USADA - Armstrong

[webbie146]

But one of the reasons for blood doping’s popularity is that until recently athletes could not test positive for their own blood. In the last few years, however, anti-doping laboratories have developed techniques for detecting blood transfusions by looking for suspicious fluctuations in various blood measurements and ratios. They look at reticulocytes and hemoglobin levels, and even look for traces of plasticizers that leach out of blood bags. The more blood samples are collected from an athlete, with scores compared over months and years, the more glaring a sudden spike in one blood value might look. A study of Armstrong’s blood samples, combined with testimony from cooperating witnesses who can pinpoint the dates of alleged transfusions, would make for a compelling presentation if USADA’s action advances into arbitration proceedings.

...that athletes on the blood-doping program would withdraw their blood eight to 10 weeks before the Tour de France, wait for their body to replenish the red blood cells, reinfuse the stored blood, and repeat the process. “You reinsert the older blood, then withdraw the same amount, but this time you withdraw a little more,” the person said. The goal was to get a mixed population of red blood cells in the stored blood bag so that anti-doping officers wouldn’t notice a suspicious spike in the number of old cells. “Any introduction of blood shows a different population of red blood cells,” the person said. “They’ve been sitting in a bag for a month. It doesn’t make sense — a jump in aging red blood cells? If you reinfuse several times you get a count of this many old ones, this many new ones. It’s very balanced... It has a lot of precision and variables.”

Interesting.

I got 1 question though.

`The organization’s letter says data from Armstrong’s blood samples collected in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation.”

Those blood samples are taken by the uci right? How come the uci looks at the samples and apparently concludes they are ´normal´ yet the USADA states they are ´fully consistent with blood manipulation´ ?

 

[Parrot23]

Slightly off topic, but just realized there are perhaps strong similarities between the Armstrong crowd, Livestrong, etc., and the Scientologist hierarchy. Big bucks using legal heavy hitters if you dare challenge them.

"Hey, we're all just raising our kids, doing great things for healthcare, and being patriotic Americans!"

Poor guys who speak the truth about how the above got there! I hear USDA is reported to have been concerned about witness intimidation from the start.

(Correction: USADA ! We don't want d'em intimidation of any agriCULTural. species, ya know?)

 

[ManInFull]

Could I politely request that people find a different analogy to make this point?

We're talking about people who are accused to cheating to win bike races, which in this case is not even a criminal offence. Comparisons to people who conspired to commit genocide are ridiculous and offensive on many levels.

+1 Let's have some perspective!

 

[hrotha]

Interesting.

I got 1 question though.

`The organization’s letter says data from Armstrong’s blood samples collected in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation.”

Those blood samples are taken by the uci right? How come the uci looks at the samples and apparently concludes they are ´normal´ yet the USADA states they are ´fully consistent with blood manipulation´ ?

Assuming the UCI wasn't actively protecting anyone here: they didn't conclude they were "normal". Check the suspicion index for the 2010 Tour: everything above 4 or 5 was considered pretty hard to explain without blood doping, and yet not even the people with a 9 or a 10 were prosecuted. Why? Because it's hard to make a blood passport case stick. Pellizotti almost walked, and if he had he might have bankrupted the UCI or something. It happened with Contador too: his values were consistent with blood doping according to Ashenden, but by themselves they wouldn't have won a case.

 

[thehog]

To what end?

From my view that would be solely so the riders get pestered and he can potentially get to them before November. But thats a long shot. If one of them confirms their testimony to the media then Armstrong is sunk.

I don't think the names need to leaked tbf. Its fairly common knowledge to all of us who the riders are so I imagine Lance will have zero surprises when the names of those who have talked are officially made known to him when the time comes.

Is it not obvisous? Yes to make the riders squirm but to claim that they've been "leaks" and seek a mistrial of sorts.

My only statement is fail.

 

[classicomano]

Levi and Big George opted for the "No Comment" route. That fact that they dont flatout deny the reports says enough for me. Lance is ****ed.

 

[Frosty]

Interesting.

I got 1 question though.

`The organization’s letter says data from Armstrong’s blood samples collected in 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation.”

Those blood samples are taken by the uci right? How come the uci looks at the samples and apparently concludes they are ´normal´ yet the USADA states they are ´fully consistent with blood manipulation´ ?

Where have the UCI said they are 'normal?' Prior to the 2010 Tour, Armstrong's blood passport was rated as a 4 which implies that there was at least one suspicious reading there. More could have followed during the Tour. If the USADA have evidence of how he would have doped, and the blood passport readings back them up, then you could conclude that those suspicious readings are 'fully consistent with blood manipulation.'

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-suspicious-list-leaked-from-2010-tour-de-france

'Ratings from two to four were based on stable passports which nevertheless showed a rare abnormality at a precise time. '

(A rating of four would presumably be for athletes who had showed a more striking abnormality, or maybe more than one.)

Edit: Hrotha explained it better than me!

 

[UlleGigo]

Is it not obvisous? Yes to make the riders squirm but to claim that they've been "leaks" and seek a mistrial of sorts.

My only statement is fail.

Well yes it is obvious. I don't know about the 'mistrial' and I think neither do you with 'of sorts' caveat. However, I wouldn't have thought his lawyers would suggest such a stupid move and thought maybe you had a deeper line of thought. My mistake.

 

[BroDeal]

Vaughters has immediately come out and denied it:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-no-slipstream-sports-usada-suspensions

Anyway, this makes the Tour much more interesting now!

The Garmin riders mentioned left Postal outside of the eight year window. They won't be getting any suspension.

EDIT: Zabriskie left seven and a half years ago.

 

[BroDeal]

Is it not obvisous? Yes to make the riders squirm but to claim that they've been "leaks" and seek a mistrial of sorts.

My only statement is fail.

Bruyneel writes a column for the Dutch paper that broke the story. The leak has to be from him. Why would anyone else chose the Telegraph?

 

[HL2037]

Well yes it is obvious. I don't know about the 'mistrial' and I think neither do you with 'of sorts' caveat. However, I wouldn't have thought his lawyers would suggest such a stupid move and thought maybe you had a deeper line of thought. My mistake.

Well that only shows how desperately they are grasping at straws, doesn't it. Just like when they try to make people confuse the USADA-case with the federal investigation. When everybody with half a brain understands that USADA is enforcing a totally different set of rules than the feds.

 

[sniper]

Bruyneel writes a column for the Dutch paper that broke the story. The leak has to be from him. Why would anyone else chose the Telegraph?

Good point. But what do you mean "the leak is from him"? You mean he IS the leak? Interesting in any case. Would he have leaked intentionally? In what way would he benefit from leaking this info? Or did he just talk too much and too loud and has somebody else leaked it?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I guess either he means no suspensions have been given yet - or else the leak comes from camp a-hole as a last desperate attempt to smear the witnesses. They know that the story will get the most attention when it is breaking, so they break it themselves to make sure that the part about the witnesses having selfish reasons is included.

I think this might be spot on. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the trail to the person who leaked the list ended with Lance's legal team. I have said before, it isn't as if Lance didn't actually know who was on the list. I think they are beating the bushes to see what comes out. They wanted to see what the responses would be.

Just remember that no matter what they said, they could recant and force doubt into the proceeding. I wonder if Hincapie's testimony is vulnerable to this. I doubt the others would be inclined to change. You could tell Lance knew Bottle testified last year when he didn't tweet anything about Bottle's TdS win, and then his departure from RS. Lance tweeted a weak congratulations about Bottle's tour of Utah win, but he did so obviously because people made note that he didn't congratulate him for TdS.

If Hincapie stays the course, he is the nail in the coffin that nobody can question. Everyone knows the closeness of he and Lance, and nobody could seriously question his testimony.

I would suspect a response from the Armstrong team (to the news they broke) about leaks, harassment, sweet deals, coercion, etc.

I will say that Phil seems a bit subdued today, and Bobke looked downright perplexed as to what to say.

 

[Bicycle tramp]

Bruyneel writes a column for the Dutch paper that broke the story. The leak has to be from him. Why would anyone else chose the Telegraph?

Yes, that makes sense. He'd have partial information from some witnesses, which would explain the lack of corroboration with JV.

 

[HL2037]

Good point. But what do you mean "the leak is from him"? You mean he IS the leak? Interesting in any case. Would he have leaked intentionally? In what way would he benefit from leaking this info? Or did he just talk too much and too loud and has somebody else leaked it?

Maybe he needed money for a lawyer or a plane ticket to Bolivia?

 

[thehog]

Good point. But what do you mean "the leak is from him"? You mean he IS the leak? Interesting in any case. Would he have leaked intentionally? In what way would he benefit from leaking this info? Or did he just talk too much and too loud and has somebody else leaked it?

Because he is cornered. He had no other way out but to claim "leaks" and that the witnesses were bought off with reduced bans.

The Dutch connection is BroDeal points out fits neatly to the story.

 

[webbie146]

Assuming the UCI wasn't actively protecting anyone here: they didn't conclude they were "normal". Check the suspicion index for the 2010 Tour: everything above 4 or 5 was considered pretty hard to explain without blood doping, and yet not even the people with a 9 or a 10 were prosecuted. Why? Because it's hard to make a blood passport case stick. Pellizotti almost walked, and if he had he might have bankrupted the UCI or something. It happened with Contador too: his values were consistent with blood doping according to Ashenden, but by themselves they wouldn't have won a case.

Thanks for the information, makes more sense now.

 

[hrotha]

Choosing the timing and pace of the information flow while you can, taking the initiative. Basic tactics, really. Has been recommended to JV countless times
edit: and also to Armstrong, back when a teary confession looked like the best way out.

 

[BillytheKid]

Playing the news cycle? But hardly surprising given what we already know. More names may follow? Oh, say maybe a week from now.

These names today are still unconfirmed. Intresting that this follows on top of the Armstrong legal reply yesterday.

 

[BillytheKid]

Bruyneel writes a column for the Dutch paper that broke the story. The leak has to be from him. Why would anyone else chose the Telegraph?

Very possible too.

 

[phanatic]

Could one of the other people testifying against him be a teammate from 2009? Another six months after winning la vuelta?

 

[Race Radio]

Is this a surprise to anyone? I wrote about George, Levi, VDV, and Dave Z over a year ago.

Once again the clinic is far ahead of the media.

 

[slimkay]

Since when are riders testimonies enough to prove that someone is guilty of doping? Wouldn't they need actual proof that he did? What if the samples they put forward are dubious?

I'm just saying... we've yet to see the full story. Armstrong might very well set up here by ex-teammates holding a grudge and the USADA...

 

[DominicDecoco]

Is this a surprise to anyone? I wrote about George, Levi, VDV, and Dave Z over a year ago.

Once again the clinic is far ahead of the media.

Link!




_________

 

[thehog]

Choosing the timing and pace of the information flow while you can, taking the initiative. Basic tactics, really. Has been recommended to JV countless times
edit: and also to Armstrong, back when a teary confession looked like the best way out.

Doubt it. I think he'll withdraw from proceedings stating the witnesses "cut a deal" an he won't receive a fair hearing.

--
De Telegraaf in Holland claims today that not only have Gerorge Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriske given evidence to USADA - which was already known - but USADA have allegedly "cut a deal" whereby all those admitting to their own drug use be allowed to race for the rest of the season before serving a shortened six month ban during the winter.