USADA - Armstrong

[BillytheKid]

You think they pulled Armstrongs name out of a hat?

Also, a "selective few have been prosecuted"? Have a look at the TdF 2005 top 10, Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Vino, Leipheimer, Rasmussen, Evans, Landis, Pereiro, Moreau.
Who are the selective few there?

Just answer that one above. Valverde eventually fell too, but that was mostly do to pressure from the Italians. AC to be back this fall.

 

[Merckx index]

In summation, for anyone who may be suffering from self abuse induced myopia, or just skim read it, this is a pretty clear indication that USADA is trying to introduce evidence from pre 2004 to corroborate the charges they are trying to bring related to after that period. It doesn't relate necessarily to charges pre 2004. I think they are fully aware that pre 2004, there is not much that the WADA statute of limitations will let them do. Those quoting the Eddy Helleybuck case forget that it didn't reach CAS. It was only heard by the American Arbitration Panel. Now, why would they need further evidence? Could it be that the only direct evidence they have from 2004 is good old Floyd? Floyd, who has shown himself to be such a reliable witness and has covered himself in so much glory for his behaviour at his own arbitration hearings (remember that call to Lemond) and his continued denial of having actually failed that test in 2006. What appears to be happening is that Travis Tryhard is attempting to argue that testimony from riders pre 2004, will prove that Armstrong was a doper then and therefore must have continued doping during and after 2004. As for the 2009 and 2010 blood values. Well, if they were consistent with manipulation, why has it taken USADA 3 years to come to that conclusion? Why did they not charge him earlier, before he had retired from cycling?

This is a good post, and you might be right. But note that USADA states:

With respect to each of the Respondents there exists substantial evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of doping that occurred within eight years of the date of this letter.

If this is true—and we will have to wait to see how true it is—then they don’t need the pre-2004 evidence to corroborate. In fact, I think you have it backwards here. Your interpretation is that they need the pre-2004 evidence to make their case for 2004 and beyond. But if they have “substantial evidence” for 2004 and beyond, they don’t need it.

Then why do they mention it as corroborating evidence? In the letter, they put it the other way round, that pursuing the case for 2004 and beyond will allow them to bring in earlier evidence:

Evidence of doping throughout the time period described is relevant and will be admissible in any eventual hearing [because]…it can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period.

IOW, they will be allowed to use earlier evidence because it corroborates, not, as you imply, that they will be able to corroborate because they are allowed to use the earlier evidence. I think they are trying to use its relevance as a way of being able to extend the SOL. And they need some trick like this, because I agree with you that they may have trouble using the Hellebuyck precedent to get sanctions for pre-2004. But they don’t need the precedent to use the earlier evidence to add to the 2004 and beyond evidence. They are allowed to do that, at least they claim they can (lawyers feel free to step in here), regardless of the Hellebuyck decision.

By the way, given how crucial SOL is playing here, why did they wait for the federal investigation to play out before beginning their own? They could have written this letter, I’m pretty sure, a year ago, bringing 2003 within the SOL. I understand they wanted the fed investigation to finish first, but they must have realized the possibility that it would end up with no charges brought, and thus wasting one year of possible sanctions.

 

[Captain Sensible]

No.....it is just wishful thinking

Thank you .

 

[Race Radio]

Puerto took down Basso and Ulrich, but a lot of the Spanish riders associated with it walked...like the blood bag marked AC. A simple DNA test might have linked it to any rider with those intitials. It was never done.

Alberto Contador was called into court, but walked away from that one. Ulrich was not so lucky.

Really? What about Vino? Tyler? Floyd? Did they walk?

Face it, the guy who got special protection was Lance. USADA is about to fix that

 

[MarkvW]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth again.

Maybe you should square your predictions about LA rolling over in that other thread with the good show you will want to watch when he fights it.

But it's not just LA, Chrissie. It's the whole doping team!

 

[JRTinMA]

That does not mean that they were clean.

Microdosing could have been and option. There is the HGH, testosterone and other recuperation meds that are difficult to trace down.

Why would you micro dose when there was no test to catch you? With the exception of the tHct test which was very easy to pass with the smallest advanced warning. Only 8% of the the stage winners tested positive in 1999, and thats if you assume all of the other positives came from different riders. Since 6 of the 13 came from LA how likely is it the others were all single positives? Cycling may be filthy from top to bottom but it sure doesn't look like it was in 1999.

 

[Race Radio]

Remember who owns WTC....and the quote regarding "suspended pending further review"

we'll see....

WADA's code clearly states that it's statute of limitations is 8 years. As is USADA's. Trying to rewrite that code isn't going to wash for Tryhard in the long run, and possibly not even in the short term. What he really wants is a confession of some sort, and is hoping that by threatening everything that he has that LA will fold. Really don't see it happening.

It appears you are unaware of the Hellenbuyck ruling

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Legal precedent is on USADA's side.

 

[JRTinMA]

....and therefore 1/2 of them were!

so 50 percent of the peloton tested were positive for EPO...well, so it's maybe not "everyone" but I am pretty sure I know which 50 percent was nearer the podium.

It was 13 out of 87, you both should brush up on your math.

 

[college]

So you didn't read the charging letter. Maybe you should.

Lance has time to respond. Lance was given an opportunity to meet with USADA before the charges were made public. Lance refused.

In the charging letter it is stated that the witness's will remain unknown for now, not unknown forever.

Too bad the post where I answered your absurd comments about cancer where I said that I had read the question where you asked me if I had read the letter.
It is a shame that you think when someone charges someone with something that they can just sit on the evidence. Give it up when they feel like it. This usada is a joke because they “act” like some type of real authority but they have no criminal jurisdiction.

 

[college]

It appears you are unaware of the Hellenbuyck ruling

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Legal precedent is on USADA's side.

That is just it isn’t it? There is no Legal precedent. It might be a usada precedent but not a “legal” one. If this was a true court of Lance’s peers then he would not have any trouble dropping these witch hunters

 

[DirtyWorks]

And yet, about 1/2 of the tested 1999 Tour samples tested retrospectively were NOT positive for EPO. The reason people believe that no one was clean is largely because of the myth perpetuated by Armstrong, both in the media and to his teammates.

I agree with what you are saying, but Tailwind's teams weren't the only ones with a team-wide doping program. For sure, Tailwind took it to the extreme.

I suspect there were more clean(er) guys groveling through the 99-03 tours than people realize. It wasn't everyone.

Again I agree, but the way the anti-doping system is set up, there's little way to know with any confidence. The same liars who can deny they are doping will magically produce tear-filled testimonial that they too were victims of a dope-saturated field. Bottom line, this gets back to the UCI and their dope-friendly policies. A system that legitimately discourages doping would be very different.

Also don't forget the test results are interpreted in a range of values from negative->suspicious->positive with a very heavy bias toward eliminating false positives such that a suspicious value is very likely a positive. The false positive bias is a legitimate limitation.

 

[Race Radio]

It was 13 out of 87, you both should brush up on your math.

Actually they used a more strict measurement for the retro testing. IIRC Armstrong had 2 other samples that showed evidence of EPO

 

[Merckx index]

It was 13 out of 87, you both should brush up on your math.

This is correct. But remember that a) these were stored samples, subject to degradation that probably turned many positives into negatives; b) there were many borderline tests that had to be scored negative though they likely were positive. Ashenden noted that an additional two of LA's samples were almost certainly positive.

So 13/87 is probably a significant underestimate. The fraction is significantly lower than 6/13, which strongly suggests that there was less doping among the other riders tested, but the real proportion of positives was very likely much higher than this.

 

[JA.Tri]

Of course it is a waste of taxpayer money - but THIS time Lance has the power to stop the waste. Lance can nip this witch hunt right in the bud.

Lance could NOT stop the waste with the Fed Investigation. The Feds will do whatever they want. They ended up clearing Lance, but a waste just the same. Why spend millions and millions of dollars telling us what we already know? Oh well, at least Lance was cleared.

But this next witch hunt - the USADA witch hunt - Lance can stop. Stop the waste of taxpayer money. Write a letter pointing out the Spite and Malice and refusing to be witch hunted. "See ya witch hunters. Wouldnt want to be ya". There will be NO hearing. Good Lord, why would there be a hearing? That is just what the money wasting witch hunters are hoping for. Lance will nip that right in the bud. Nip nip nip.

Although, there probably needs to be a Federal Investigation into the USADA.
Something certainly does NOT smell right with this "case". File a motion maybe?

I don't recall Lance being "cleared".

Case not pursued...sure but that is no declaration of innocence.

 

[Race Radio]

That is just it isn’t it? There is no Legal precedent. It might be a usada precedent but not a “legal” one. If this was a true court of Lance’s peers then he would not have any trouble dropping these witch hunters

Wrong again. Tolling is common in SOL cases.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This usada is a joke because they “act” like some type of real authority but they have no criminal jurisdiction.

Your willful ignorance makes you out to be a fool. USADA's jurisdiction is sports federations and their licensees. Have a license with USAC? Then you too are subject to USADA's authority.

And all individual legal duties apply. So one cannot lie in USADA testimony and expect to walk away without perjury charges. That's going to make it nearly impossible for Wonderboy to use his old tricks.

 

[straydog]

It appears you are unaware of the Hellenbuyck ruling

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Legal precedent is on USADA's side.

now you're just upsetting me for not reading my first post where i addressed Helleybuck....

 

[Anonymous]

Puerto took down Basso and Ulrich, but a lot of the Spanish riders associated with it walked...like the blood bag marked AC. A simple DNA test might have linked it to any rider with those intitials. It was never done.

Alberto Contador was called into court, but walked away from that one. Ulrich was not so lucky.

Odd that neither Basso or Ullrich, like Lance, ever tested positive.

 

[straydog]

It was 13 out of 87, you both should brush up on your math.

sorry I realise not using emoticons made you miss the sarcasm so....

 

[MarkvW]

This is a good post, and you might be right. But note that USADA states:



If this is true—and we will have to wait to see how true it is—then they don’t need the pre-2004 evidence to corroborate. In fact, I think you have it backwards here. Your interpretation is that they need the pre-2004 evidence to make their case for 2004 and beyond. But if they have “substantial evidence” for 2004 and beyond, they don’t need it.

Then why do they mention it as corroborating evidence? In the letter, they put it the other way round, that pursuing the case for 2004 and beyond will allow them to bring in earlier evidence:



IOW, they will be allowed to use earlier evidence because it corroborates, not, as you imply, that they will be able to corroborate because they are allowed to use the earlier evidence. I think they are trying to use its relevance as a way of being able to extend the SOL. And they need some trick like this, because I agree with you that they may have trouble using the Hellebuyck precedent to get sanctions for pre-2004. But they don’t need the precedent to use the earlier evidence to add to the 2004 and beyond evidence. They are allowed to do that, at least they claim they can (lawyers feel free to step in here), regardless of the Hellebuyck decision.

By the way, given how crucial SOL is playing here, why did they wait for the federal investigation to play out before beginning their own? They could have written this letter, I’m pretty sure, a year ago, bringing 2003 within the SOL. I understand they wanted the fed investigation to finish first, but they must have realized the possibility that it would end up with no charges brought, and thus wasting one year of possible sanctions.

What about this? Lance does not contest the post 2004 incidents and fights only the early stuff? His only defense is that Hellebuyck does not extend as far as his case.

Assume that Lance wins on the Hellebuyck issue.

Can the before 2004 doping be introduced at the hearing for any other purpose?

 

[131313]

This is correct. But remember that a) these were stored samples, subject to degradation that probably turned many positives into negatives; b) there were many borderline tests that had to be scored negative though they likely were positive. Ashenden noted that an additional two of LA's samples were almost certainly positive.

So 13/87 is probably a significant underestimate. The fraction is significantly lower than 6/13, which strongly suggests that there was less doping among the other riders tested, but the real proportion of positives was very likely much higher than this.

I agree, and I didn't mean to imply that the retro testing accurately reflected the % of guys boosting. I simply think it's another indication that not *everyone* was doping. I wouldn't even attempt to put a number on it. But I don't believe there's any evidence to support the notion that everyone was doping. It's just a convenient line for the doping apologists.

 

[BillytheKid]

Really? What about Vino? Tyler? Floyd? Did they walk?

Face it, the guy who got special protection was Lance. USADA is about to fix that

Are they Spanish? I do see your point, but new riders and new stars come in, the game goes on in my opinion. Vino probalbly still thought he was in, Tyler and Floyd too, but Lance had a good first departure time...and, and, yes might of thought himself above it all as he returned to find an unfriendly climate.

In one sense I see you as being right, and in the other not, becasue Armstrong going down will make little difference about PED sport abuses in the long run. Human nature and our history have a way falling back into original sin.

The USADA should do their jobs, however, and that does include the Armstrong ruling.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Puerto took down Basso and Ulrich, but a lot of the Spanish riders associated with it walked...like the blood bag marked AC. A simple DNA test might have linked it to any rider with those intitials. It was never done.

Alberto Contador was called into court, but walked away from that one. Ulrich was not so lucky.

That is because they had a lot more info on Basso & Ullrich (&Valverde) than just DNA, they had money transfers & what products were used.
It is all about the evidence gathered - which is why AC (which may have been Colom) walked and why some got done.

 

[Anonymous]

Too bad the post where I answered your absurd comments about cancer where I said that I had read the question where you asked me if I had read the letter.
It is a shame that you think when someone charges someone with something that they can just sit on the evidence. Give it up when they feel like it. This usada is a joke because they “act” like some type of real authority but they have no criminal jurisdiction.

Then go ahead and read the charging letter.

While you are at it maybe brush up on what USADA actually is and charged with doing.

 

[joe_papp]

That is just it isn’t it? There is no Legal precedent. It might be a usada precedent but not a “legal” one. If this was a true court of Lance’s peers then he would not have any trouble dropping these witch hunters

lol pay no attention to this one's absurd claims. of course it equals legal precedent. now stop throwing your toys out of the playpen...