USADA - Armstrong

[Polish]

SCA have done more than monitor. They've sent a letter to Armstrong stating they will come after their money if titles are removed.

The TdF is won on the road - not in an arbitration setting. SCA should realize that better than most.

Won on the Road. Lots of eye witnesses of Lance's awesome win. Millions and millions of eye witnesses. "Who won the 2004 TdF"? Is this a trick question? Lance won. Duh. Doh.

 

[cleanmarine]

Feds did not supply USADA with any evidence.

Jeff Novitzky will follow the investigation. The testimony and information he obtained under oath must match with the output from the USADA process. USADA DID not obtain any "Formal Information or Testimony" from the DOJ. But the DOJ can after USADA hearings obtain any new insight and testimony discovered. I hope the guys keep their stories straight. Everything they say and do must match.

You can be sure the DOJ gave some "off the record" scoop to the USADA.

 

[Merckx index]

Thanks for that link, Kenff, that Tygart article is indeed very relevant to the Armstrong case. They make a number of arguments against the notion that USADA can be treated legally as a government agency, and discuss in detail Trevor Graham, a key figure in the BALCO case. But note that while a court ruled in the Graham case that USADA was not a government agency, nevertheless it also ruled that USADA did have to turn over documents that it had withheld on the grounds that it was not a government agency.

The article also points out that USADA cannot receive GJ testimony, just because it isn't a government agency.

The others are different because if they said nothing then they would not face any form of doping sanction nor would they be under investigation. They could choose to say nothing or "not remember". USADA had no evidence of their doping other than Landis's statement in his original letter. So if you were CVV you could say nothing and keep on riding. By testifying he brought risk upon himself. Risk of sanction and risk of intimidation.

Assuming they had previously testified under oath before the GJ that LA doped, then they could not lie about this in any sworn testimony to USADA. As you point out, though, they could decline to give any testimony. Which raises the question: why would they give testimony, unless they really wanted revenge on LA? As far as we know, the only ex-teammate who really wanted to see LA go down was Floyd. Even Tyler testified only because he had to, and only later did he feel it was important to go public. But if you believe what he said to 60 minutes, he felt very reluctant to rat on LA, and did it mostly because he could not offer a full confession of his own sins without mentioning LA’s role in them. IIRC, Floyd said much the same thing, actually. That one of the reasons he didn't confess earlier was because he couldn't do so effectively without implicating others.

So are George and all the others like Floyd or like Tyler? Did they decide to testify before USADA because they wanted revenge on LA? Or because they wanted to confess what they had done, and in the process had to implicate LA? Is there any alternative to those two possibilities?

How about this: USADA had enough information to make a case against one or several of them, so went to each and offered to give him or them a reduced testimony in return for testimony against others. In this way, they gradually obtained testimony for ten or more riders against LA as well as against each other. It was an interlocking case. As they obtained more and more testimony, they were able to bring more riders into the pool, making it clear to each that he was going to be sanctioned no matter what, that the only choice he had was to offer testimony on the others, including LA, in return for a reduced sanction (including, perhaps, a delay in any sanction until after this season or at least after the TDF).

IOW, a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

[DirtyWorks]

How about this: USADA had enough information to make a case against one or several of them, so went to each and offered to give him or them a reduced testimony in return for testimony against others. In this way, they gradually obtained testimony for ten or more riders against LA as well as against each other. It was an interlocking case. As they obtained more and more testimony, they were able to bring more riders into the pool, making it clear to each that he was going to be sanctioned no matter what, that the only choice he had was to offer testimony on the others, including LA, in return for a reduced sanction (including, perhaps, a delay in any sanction until after this season or at least after the TDF).

IOW, a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

IMHO, this is a most likely scenario. Nice work!

I think the riders could have either gone silent and then be put on the wrong end of a USADA investigation or just tell it like it is. One thing is for sure, there have been so many lies over so many years, none of them could keep the lies consistent across more than two people. As much as USADA powers are very limited, witnesses cannot lie because that sets up a perjury prosecution.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Floyd Landis decision outlines the hierarchy involved. The next four paragraphs are quotes from the Landis case that describe the relevant actors.

The Claimant, USADA is the independent anti-doping agency in the United States, responsible for the managing of the anti-doping testing and adjudication processes for the member constituents such as USA cycling.
. . .
The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI. The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.

UCI is the International Cycling Union and is the International Federation {“IF”} responsible for the organisation of the sport of cycling worldwide. It is an association of national cycling federations. The purpose of the UCI is to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline all forms of cycling. Under UCI Cycling Regulations (“UCI Rules”) Chapter IX, it is the responsibility of USA Cycling to conduct results management and hearings regarding doping allegations. As explained more fully below, USA Cycling through contract has delegated its obligation under the UCI Rules, Chapter IX, to USADA.

USA Cycling is the official cycling organization for road racing, mountain racing, track, cyclo-cross and BMX cycling in the United States and is responsible for identifying, training and selecting cyclists to represent the United States in international competitions.

USA Cycling is a member of UCI.

USADA is funded from those contracts and from a grant from the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. [url}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency[/url]

Both the UCI and USADA are signatories to the WADA code. http://www.usacycling.org/how-does-usada-ensure-a-fair-playing-field-for-amateurs.htm

USADA contracts with relevant testing authorities to provide drug testing programs. http://www.usada.org/contract-testing/

UCI is the ultimate authority. The UCI has delegated to USA Cycling the management of the antidoping program for US cyclists. USA Cycling contracts with USADA to run USA Cycling's antidoping program.

Which is why section 666 (which does not include anything like the language they quoted from 201) and NOT 201 of the code is relevant. Lance's attorneys know this obvious fact, and chose to put out a line of bull**** in their letter rather than address any real issues because in 666, there ARE NO issues related to any deals.

 

[avanti]

What amazes me is that no photographs have ever surfaced (to my knowledge) of doping taking place or of doping equipment. If others have witness doping why not photograph or record the event using cell phone or the like?

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks for that link, Kenff, that Tygart article is indeed very relevant to the Armstrong case. They make a number of arguments against the notion that USADA can be treated legally as a government agency, and discuss in detail Trevor Graham, a key figure in the BALCO case. But note that while a court ruled in the Graham case that USADA was not a government agency, nevertheless it also ruled that USADA did have to turn over documents that it had withheld on the grounds that it was not a government agency.

The article also points out that USADA cannot receive GJ testimony, just because it isn't a government agency.



Assuming they had previously testified under oath before the GJ that LA doped, then they could not lie about this in any sworn testimony to USADA. As you point out, though, they could decline to give any testimony. Which raises the question: why would they give testimony, unless they really wanted revenge on LA? As far as we know, the only ex-teammate who really wanted to see LA go down was Floyd. Even Tyler testified only because he had to, and only later did he feel it was important to go public. But if you believe what he said to 60 minutes, he felt very reluctant to rat on LA, and did it mostly because he could not offer a full confession of his own sins without mentioning LA’s role in them. IIRC, Floyd said much the same thing, actually. That one of the reasons he didn't confess earlier was because he couldn't do so effectively without implicating others.

So are George and all the others like Floyd or like Tyler? Did they decide to testify before USADA because they wanted revenge on LA? Or because they wanted to confess what they had done, and in the process had to implicate LA? Is there any alternative to those two possibilities?

How about this: USADA had enough information to make a case against one or several of them, so went to each and offered to give him or them a reduced testimony in return for testimony against others. In this way, they gradually obtained testimony for ten or more riders against LA as well as against each other. It was an interlocking case. As they obtained more and more testimony, they were able to bring more riders into the pool, making it clear to each that he was going to be sanctioned no matter what, that the only choice he had was to offer testimony on the others, including LA, in return for a reduced sanction (including, perhaps, a delay in any sanction until after this season or at least after the TDF).

IOW, a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

I expect, that when it all comes out (if it does), that we will learn that Lance got offered exactly the same deal by USADA as all of the other Posties (that's how I read the letter).

This scenario could also have played out in the context of the federal investigation. What if the feds worked their way up the chain to Lance and gave Lance immunity in exchange for his testimony?

Lance would have been in that dilemma, also. What would Lance have told the feds, under penalty of perjury, in secret proceedings? How would that dynamic impact what is going on now?

 

[LeakyBoat]

What amazes me is that no photographs have ever surfaced (to my knowledge) of doping taking place or of doping equipment. If others have witness doping why not photograph or record the event using cell phone or the like?

Given that the witnesses would be in on it; that's like filming yourself robbing a bank. Not a good idea.

 

[Polish]

How about this: USADA had enough information to make a case against one or several of them, so went to each and offered to give him or them a reduced testimony in return for testimony against others.
.

That would be my guess. Seems to be what Lance and his lawyers are guessing too.

But how did the USADA convince the riders they "had enough info to make a case". Did they hint they had access to GJ testimony? That would be misleading? Intimidating? Will this become public, these backroom deals? Who was offered what? Seems that should become public. No reason to hide that I would think.
Be truthful.

 

[cleanmarine]

What amazes me is that no photographs have ever surfaced (to my knowledge) of doping taking place or of doping equipment. If others have witness doping why not photograph or record the event using cell phone or the like?

What if photos and audios have been used to blackmail Lance in the past? I reckon he would have paid a pretty penny to make them disappear.

What has gone on in the past we will never know.

 

[MarkvW]

Given that the witnesses would be in on it; that's like filming yourself robbing a bank. Not a good idea.

Or insurance.

 

[thehog]

What if photos and audios have been used to blackmail Lance in the past? I reckon he would have paid a pretty penny to make them disappear.

What has gone on in the past we will never know.

I'm with you. I think some looked to protect themselves if things ever went south. Now things are going south and the dirt is out there. Some of it waits its delivery.

 

[Race Radio]

Nothing nefarious about it. Weisel essentially owns USAC. Wonderboy is on the Board of Directors of USACDF. Every person friendly with Weisel/Tailwind populate USAC's Board-level position. There is no federation indepence here. None.

USAC, and by extension the UCI can, definitely throw a spanner into what should be an open and shut case for USADA.

How would they do this?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What amazes me is that no photographs have ever surfaced (to my knowledge) of doping taking place or of doping equipment. If others have witness doping why not photograph or record the event using cell phone or the like?

Because only a moron would photograph their drug use???!!! Most obvious answer on the forum ever.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That would be my guess. Seems to be what Lance and his lawyers are guessing too.

But how did the USADA convince the riders they "had enough info to make a case". Did they hint they had access to GJ testimony? That would be misleading? Intimidating? Will this become public, these backroom deals? Who was offered what? Seems that should become public. No reason to hide that I would think.
Be truthful.

Who cares? No investigator or prosecutor or anyone else trying to uncover ILLEGAL ACTIVITY has to be a 100% Boyscout honest Injin' when dealing with liars and cheats.

Your trolling is getting really shoddy. No steely focus. Purrrrr.......

 

[cleanmarine]

It is a total Blitzkrieg on Lance.
He is on the defensive and staging his Alamo.
No one I mean no one in the peloton believes nor respects him.
But until the Big Ugly gets taken down no rider will speak his mind
The more Lance talks the more ridiculous he will look later

Lance you lost. Even your smoke screens and diversions are lame now.
The Indians are over the wall.

 

[MarkvW]

It is a total Blitzkrieg on Lance.
He is on the defensive and staging his Alamo.
No one I mean no one in the peloton believes nor respects him.
But until the Big Ugly gets taken down no rider will speak his mind
The more Lance talks the more ridiculous he will look later

Lance you lost. Even your smoke screens and diversions are lame now.
The Indians are over the wall.

An Indian blitzkrieg at the Alamo?

Interesting imagery!

 

[Northern rider]

What amazes me is that no photographs have ever surfaced (to my knowledge) of doping taking place or of doping equipment. If others have witness doping why not photograph or record the event using cell phone or the like?

"Johan, can you move to the left please, you're blocking the fridge, and Levi, Levi, LEVI, put a cap on willya ? There'll be way too much reflection otherwise. Now everyone say cheeeeeeese...and another just in case "

 

[Polish]

Who cares? No investigator or prosecutor or anyone else trying to uncover ILLEGAL ACTIVITY has to be a 100% Boyscout honest Injin' when dealing with liars and cheats.

Your trolling is getting really shoddy. No steely focus. Purrrrr.......

What is this ILLEGAL ACTIVITY the USADA is investigating?
Lance has already been cleared by the Feds on the ILLEGAL stuff.

And anyway, Novitsky and the Feds have to be 100% boy/girlscout honest.
So do the USADA. No cheating please

 

[ChewbaccaD]

An Indian blitzkrieg at the Alamo?

Interesting imagery!

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

 

[mikkemus23]

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Yes, IIRC Great Britain surrendered shortly afterwards.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What is this ILLEGAL ACTIVITY the USADA is investigating?
Lance has already been cleared by the Feds on the ILLEGAL stuff.

And anyway, Novitsky and the Feds have to be 100% boy/girlscout honest.
So do the USADA. No cheating please

Illegality can refer to violation of law or statute, and is not the sole province of a governmental criminal agency, but can also be used in relation to a private statute enacted by a private governing body charged with oversight of a particular group. Words have meanings, and community college doesn't do a very good job at teaching full context, so I forgive the ignorance. It is no surprise that the first sentence of your last stanza is also woefully incorrect.

Seriously, I think I am seeing time and again why you chose this guy as your bedroom poster infatuation. Too bad he doesn't have a cool satin jacket with his picture on the back for you to blow your money on...

Al dente focus!!! Slurrrrr!!!!

 

[MarkvW]

What is this ILLEGAL ACTIVITY the USADA is investigating?
Lance has already been cleared by the Feds on the ILLEGAL stuff.

And anyway, Novitsky and the Feds have to be 100% boy/girlscout honest.
So do the USADA. No cheating please

You made the "cleared" statement before.
Then you backed down when you were called on it.
Now you make the "cleared" statement again.

That's not a fair way to participate in a discussion.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You made the "cleared" statement before.
Then you backed down when you were called on it.
Now you make the "cleared" statement again.

That's not a fair way to participate in a discussion.

I want to see the first time Polish ever tried to discuss anything.

 

[Hugh Januss]

You made the "cleared" statement before.
Then you backed down when you were called on it.
Now you make the "cleared" statement again.

That's not a fair way to participate in a discussion.

Participate obfuscate. Potato potato.......