USADA - Armstrong

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
GotDropped said:
So, can anyone tell me what this has got to do with the subpoena that the Hog received last month? Does it have anything to do with it?

Are the media reports that Hog was served with papers by the feds accurate? If the feds served Bruyneel, then that's a separate thing.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
GotDropped said:
It will be interesting to see how they handle the statute of limitations. Maybe they MUST prove that Lance doped during his comback in order to be able to prosecute him for everything before 2005? Maybe they NEED to prove that it was ongoing? Any thoughts on this?

Evidence outside the 8 year statute can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period (for findings of rule violations) and results outside the limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statute has been fraudulently concealed. So the latter is to go after Tour titles from 1999 on.
 
Dec 13, 2010
189
0
8,830
thehog said:
They've been waiting patiently.

Insurance fraud anyone....

With interest and legal fees... Lanced raised it from 5 million to 7,5 million in the year or so he took to get paid... what about the 10 years it will take SCA to get their money back?
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
GotDropped said:
Yeah like, why would he take them down if he wasn't manipulating them?

I think one of the results mysteriously changed when they got updated on the Livestrong site also. I can't remember exactly what happened but it was shady. There's a thread about it somewhere on these forums. I asked about it on Livestrong but obviously got no answer and at some point all the blood test results did vanish.
 
Glad this charge was brought upon Armstrong finally, very interested to learn more about the blood values during the 2009/2010 period. As someone else before me already noted if Lance gets his TdF titles stripped because statute of limitations could be scrapped due to his comeback it will go down in history as the biggest sports comeback blunder of all time. I hope that happens just for the hilarity of it.
 
mastersracer said:
Evidence outside the 8 year statute can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period (for findings of rule violations) and results outside the limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statute has been fraudulently concealed. So the latter is to go after Tour titles from 1999 on.

Thank you.






..
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Kender said:
In short, if LA had have stayed retired they could do nothing. Now that they have evidence he doped on return, they can use all his 13 years from 1998 to 2010 to hang him up by the short and curlys, and strip him of everything.
If that happens, it would have to go down as the biggest failed comeback in the history of sport

yowza! you're right! Michael Jordan's stint with the Wizards suddenly looks pretty good!
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
offbyone said:
Awesome can we also strip the guys who doing amphetamines 30 years ago?

because 2 years ago is such a long time...(and he's still competing in professional sport).

The ball lickers need a new angle, the current apologist strategies are getting a bit tired.
 
gerundium said:
Glad this charge was brought upon Armstrong finally, very interested to learn more about the blood values during the 2009/2010 period. As someone else before me already noted if Lance gets his TdF titles stripped because statute of limitations could be scrapped due to his comeback it will go down in history as the biggest sports comeback blunder of all time. I hope that happens just for the hilarity of it.

Don't forget the Catlin antidoping sham... all whilst he had his hand in the cookie jar...


....and while I'm at it..... wasn't Daamstarg (sp?) still with Astana at the time?

and the UCI? asleep at the wheel?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
offbyone said:
Awesome can we also strip the guys who doing amphetamines 30 years ago?

by my reckoning, only if the evidence they doped 30 years ago lends weight to them doping in the last 8 years which leads to conviction on current doping charges. and only if they are american (i think) as this is an american statute.

could easily be wrong though, i'm no lawyer
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,020
0
0
haha got funny looks int he office when i read this and laughed...

BigTex GoingtoJail @Digger_forum 2h
Hey @juanpelota, @SimoneLeMond says relax!! Suck on those apples *******.
Retweeted by SimoneLeMond

you go girl
 
Just wanted to post that I am asking everyone to keep this topic to one thread (this one). I'd make it a sticky, but that isn't necessary.

On a personal note, I'll say what I always have, that my only hope is that the truth come out, all of it. The sport of cycling will ultimately be much the better for it.
 
thehog said:

Everybody talked to USADA, except Lance. Lance would have walked if he had talked!!

If the feds had Lance testify before the GJ under a grant of immunity a lot of possibilities emerge:
1. If he admitted to his doping to the GJ, why would he not admit it to USADA?
2. If he denied his doping to the GJ, is he still at risk for prosecution?
3. Would he dare go under oath in a USADA proceeding with the feds watching?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts