USADA - Armstrong

Page 52 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 27, 2010
5,121
884
19,680
The letter is dreadfully written.

I have to disagree, Hog. I think these are mostly reasonable requests, though I don’t know exactly what Luskin offered to say or do in any communication he had with USADA prior to the release of USADA’s letter.

Specifically:

1) I think USADA should tell LA/Luskin the names of the witnesses, with the understanding that the names don’t go public. Since the witnesses have already testified, I don’t see how intimidation can come into play. I’m sure the witnesses would prefer that LA never know who they are, but at some point he will have to know, why not tell him now? What’s he gonna do that he couldn’t do after any hearing?
2) As I’ve said before, I don’t think USADA has a strong case on the blood values in 09-10. The values are probably like Contador’s, suspicious but not compelling. But whatever they do have, they should make it available to LA (though in fact he must have it already).

If USADA’s case is as strong as they claim it to be, why not present the details to LA? Why give him the chance to complain about due process? I think in a case with stakes these high, USADA should go out of their way to accommodate any requests LA’s team makes. That will send the signal that they are confident they have a very strong case and don’t need any advantages other than the evidence itself.

They also need to do this to move the case forward. I believe USADA said it was submitting more detailed information to the Review Board. They would virtually have to if they wanted to ensure that the process will move on. It only makes sense to give that same information to LA. In fact, if they don’t, the RB might even rule against them.

I interpret Luskin’s letter pretty straightforwardly. He’s gearing up for battle, and wants to get as much information pre-hearing as he can. If LA had meant what he said about not fighting in the MJ interview, Luskin would not have written this letter.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
I still don't think Armstrong is truly going to fight this. This is all posturing. The MJ article was just the set-up. Lance is just trying to manage the public's perception of him for when he makes his big "Screw YOU guys, I'm going home!" stage show. Right now, he needs to build a huge chunk of momentum for when he turns his back on the whole process after a heavily orchestrated press conference.

We already know the rules. Lance has two options: a) walk away and let it all play out, and b) fight it, but be required to testify.

No way will Lance do the latter. So his strategy right now is to build public perception of this as the rape of a hero by USADA and their band of haters.

Even now, we're being played. He's known this was coming, and this week is all part of the plan. It's just ugly and unsettling to have to watch.
 
Feb 10, 2010
10,645
20
22,510
Merckx index said:
I have to disagree, Hog....
I interpret Luskin’s letter pretty straightforwardly. He’s gearing up for battle, and wants to get as much information pre-hearing as he can. If LA had meant what he said about not fighting in the MJ interview, Luskin would not have written this letter.

+100 to the bolded. Once again, the guy cannot, will not change. His word is worthless. The long, slow grind begins.
 
Jan 25, 2010
264
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I still don't think Armstrong is truly going to fight this. This is all posturing. The MJ article was just the set-up. Lance is just trying to manage the public's perception of him for when he makes his big "Screw YOU guys, I'm going home!" stage show. Right now, he needs to build a huge chunk of momentum for when he turns his back on the whole process after a heavily orchestrated press conference.

We already know the rules. Lance has two options: a) walk away and let it all play out, and b) fight it, but be required to testify.

No way will Lance do the latter. So his strategy right now is to build public perception of this as the rape of a hero by USADA and their band of haters.

Even now, we're being played. He's known this was coming, and this week is all part of the plan. It's just ugly and unsettling to have to watch.

+1

We all know lance armstrong is guilty.

I just hope no member of the "review board" is corrupted or allows himself to be intimidated by the jerk armstrong.
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
Merckx index said:
If USADA’s case is as strong as they claim it to be, why not present the details to LA? Why give him the chance to complain about due process?

Armstrong is going to complain and do everything he can to slander and intimidate Tygart no matter what the USADA does short of dropping the case. The USADA is also seriously outgunned in terms of the firepower of the Armstrong media, PR, legal and political influence team.

That being the case the USADA should only do what they are absolutely required to do and not give any advantage to LA's team they don't have to. They just need to very carefully follow the rules and procedures as they move forward.
 
Jan 25, 2010
264
0
0
henryg said:
Armstrong is going to complain and do everything he can to slander and intimidate Tygart no matter what the USADA does short of dropping the case. The USADA is also seriously outgunned in terms of the firepower of the Armstrong media, PR, legal and political influence team.

That being the case the USADA should only do what they are absolutely required to do and not give any advantage to LA's team they don't have to. They just need to very carefully follow the rules and procedures as they move forward.

+100

You nailed it dude
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
Merckx index said:
I have to disagree, Hog. I think these are mostly reasonable requests, though I don’t know exactly what Luskin offered to say or do in any communication he had with USADA prior to the release of USADA’s letter.

Specifically:

1) I think USADA should tell LA/Luskin the names of the witnesses, with the understanding that the names don’t go public. Since the witnesses have already testified, I don’t see how intimidation can come into play. I’m sure the witnesses would prefer that LA never know who they are, but at some point he will have to know, why not tell him now? What’s he gonna do that he couldn’t do after any hearing?
2) As I’ve said before, I don’t think USADA has a strong case on the blood values in 09-10. The values are probably like Contador’s, suspicious but not compelling. But whatever they do have, they should make it available to LA (though in fact he must have it already).

If USADA’s case is as strong as they claim it to be, why not present the details to LA? Why give him the chance to complain about due process? I think in a case with stakes these high, USADA should go out of their way to accommodate any requests LA’s team makes. That will send the signal that they are confident they have a very strong case and don’t need any advantages other than the evidence itself.

They also need to do this to move the case forward. I believe USADA said it was submitting more detailed information to the Review Board. They would virtually have to if they wanted to ensure that the process will move on. It only makes sense to give that same information to LA. In fact, if they don’t, the RB might even rule against them.

I interpret Luskin’s letter pretty straightforwardly. He’s gearing up for battle, and wants to get as much information pre-hearing as he can. If LA had meant what he said about not fighting in the MJ interview, Luskin would not have written this letter.

What I meant was the sentence construction and grammar was poor. Not from a experienced or well educated lawyer.

In regards to your post; Armstrong is trying to write the rules outside actually following them. He refused to attend a meeting before the charges were issued and he now has to the end of next week to respond to the initial charges. The process is well documented.

Witness protection and their identities is a fundamental right of those witnesses. He doesn't need to know who these people are. He can probably guess. All he wants to do is get their names into public to discredit them. That can't happen. I should state the witness testimony is not key in this case. All it does is back up the hard evidence and completes the picture.

If you read the letter Armstrong iis not actually asking for anything. He has till next Friday to submit his position. If he maintains he didn't dope then he's toast.

My feeling is he won't respond. He can't afford to... they have too much on him now.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
DirtyWorks said:
+100 to the bolded. Once again, the guy cannot, will not change. His word is worthless. The long, slow grind begins.

Nah. I really think (more than ever) that his comments are all just a part of an epic plan to say "FU" (in the biggest of ways) to all of his detractors. But first, he needs to build up a fairly frothy frenzy. That's what he's in the process of doing now.

Why do I say this? Because he doesn't want to actually FACE the actual evidence and sheer volume of eyewitness testimony. He'll do anything to avoid that, except for confession, so he's going to spin this as a huge f-job perpetrated against himself by haters with an axe to grind. And that requires some ground work. Welcome to week one of the ground work.

Soon, expect Lance to put his turncoats on trial all by himself. The court of Lance. If he can't control the show, there will be no show.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
thehog said:
What I meant was the sentence construction and grammar was poor. Not from a experienced or well educated lawyer.

In regards to your post; Armstrong is trying to write the rules outside actually following them. He refused to attend a meeting before the charges were issued and he now has to the end of next week to respond to the initial charges. The process is well documented.

Witness protection and their identities is a fundamental right of those witnesses. He doesn't need to know who these people are. He can probably guess. All he wants to do is get their names into public to discredit them. That can't happen. I should state the witness testimony is not key in this case. All it does is back up the hard evidence and completes the picture.

If you read the letter Armstrong iis not actually asking for anything. He has till next Friday to submit his position. If he maintains he didn't dope then he's toast.

My feeling is he won't respond. He can't afford to... they have too much on him now.

I will add to my post; this is not a battle as you state. It's due process. Armstromg signed the WADA code and is aware of the rules by which the sport is governed by. No person is bigger thn the sport. He knew what he was doing and he can't complain foul by the process which has initiated. if he didn't like it then either don't dope or find an alternate sport.

It really is very simple.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
Sir Charles
but I think steroids are legal in pro US team sport....
apparently.
Thats how I got to 120kg at Auburn
at 6'4"

m-3121.jpg
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
BotanyBay said:
Nah. I really think (more than ever) that his comments are all just a part of an epic plan to say "FU" (in the biggest of ways) to all of his detractors. But first, he needs to build up a fairly frothy frenzy. That's what he's in the process of doing now.

Why do I say this? Because he doesn't want to actually FACE the actual evidence and sheer volume of eyewitness testimony. He'll do anything to avoid that, except for confession, so he's going to spin this as a huge f-job perpetrated against himself by haters with an axe to grind. And that requires some ground work. Welcome to week one of the ground work.

Soon, expect Lance to put his turncoats on trial all by himself. The court of Lance. If he can't control the show, there will be no show.

Correct 100%.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
It's not his process, so he's not going to play in the game. His comments about them changing the rules are part of his setup to attack the entire matter as a screw job. He needs to attack the whole mess (wholesale) so he doesn't have to deal with the individual chunks of evidence. I truly believe that he will never actually dignify the USADA hearing with his willing participation. He'll just attack the sovereignty of the USADA itself. Travis is in for one hell of an examination into his personal life, just wait and see.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
BotanyBay said:
It's not his process, so he's not going to play in the game. His comments about them changing the rules are part of his setup to attack the entire matter as a screw job. He needs to attack the whole mess (wholesale) so he doesn't have to deal with the individual chunks of evidence. I truly believe that he will never actually dignify the USADA hearing with his willing participation. He'll just attack the sovereignty of the USADA itself. Travis is in for one hell of an examination into his personal life, just wait and see.

My understanding is USADA has sort advice from law enforcement on this matter. Any invasion of privacy or intimidation will be monitored very closely by the appropriate authorities.

Agencies funded in part bt the government have a responsibility to protect their employees. That they will do.
 
Jan 25, 2010
264
0
0
blackcat said:

typical armstrong troll tactic ... so lame ... trying to derail the thread with idiotic and out of place remarks

wanting justice is good, and justice will prevail, sooner or later. your lord pharmastrong is going down !!!!
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
BotanyBay said:
It's not his process, so he's not going to play in the game. His comments about them changing the rules are part of his setup to attack the entire matter as a screw job. He needs to attack the whole mess (wholesale) so he doesn't have to deal with the individual chunks of evidence. I truly believe that he will never actually dignify the USADA hearing with his willing participation. He'll just attack the sovereignty of the USADA itself. Travis is in for one hell of an examination into his personal life, just wait and see.

Agreed. USADA is required to simultaneously provide the athlete with any materials they send to the review board. Despite the suggestions in Luskin's letter (sent the same day he would have received the hard copy of USADA letter), I would be astounded if USADA is not following this basic protocol in what will be the highest profile case they've ever handled. So it would appear that Luskin is trying to establish some higher requirement (by requesting all of the detailed information USADA has) than what is dictated by USADA rules. While he will be entitled to all this information once the case proceeds to arbitration, at this stage, he's not entitled to it. I'm working on the assumption that USADA does not dump all of their file on the review board at this preliminary phase.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
thehog said:
I will add to my post; this is not a battle as you state. It's due process. Armstromg signed the WADA code and is aware of the rules by which the sport is governed by. No person is bigger thn the sport. He knew what he was doing and he can't complain foul by the process which has initiated. if he didn't like it then either don't dope or find an alternate sport.

It really is very simple.

With respect to the violations of the Code within the 8 year period, I agree with you. It's very simple.

With respect to the violations based on the older stuff, it is not simple.
There's the continued validity of Hellebuyck. There's the issue of whether Hellebuyck can be extended. Then there's the '99 corticosteroid issue--another really interesting limitation issue because Armstrong lied to defeat an actual investigation. And there may be others.

Armstrong's PR mission is to fudge the simple stuff with the complicated stuff and try to convince the public that everything about the issue is complicated. That's when the believers say yeah, and the when the eyes of the uninterested glaze over.

But it's not all simple.
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
MarkvW said:
But it's not all simple.

No its really simple. Its not in the least bit complex.

The whereabouts system along with the athletes charter that they all sign makes it very clear in regards to the rules.

Armstrong is aware of the rules. He had a choice. Either not participate or not to dope.

Thats all this is about. Did the athlete dope and if he did then the rules have been broken and the appropriate sanction will be applied.

Nothing more. No witch-hunts, no vendettas just application of the rules.

USADA also has a responsibility to the athletes that don't cheat. This is what they're protecting - the sport itself.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
thehog said:
No its really simple. Its not in the least bit complex.

The whereabouts system along with the athletes charter that they all sign makes it very clear in regards to the rules.

Armstrong is aware of the rules. He had a choice. Either not participate or not to dope.

Thats all this is about. Did the athlete dope and if he did then the rules have been broken and the appropriate sanction will be applied.

Nothing more. No witch-hunts, no vendettas just application of the rules.

USADA also has a responsibility to the athletes that don't cheat. This is what they're protecting - the sport itself.


Actually, it's NOT simply just about whether or not the athlete doped. It is about whether the athlete followed the rules--and whether the rules are properly applied to the athlete.

If this were simple, it wouldn't have taken so long to put a case against Armstrong together.
 
Today's la Gazzetta dello Sport's article I translate in full:

Medics and Trainers: A Clan in the Storm


Michele Ferrari: 59 year-old Ferrara medic, since 1995 at Armstrong's side

Luis Garcia Del Moral: 55 year-old Spanish medic of US Postal from 99-2003

Pedro Celaya: 56 year-old Spanish medic, allready with Lance at Motorola in 92

José Pepe Martì: 42 year-old Spanish trainer from Valencia at US Postal in 1999
------------

(Beside) a page of the letter in which the USADA, the American anti-doping agency, accuses the Armstrong system from 1998 to the present.

Johan Bruyneel: historic team manager of Armstrong

Pedro Celaya: medic of US Postal, Discovery Channel and Radio Shack

Luis del Moral: medic and trainer of US Postal

Michele Ferrari: medic and consultant of Armstrong

José Pepe Martì: trainer at US Postal between 1997-2007, and then Astana

are accused of:

-possession of prohibited doping substances/methods, such as EPO and blood transfusions;

-EPO trafficking;

-administration of EPO, transfusions and masking agents;

-assistance and encouragement of doping.

Armstrong: use of prohibited substances

Doping File: From Ferrari's Oil to Lance's Blood

Armstrong in the 15 pages of accusations and tricks to evade the tests. New list with Hincapie and Leipheimer?

by Luca Gialanela


There are no names of witnesses to protect them, nor places; merely a most ascetic, though terrible, list of accusations to deconstruct the system constructed by Lance Armstrong to cancel an era of cycling. Team doping from US Postal and beyond, from 1998 to the present: well then, here is the full scope of which the USADA wants to demonstrate, in a 15 page letter with which it has placed under investigation for doping the Texan, icon of the fight against cancer and inserted in Time Magazine's 2008 list of the top 100 most influential people on the planet. It's called "Conspiracy USPS": managers, athletes, medics.

The strategy of the document is clear: don't put all the cards on the table, don't furnish all the details of the investigation born during the penal one (subsequently archived) and taken flight in the spring following new information revealed about Ferrara by the Padova procura.

And is this precisely the point: the majority of the witnesses regarding the presumed doping practices during the years of US Postal (1996-2004), Discovery Channel (2005-2007), Astana (2009) and RadioShack (2010) were already well known by the spring of 2010, when Landis emptied the UCI's sack. Subsequently another ex-Postal rider, Tyler Hamilton, also talked. The USADA met with over 10 people between racers and members of various teams, to collect their statements about how doping was distributed and encouraged; but also masking techniques to evade the controls.

Some examples? For the USADA, Bruyneel, the trainer Pepe Martì and the medic Michele Ferrara had elaborated training programs based upon EPO and blood transfusoins between 1998 and 2007, as well as instructed racers how to dope themselves. The injections were also administered by medics Garcia del Moral and Celaya. The same Armstrong, between 1998-2005, distributed EPO and was between 2000-2005 seen to have, even during the Tour, injected himself with blood. Doctor Ferrara, it is noted in the document, "between 1998-2007 developed a method of mixing testosterone with olive oil to be administered orally" and, in this way, to have it not revealed in the tests. There are also pages on testosterone, saline solutions to lower hematocrit levels and deceive the controls, growth hormone.

Then there is the part about Armstrong’s blood values samples in 2009 and 2010, which for the USADA are "perfectly compatible with manipulated blood." With which certainty? It's not know that the UCI has ceded Armstrong's samples taken following his comeback (in 2009) to reanalyze them with new methods. It's more probable that the USADA had collected the Texan's samples (which it has the right to do on an American athlete, as does CONI in Italy) and compared those values to the history of his Biopassport. The agency's consultants would have consented to a doping hearing, as in other cases: Pellizotti, for example.

Also, in light of this development, other racers risk hugely: such as Levi Leipheimer and George Hincapie, who raced in the same team as Armstrong and are still active. According to a source there is about to be released a communication by USADA that regards them: in doubt, therefore, is placed their participation at the Tour de France and the London Olympics.
 
Feb 23, 2010
2,114
19
11,510
mastersracer said:
if you're watching Tour de Suisse right now - pretty strange Levi withdrew his name from Olympic consideration...

On the Ferrari dossier, Gazzetta is hinting today about a 90-person / €30m+ dirty list (
Shane Stokes mentions it here) and the tantalising teaser is "New list with Hincapie and Leipheimer?"

Unfortunately, I'm not a subscriber of the paying articles ...

http://www.gazzetta.it/premium/plus/Ciclismo/16-06-2012/carte-doping-olio-ferrari-sangue-re-lance-911549165907.shtml

... but I'm thinking the explanation for this message in a Bottle is right there. He can't bring disgrace to the US Olympic team now, can he? With their Olympic history...

EDIT See above ^ Thanks, rhub! :)
 

thehog

BANNED
Jul 27, 2009
31,285
2
22,485
MarkvW said:
If this were simple, it wouldn't have taken so long to put a case against Armstrong together.

Not its still simple. The length of time is due to the gravity of the doping. Alas its not just one man taking dope. He created a network of drugs throughout Europe and the US. It takes time collect all the evidence.

The simple part: did he take drugs? Yes. Was that in breech of the rules? Yes. Therefore = sanction. Simple.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,285
2
17,485
thehog said:
Not its still simple. The length of time is due to the gravity of the doping. Alas its not just one man taking dope. He created a network of drugs throughout Europe and the US. It takes time collect all the evidence.

The simple part: did he take drugs? Yes. Was that in breech of the rules? Yes. Therefore = sanction. Simple.

So long as you ignore the limitation issues, I agree with you. With that assumption, everything is simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.