USADA - Armstrong

Page 453 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
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.
The way I see it, if I had to cheat to survive in any career (never mind a sport), I wouldn't be able to live with myself. We can talk about demonizing all we want, but at the end of the day, it's your own choice to participate. I don't believe for a minute of this "forced doping" crap. It's the cyclist's way to pointing fingers, "look, I didn't want to do it. He made me. I did it for him." He wasn't juiced up at gun point. He can quit anytime, there's no mob to go out and kill him if he talks, so I don't feel sorry if they get caught.

I personally have lived an honest life, in my career and when I race my bike, and I live very comfortably, so I have no sympathy for cheaters.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
mewmewmew13 said:
The backdraft from the shock that it really happened is affecting some here....:rolleyes:
....while you still look like kind of those Bettys that are surrounding some cool skaterboarders.
Looking sweet, applauding your beloved group of posters, scoring by moaning about Lance, supporting the clinics' echochamber by giving some useless comments that are lacking of any substance or are totally irrelevant most of the time. Ok, you are female, but really........beeing something like an appendage of the caecum - what does that feel like, dear Betty ? ;) :p

Man up!
Good night.

PS: I like her nevertheless. Don't get it wrong, please. :D
 
Aug 4, 2010
198
0
0
Turner29 said:
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.
I thought there was no parallel between USADA and Federal court. Judge Sparks ruled the Fed court system was no place for this, so yes I would expect no better treatment for the witnesses than for LA. Doping is doping where do we draw the line that doping is lifetime ban or its only a 6 month suspension ???
 
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.
Did you miss the fact that Lance went to federal court and the judge deemed the process fair and dismissed his case?
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
Turner29 said:
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.
you're making a legal point. i was making a moral one. the witnesses have been lauded as incredibly brave and wonderful - that is the general consensus. whilst i appreciate it was a terrible time for them too, and they never wanted the investigation to begin with, there is something unseamably about betraying someone for nothing more than saving your own skin. Even if you are extremely grateful for what they did, you must admit there is a seedy element to it. my impressions of their characters has been lowered.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
uspostal said:
I thought there was no parallel between USADA and Federal court. Judge Sparks ruled the Fed court system was no place for this, so yes I would expect no better treatment for the witnesses than for LA. Doping is doping where do we draw the line that doping is lifetime ban or its only a 6 month suspension ???
The overall USADA process is very much like the USA court system:

1) The USADA acts like a District Attorney.

2) Charges, when filed, are tried in a court. In this case, it is an arbitration panel.

3) At least one appeal route exists, i.e., the CAS.

Regardless of what Armstrong says, there is procedure and due process.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
you're making a legal point. i was making a moral one. the witnesses have been lauded as incredibly brave and wonderful - that is the general consensus. whilst i appreciate it was a terrible time for them too, and they never wanted the investigation to begin with, there is something unseamably about betraying someone nothing more than saving your own skin. Even if you are extremely grateful for what they did, you must admit there is a seedy element to it. my impressions of their characters has been lowered.
Yes. They are all seedy cheats and dopers. I never laud them as brave, nor does the press. And without legal pressure on them, none would have come forward.

As with any drug ring.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
you're making a legal point. i was making a moral one.
So, the head doper should get off free just because witnesses against him doped. That is your morality?

According to Tygart, Armstrong could also have cut a deal if he was willing to testify regarding evasion methods, who he received drugs from and such.

Armstrong chose not to cooperate.
 
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.
Do you also not think of Lance as a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a narcissist, a sociopath, a cad, a phony, a bully, a calculating predator, despicable, a coward (as well as your other versions of cowards), a manipulator, a user (of drugs), a user (of people), an enforcer, an intimidator and a liar a cheat and a fraud?

Pick all that apply. No limit.
 
Turner29 said:
So, the head doper should get off free just because witnesses against him doped. That is your morality?

According to Tygart, Armstrong could also have cut a deal if he was willing to testify regarding evasion methods, who he received drugs from and such.

Armstrong chose not to cooperate.
The apologists will never accept the truth unless it is on Lance's terms. They can't afford to face reality.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
ggusta said:
Do you also not think of Lance as a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a narcissist, a sociopath, a cad, a phony, a bully, a calculating predator, despicable, a coward (as well as your other versions of cowards), a manipulator, a user (of drugs), a user (of people), an enforcer, an intimidator and a liar a cheat and a fraud?

Pick all that apply. No limit.
i think it depends what he is doing. i think he is sincere in his charity - how could you not be and spend so much time and energy on it? when he hangs out with his comedian friends in hollywood, is probably a fun cool guy. but i do think he can be very devious when it comes to sport.

interesting article just in...
http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1799/Wilcockson-The-Armstrong-Case
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
you're making a legal point. i was making a moral one. the witnesses have been lauded as incredibly brave and wonderful - that is the general consensus. whilst i appreciate it was a terrible time for them too, and they never wanted the investigation to begin with, there is something unseamably about betraying someone for nothing more than saving your own skin. Even if you are extremely grateful for what they did, you must admit there is a seedy element to it. my impressions of their characters has been lowered.
Not all the witnesses were motivated to save their own skin. Frankie Andreu comes first to mind, next come the retired racers.
 
Race Radio said:
USADA will issue their report by next Thursday
I don't understand what you mean by "report".

Does this mean Tygart will release some of the evidence they've collected, or will it be a rehashing of what's transpired up until Armstrong decided not to go to arbitration?
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Turner29 said:
. . . 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.
As to the first part of the quoted material, I think you have it exactly backwards. Any witness who is called before the grand jury must either (a) testify and answer all the questions put to him/her or (b) must refuse to answer based on a valid assertion of 5th amendment against self-incrimination. If a witness asserts the 5th and refuses to testify, the only way he/she can be compelled to answer is if the witness is given immunity from prosecution. But no witness is "entitled" to receive a grant of immunity in exchange for testifying. I don't know where you came up with that but it's not correct. The legal thread is full of this stuff and it was discussed ad nauseum there during the grand jury investigation of Armstrong, so if you want to read more about it, I suggest you visit that thread, so we can stay on topic here.

As to your second point, well, since your first example was completely incorrect, I suppose the analogy doesn't hold at all. Oh, and by the way, under neither the WADA Code nor the USADA Protocols is anyone "entitled" to immiunity or a reduction in sanction. The question of an athlete's cooperation in any investigation "may" be taken into account in reducing a sanction, but it's not a matter of right.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Berzin said:
I don't understand what you mean by "report".

Does this mean Tygart will release some of the evidence they've collected, or will it be a rehashing of what's transpired up until Armstrong decided not to go to arbitration?
They'll issue an official decision and finding of fact, like they do at the end of all of the trials that actually do go to arbitration. Since I love repeatedly slamming this dude, it'll look something like this: http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/obee.pdf

I imagine they'll include a significant amount of evidence in the finding, just as they did in the above example, which was actually a "closed hearing". They'll have to make it very clear that they actually had real evidence. You and I know that, but they also know they're fighting the war of public opinion.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
131313 said:
They'll issue an official decision and finding of fact, like they do at the end of all of the trials that actually do go to arbitration. Since I love repeatedly slamming this dude, it'll look something like this: http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/obee.pdf

I imagine they'll include a significant amount of evidence in the finding, just as they did in the above example, which was actually a "closed hearing". They'll have to make it very clear that they actually had real evidence. You and I know that, but they also know they're fighting the war of public opinion.
Actually, because it didn't go through arbitration, the stuff that USADA transmits to UCI and WADA should look nothing like that O'Bee arbitration decision.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
gooner said:
Kimmage interview on Irish radio tonight. It starts at 32 mins and 30 secs in. He rips into the UCI and talks about spending the 2008 Tour with Garmin and hearing shocking stories about Armstrong. Listen to the Irish presenters after the interview finishes. They also criticise Armstrong and pull no punches in doing so.

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/22/friday/1/popup
Thanks for the post....sorry am hours behind...excellent talk, Paul Kimmage interviewed then comments...some great comments opinion on:

LA's doping vs cancer work
LA entitlement to refer to cancer vs Paul Kimmage
the subverting of Bassons
the significant information re: LA that is yet to be presented...

awesome!
 
Cobblestoned said:
....while you still look like kind of those Bettys that are surrounding some cool skaterboarders.
Looking sweet, applauding your beloved group of posters, scoring by moaning about Lance, supporting the clinics' echochamber by giving some useless comments that are lacking of any substance or are totally irrelevant most of the time. Ok, you are female, but really........beeing something like an appendage of the caecum - what does that feel like, dear Betty ? ;) :p

Man up!
Good night.

PS: I like her nevertheless. Don't get it wrong, please. :D
Sometimes you make me feel kind of slimy just for having read what you have posted.:rolleyes:
 
Apr 21, 2009
73
0
0
JA.Tri said:
Bock's letter to USADA, in closing:

"... Finally, you are on notice that if USADA makes any public statement claiming, without
jurisdiction, to sanction Mr. Armstrong, or to falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong’s reasons for not
requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of UCI jurisdiction and authority,
USADA and anyone involved in the making of the statement will be liable."

I feel sick. The UCI increasingly complict in this mess...from Start to Finish. Even now through their inaction they, UCI/Pat, muddy the already stuffed up pig pen.

UCI get off your fat butts and do something constructive for once in your lives!
Lance and his Lawyers will have to be very careful if they pursue Libel claims against anyone. Perhaps Lance and his Lawyers should read about Oscar Wilde's famous lawsuit of the Marquess of Queensberry, which unfortunately for Wilde was his ultimate undoing! And so perhaps for Lance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY