.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
gree0232 said:
And Lance is the one that is full of hate?

No point in attempting to discuss or diagree with the cult of lance hating ...

Wouldn't want important thing like due process to interrupt the hunt for the great white whale.
you asked why the witnesses were silent, i gave you a rational and polite answer

you went full genius with your reply for some unknown reason

blocked
 
gree0232 said:
And Lance is the one that is full of hate?

No point in attempting to discuss or diagree with the cult of lance hating ...

Wouldn't want important thing like due process to interrupt the hunt for the great white whale.
Are you actually trying to say he didn't get due process?
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
Cobblestoned said:
On top of that, first people speaking up were already caught and totally arsed BEFORE they brought those selfless "huge, huge sacrifices" and "spoke up" to make cycling a better place to be. Totally selfless.
Heroic, and very impressive. Kudos. :D
Perhaps it was just Floyd running out of weed that set off that avalanche. Or he started to do the white line and was King Floyd for one day, writing emails the for whole night.

On top of that, Lance has much much more to lose than others.
For those guys it is much much harder, close to impossible, to just admit and tell everything that public or invetigators want to hear.
Of course interest in truth and really dirty details is huge, but I can also feel with those people who do not admit and "sing".
Most important, much hardest, but indespensible part is the admission to people very close to you, like your kids, parents etc.
Otherwise silence and keeping the dirty truth inside will destroy YOU, eat you up from inside, makes you crazy.
Of course just in case you lied to your beloved people all the time, and if they didn't have a clue about whats going on in the business or on planet earth.

Healthy and clever persons do not tend to destroy themselfes and everyone/everything involved. From a certain point on, it's just all about Schadensbegrenzung mixed with a good portion of egoismn.
Feeling the urge to survive is just human and should not be considered as a flaw or bad attribute.
So the healthy compromise would be to relieve your mind to people that seem important and are very close to you, and to the public and others....you just do Schadensbegrenzung, keep your head up, keep your mouth shut as much as possible, without looking too ridiculous.
Ridiculous like Ullrich looked many times. But often he just went full genius by doing and saying what advisors told him - has been listening to the wrong people, advisers and lawyers for most of the time. Didn't think, didn't act or speak for himself for a long time during this whole mess.
His biggest flaw, being totally dependent caused by very early success. Too early. Too big. Helpers for everything, probably even someone to tie his shoes. That sounds little bit overdone, but I'm pretty close.
Hijo Rudicio says it all.
But ok. Different person, different background and, compared to Lance, a little bit less to lose.

It's a very narrow path you have to walk. With mines all over the place. Impossible to serve everyone right.

That's what most Ullrich-haters over here never understood, and probably they never will.
While it is really easy to understand, isn't it ?
people lauded the brave witnesses for coming forward in secret, but to me it always seemed rather cowardly. as you say, they had a lot less to lose than armstrong, and it doesn't seem brave to work for someone for years - have no problem with what was going on - and then stab them in the back to save your own skin. armstrong is a very difficult character but i've never thought of him as weasel.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
gree0232 said:
Remember, ANY cyclist in the peloton will be subject to these rules if they are not done away with. Cadel, LeMond, Wiggins, everyone. All it will take is ten anonymous witnessed and a charge sheet without a like of evidence.
How do you know that there is no evidence when USADA has not revealed the fruits of their investigation?

I agree with you that, should ten eyewitnesses come forward with testimony and/or other credible evidence that says that Cadel, LeMond, Wiggins, or any other cyclist was using or trafficking doping products, those men would likely face sanction by their respective governing bodies.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
Actually it does. When you are charged, you have a right to face all your accussers and all the evidence against you.

That process, known as discovery, begins with the charge ... not when you agree to go to trial. An open, unbiased, transparaent process is necessary for justice.

As soon as your attorney asks for it, he is entitled to it.

BTW - most BAR associations will kick a lawyer out for violating a code of ethics and deliberately with holding evidence.

But its good for USADA.

Once again, if the goal was to get LA to admit he doped, why hide the evidence? Why, when Betsy Andreau has been screaming for years, would you claim that LA, like some mophia hitman, has been silencing critics who have been anything but silenced for over a decade now?

You see, that is how evidence works, you claim initimidation ... and, well, the Italian Chap that lance rode down, not exactly silent is he?

This is a flawed process, and no one of sound mind should submit to it - definitely legal advice I would give a client.
And when you plead guilty before discovery, you forego any of that crap you talk about.

See, that's what happened.

But you knew that, you're just trolling.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
gree0232 said:
And Lance is the one that is full of hate?

No point in attempting to discuss or diagree with the cult of lance hating ...

Wouldn't want important thing like due process to interrupt the hunt for the great white whale.
Okay, you just went galactic genius.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
TheEnoculator said:
I hope JV1973 will come back to the clinic and have a chat with us. I want his views on this.
more talk about moving on and learning from the past i suspect. from his article he does have a disagreement with many on the way dopers are demonised for making hard choices, so i don't think he would like the clinic's general attitude to armstrong. he also seems to believe that the sport has changed so there wasn't a need for the investigation in the first place - if that was your priority.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
people lauded the brave witnesses for coming forward in secret, but to me it always seemed rather cowardly. as you say, they had a lot less to lose than armstrong, and it doesn't seem brave to work for someone for years - have no problem with what was going on - and then stab them in the back to save your own skin. armstrong is a very difficult character but i've never thought of him as weasel.
You have got to be kidding us? Nevertheless, in the USA legal system, any witnesses compelled by subpoena to appear before a grand jury is entitled to receive immunity in exchange for their testimony.

Since the USADA process largely parallels the USA legal system, immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony should be expected. Without such, convicting anyone on a conspiracy charge would be essentially impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY