USADA - Armstrong

[Jeremiah]

http://books.google.com/books?id=zJ...QG3ya3OCQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The whole basis for the title of the Hog's book was that after Armstrong came in 4th in the Vuelta and the WC, they were both talking about Armstrong's chances in the 1999 Tour and Armstrong suggested that he could win a few stages.

Even LA didn't think he could win the Tour until the Hog suggested "We Might as Well Marry a Hooker, I mean we might as well Win."

 

[Love the Scenery]

Greg Nicholson's reply on Armstrong's twitter account was perfect.
Greg Nicholson ‏@gdnicholson
@Velocentric A google search finds Tim Dockery is from Austin, Tx and works for Network Funding LP. ‪#connectthedots‬

There are 9 Tim Dockerys on LinkedIn. It could be the pastor of the Bible Gospel Baptist Church of Hickory/Lenoir, North Carolina. If it is the Senior Mortgage Consultant at Network Funding LP (Austin), why is a mortgage consultant's opinion the top item in a Google search on the subject of a USADA dope trafficking and conspiracy case? Is this the best the Google algorithms can do at providing Internet users with information?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Tim/Dockery

Is Google being gamed and would they change the search results if they became aware that they were being gamed?

 

[gerundium]

There are 9 Tim Dockerys on LinkedIn. It could be the pastor of the Bible Gospel Baptist Church of Hickory/Lenoir, North Carolina. If it is the Senior Mortgage Consultant at Network Funding LP (Austin), why is a mortgage consultant's opinion the top item in a Google search on the subject of a USADA dope trafficking and conspiracy case? Is this the best the Google algorithms can do at providing Internet users with information?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Tim/Dockery

Is Google being gamed and would they change the search results if they became aware that they were being gamed?

there are entire companies dedicated to getting your company to the top of a Google search.

 

[doperhopper]

wtf? white flag instead of yellow warrior costume and bracelet?

In an interview with Men's Journal magazine earlier this spring, Armstrong implied he would not fight if USADA brought charges. If he chose not to contest USADA's evidence, the agency could unilaterally impose sanctions.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is Google being gamed and would they change the search results if they became aware that they were being gamed?

They've been gamed by livestrong already. Most of that site's B.S. rightly deserves to be returned much lower ranking. It won't be the last time junk floats to the top.

I'm not ready to put the tin foil hat on over sudden search ranking. But boy, does that seem strange.

 

[thehog]

Greg Nicholson's reply on Armstrong's twitter account was perfect.

The article is also incorrect as the review board isnt selected by Tygart:

http://www.thesportjournal.org/arti...ping-agency-protocol-olympic-movement-testing


USADA ANTI-DOPING REVIEW BOARD
The USADA Anti-Doping Review Board (“Review Board”) is a group of experts independent of USADA with medical, technical and legal knowledge of anti-doping matters. The Review Board members shall be appointed for two year terms by the USADA Board of Directors. The Review Board shall review all B sample test results reported by the laborator7y as analytically positive or elevated in accordance with i below. Such review shall be undertaken by between three and five Review Board members appointed in each case by USADA’s Chief Executive Officer and composed of at least one technical, one medical and one legal expert.
Upon USADA’s receipt of a laboratory report identifying an analytically positive or elevated B test result, the following steps shall be taken:

USADA’s Chief Executive Officer shall appoint a Review Board as provided in Section (a) above.
The athlete shall be promptly notified of the date by which the athlete shall submit any written materials, through USADA, to the Review Board for its consideration. The athlete shall also be provided the name and telephone number of the Athlete Ombudsman.
The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the athlete and the athlete shall be entitled to file a response with the Review Board.
The Review Board shall be entitled to request additional information from either USADA or the athlete.
Notwithstanding the forgoing, the process before the Review Board shall not be considered a “hearing.” The Review Board shall only consider written submittals. Submittals to the Review Board shall not be used in any further hearing or preceding without the consent of the party making the submittal. The Review Board’s recommendations shall not be admissible in any further hearing or proceeding.
The Review Board shall consider the written information submitted to it and shall, by majority vote, make a recommendation to USADA with a copy to the athlete whether
or not there is sufficient evidence of doping to proceed to a hearing.
USADA shall also forward the Review Board’s recommendation to the USOC, the applicable NGB and IF and WADA.

 

[Anonymous]

You're still focusing on the wrong details. RR's post fills in a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I could never figure out how LA got into bed with the UCI. Finger pointing after the cancer diagnosis and the UCI's liability in ignoring abnormal test results may have resulted in deals being struck. We have no way of knowing for certain but it's a better explanation then I've ever had before.

Yes. As stated earlier, I had never connected those dots.

It would explain so much.

 

[Love the Scenery]

there are entire companies dedicated to getting your company to the top of a Google search.

That does seem like the most logical hypothesis to explain why the Dockery article tops Google's charts. However, such a company would have to be hired by someone, and the logical deduction, since it favors Lance's public image and argues that the investigation lacks legitimacy, is that it would be someone related to the accused party. And that leaves the question of why on earth they would put so much emphasis on an article apparently written by a mortgage consultant, instead of, say, the article in the Guardian's bike blog, which while wrongheaded is at least written by a cycling columnist at a respected newspaper.

I suppose one could argue that the writer's occupation does not affect the validity of his arguments, but realistically the opinion of experts does carry more weight in the court of public opinion than those of non-experts. If someone is paying to boost this article to the top of the Google charts, it's a strange strategy.

 

[mewmewmew13]

That does seem like the most logical hypothesis to explain why the Dockery article tops Google's charts. However, such a company would have to be hired by someone, and the logical deduction, since it favors Lance's public image and argues that the investigation lacks legitimacy, is that it would be someone related to the accused party. And that leaves the question of why on earth they would put so much emphasis on an article apparently written by a mortgage consultant, instead of, say, the article in the Guardian's bike blog, which while wrongheaded is at least written by a cycling columnist at a respected newspaper.

I suppose one could argue that the writer's occupation does not affect the validity of his arguments, but realistically the opinion of experts does carry more weight in the court of public opinion than those of non-experts. If someone is paying to boost this article to the top of the Google charts, it's a strange strategy.

He could easily be more than just a 'mortgage consultant'...

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes. As stated earlier, I had never connected those dots.

It would explain so much.

The elevated Hcg testicular cancer indicator that mysteriously didn't show up in a doping control in '96?

JV had discussions with LA about that and the UCI's liability. Have to find the post.....

 

[DirtyWorks]

You're still focusing on the wrong details. RR's post fills in a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I could never figure out how LA got into bed with the UCI. Finger pointing after the cancer diagnosis and the UCI's liability in ignoring abnormal test results may have resulted in deals being struck. We have no way of knowing for certain but it's a better explanation then I've ever had before.

Take a step back for a minute on that thinking.

If the UCI were located in the US, I'd say RR is onto something. But, the whole concept is a cross-border civil litigation for a liability claim against the UCI. That is a very long-shot scenario with no clear winner. And then that influence has somehow survived well into his retirement?

 

[sniper]

I'm wondering.

Will the name of Vrijman resurface in the USADA-Armstrong case?
I assume the 1999 EPO positives are among the hardest proof they have against LA.

Any definition of the idiom "well f*ck me" should contain a link to the 2005 Vrijman report.
To refresh memory, the link below brings you to the Asser Institute's journal. On the right hand side you find first a link to the Vrijman report and, more interesting, to WADA's response letter, and WADA's official statement in full:
http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=11&level1=13914&level2=13931&level3=&textid=36035

I'm not sure how much they paid Vrijman, but it must have been enough for him not to worry too much about his future as a scientist.

still interesting to know who actually paid him. UCI or Lance?

A sample from WADA's response:

WADA has read the above-mentioned article and is deeply troubled that a journal of the International Sports Law Journal’s standing could publish such an obviously self-serving document, in which the author of a supposedly independent report that was fatally flawed in all respects - methodological, legal and factual - makes an inherently biased attempt to justify and critique his own report.

 

[Merckx index]

He could easily be more than just a 'mortgage consultant'...

He’s a lawyer: http://iamtri.com/profile/TimDockery

 

[Jeremiah]

Take a step back for a minute on that thinking.

If the UCI were located in the US, I'd say RR is onto something. But, the whole concept is a cross-border civil litigation for a liability claim against the UCI is a very long-shot scenario with no clear winner.

You're overthinking it.

The test is simple and accurate and the is no way in hell LA's crazy high levels don't show up.

RR knows facts. Then speaks. This isn't up for debate.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zJ...2CQ&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[mewmewmew13]

He’s a lawyer: http://iamtri.com/profile/TimDockery

He looks like a perfect fit for Armstrong

 

[Jeremiah]

He looks like a perfect fit for Armstrong

Armstrong now dates big guys?

 

[MacRoadie]

Armstrong now dates big guys?

Well, is he blonde?....

 

[DirtyWorks]

You're overthinking it.

The test is simple and accurate and the is no way in hell LA's crazy high levels don't show up.

RR knows facts. Then speaks. This isn't up for debate.

There is no argument about the test itself and the results. But, the next leap is gigantic!

You are telling me that a Swiss organization is going to somehow be afraid of some (at the time) minor American athlete's American-style liability lawsuit? Really? That's possible, but it seems remote.

Fashion a scenario where Pat and Hein are enriched by Wonderboy's sponsors into retirement. It makes more sense.

 

[Anonymous]

There is no argument about the test itself and the results. But, the next leap is gigantic!

You are telling me that a Swiss organization is going to somehow be afraid of some (at the time) minor American athlete's American-style liability lawsuit? Really? That's possible, but it seems remote.

Fashion a scenario where Pat and Hein are enriched by Wonderboy's sponsors into retirement. It makes more sense.

But think about it... By the time the 1999 TdF rolls around LA was already untouchable. The UCI allowing the Del Moral backdated TUE demonstrates that.

And btw, it may have been a simple blackmail. No lawsuit threat necessarily... Just exposure.

 

[MarkvW]

You're still focusing on the wrong details. RR's post fills in a missing piece of the puzzle for me. I could never figure out how LA got into bed with the UCI. Finger pointing after the cancer diagnosis and the UCI's liability in ignoring abnormal test results may have resulted in deals being struck. We have no way of knowing for certain but it's a better explanation then I've ever had before.

So the UCI could be liable to the doper for suppressing the doper's positive test results?

Maybe in Bizarro Switzerland...

 

[The Gnome]

There is no argument about the test itself and the results. But, the next leap is gigantic!

You are telling me that a Swiss organization is going to somehow be afraid of some (at the time) minor American athlete's American-style liability lawsuit? Really? That's possible, but it seems remote.

Fashion a scenario where Pat and Hein are enriched by Wonderboy's sponsors into retirement. It makes more sense.

I agree..to say the UCI went along with it because of some fear of being hit by a cancer suit seems a very long stretch...it not only makes more sense but happens everyday that the most obvious is probably the truth: that lance was the golden (cash) cow...not just for cycling and the lucrative american market but for lots of crap (ie nike ect)...it was a feeding frenzy for money...still is obviously given the BS that most of the media is going along with...

 

[Krebs cycle]

True - thats what you stared with, but then you modified your position and wrote:


To the highlighted - the only one saying he is a "donkey" is you. However, I think you will find LA didnt win a plethora of anything. Yes, one stage in TdF, a WC but he didn't particularly excel as a junior.

You are starting with a position that because he was a good racer in single day events (which he was) that it shows something of GT potential, it doesn't.

Srsly doc? I respect your opinions and in depth knowledge of cycling, but how can you say I am the only one saying LA is a donkey? I have been saying the complete opposite all along. Many others in this thread, including you, are disputing this and are thus implying either directly or indirectly that LA simply didn't have the natural goods to ever be a top 10 and maybe even podium placer if he were clean in a dirty peloton and you said yourself, you think he never would have won had pro-cycling been a totally clean sport. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are basing it on several lines of reasoning 1) LA did not excel as a junior and he was only a "good" one day race 2) good one day racers cannot become GT contenders and 3) he did not shine at stage racing prior to being diagnosed with cancer

I disagree with the first because history clearly shows he was an outstanding junior endurance athlete.....

1989 and 1990 at 18 and 19, respectively. National sprint-course triathlon champion
1991 19 U.S.A. National Amateur Road Cycling Champion
1992 20 14th place in Olympic Road Race; Barcelona
1993 21 1st place in World Championships, Road Racing;
Oslo. Winner, one stage in Tour de France

Regarding lines of reasoning 2 and 3, it is my opinion that objectivity becomes clouded as soon as he entered pro-cycling due to the unknown doping factor, but regardless nobody has given a satisfactory reason why an outstanding junior and good one day racer cannot become a GT contender. Why not? "oh oh its all about recovery"?... no sorry, that is an unsatisfactory answer because objectivity is clouded due to doping in cycling.

The only real objective data we have on LA is what he achieved as a junior, and that is what I am largely basing my reasoning on.

I think some people want to discredited LA so much that they overlook the natural talent and potential he very clearly did show as a junior and then make believe that he never could have been a GT contender without PEDs even if his rivals were clean too. I want him discredited too, but having watched Cadel Evans' rise from skinny mtb kid to TdF winner, I can at least recognize the fact LA was also a similarly outstanding junior. I think Cadel possesses more natural talent than LA because his raw numbers are higher than published values for LA, but then again, I believe Cadel has remained a clean rider in a peloton which is still not completely free of PEDs, and he likely would have been a multiple TdF winner had pro-cycling been much cleaner over the past 10yrs (and if he had a stronger team starting back in 2006).

Anyway, I am repeating myself, you are repeating yourself. I don't want to take the thread on a tangent any longer.

 

[The Gnome]

I don't quite understand the arguments to Krebs here...most here agree all the top riders were juiced...I am no scientist but it makes sense to me that there are gonna be a few guys genetically above the others and juice is gonna help them win...I don't hear him defending him at all...to say he could have been or was one of the top riders in a clean peloton is not defending the guy.... I really don't think you can turn a total donkey into a guy like Armstrong...Riis aside, and personally, I don't think Riis was a total donkey...he lost a good amount of weight which is gonna help...and he won one tour being all juiced up...

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't quite understand the arguments to Krebs here...most here agree all the top riders were juiced...I am no scientist but it makes sense to me that there are gonna be a few guys genetically above the others and juice is gonna help them win...I don't hear him defending him at all...to say he could have been or was one of the top riders in a clean peloton is not defending the guy.... I really don't think you can turn a total donkey into a guy like Armstrong...Riis aside, and personally, I don't think Riis was a total donkey...he lost a good amount of weight which is gonna help...and he won one tour being all juiced up...

No pro is a donkey.

Bulky guys like Armstrong are helped more by oxygen vector doping than skinny Colombian climbers.

Armstrong himself did not think he could win a Tour until late '98. When Bruyneel approached LA, LA told him he could win stages.

 

[Jeremiah]

So the UCI could be liable to the doper for suppressing the doper's positive test results?

Maybe in Bizarro Switzerland...

Yup, the UCI thought they were doing him a favor and almost wound up with his death on their hands. Quite simple.

They owed him big time and we all know what upstanding citizens Hein and Pat are.

My question is more about the source and confirmation for this, RR. Does he really need to start making stuff up at this point?