USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

For what its worth Daniel Friebe on twitter (@friebos) said:
"So.. am reliably informed that De Telegraaf didn't get USADA story from from Bruyneel. Or Armstrong."


@Python - I agree that it would make little sense for LA (or JB) to make this info public, yet. As we have read today, it is hard for them to put a positive spin on it.

I think someone at the newspaper just pulled all the info together and made a nice story out of it - the names were easy to work out (and have proved correct) but the sanctions part appears to be wrong, at the moment.

Of course it wouldn’t have come from Bruyneel or Armstrong direct. Who are they kidding. As if they’d pick up the phone and call up the paper. They planted it with someone else to the drop.

 

[Kennf1]

Apprently everyone is a victim!

Let me be clear: the riders in question are also victims of @usantidoping's unfair process and antics. #unconstitutional

- Even Floyd?

I guess someone pointed out to Armstrong that using the phrase "selective prosecution" implies that everyone is guilty.

 

[Armanius]

Of course it wouldn’t have come from Bruyneel or Armstrong direct. Who are they kidding. As if they’d pick up the phone and call up the paper. They planted it with someone else to the drop.

He obviously didn't mean that JB or Armstrong made the call directly!!

 

[rhubroma]

It is an interesting parallel.

But, such tactics are not limited to Scientology.

Even if that cult* is the mother ship, there are enough PR specialists familiar with the dirty tricks, attempts to seize momentum, influence juries and the public by controlling headlines through an offensive defense that 'guidance' could be inspired by, but totally independent of any reference organization and/or its members.

There are definite commonalities with Floyd's original disinformation campaign (attack the source...), and even with Tyler's campaign. Rather than involvement of a cult, it might be even more intriguing to see if there is any commonality in any of the advisors. Is there anyone working with Lance now that worked for either Tyler or Floyd before?

Please recall that WADA has introduced a couple of 'Floyd' rules. One being that the ADA's can respond to misplaced slagging and unfounded criticism. Prior to that, they were not allowed to comment on PR smear campaigns.

*Just to be clear that I am not supporting Scientology in any way here.

Dave.

As a 7 Tour winner, however, Lance is Pontifex Maximus. And is thus harder to bring down. He has led the campaign and there is still much ignorance out there.

 

[MarkvW]

As a 7 Tour winner, however, Lance is Pontifex Maximus. And is thus harder to bring down. He has led the campaign and there is still much ignorance out there.

Nah. Lance is Johnny Friendly. Fits him perfectly.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry, I still disagree that Armstrong is leaking info simply because he is an egotistical maniacal power hungry vindictive individual. I see Armstrong as being much more calculated in his actions. If he is leaking the info, there's something to be clearly gained from the leak other than harassing the would be witnesses.

Yea, things like "I'm not saying anything bad about the guys mentioned, they are all good guys who are victims too...like me...I take care of people who are unjustly accused by tweeting about them to clear their name..." come to mind. I called this aspect earlier in relation to Hincapie, but it appears he is trying this line on all of them. If he gets them to recant, he throws enough doubt into the process to get off. That is his best shot.

Now more hullabaloo about them in the press can appear from unnamed sources, and he can hammer on and on about how everyone in the process is being treated so unfairly in this "vendetta" against him, and contact them on the side and see if he can plead a case for them to change their stories about him.

He should just admit what is clearly obvious, but that will never happen.

 

[BillytheKid]

Of course it wouldn’t have come from Bruyneel or Armstrong direct. Who are they kidding. As if they’d pick up the phone and call up the paper. They planted it with someone else to the drop.

You know this for a fact or are you speculating. If it is a fact, please tell us from who. If it is not a fact known to you, then you might what to state is as your opinion.

It very well could be the Armstrong side is playing the press, but if Dutch law protects journalists as here, then the game goes on and we will probably never know.

This is the big problem with unamed sources in press reports. Opposing forces can often point the finger at each other forever. They also damaged the media's creditablity because people begin to doubt if such a source exists.

I might speculate: in this case (today) it could even be a cycling interest feeling damaged by the timing of the review board announcement.

Or not? Facts? No, only some opinion. About two cents worth.

 

[Der Effe]

Lance might be trying to ruin the careers of these 5 to get the attention off himself. As someone on Dutch TV just mentioned, Bruyneel writes columns for the newspaper that came with the story today. It all seems a little weird to me

 

[thehog]

You know this for a fact or are you speculating. If it is a fact, please tell us from who. If it is not a fact known to you, then you might what to state is as your opinion.

It very well could be the Armstrong side is playing the press, but if Dutch law protects journalists as here, then the game goes on and we will probably never know.

This is the big problem with unamed sources in press reports. Opposing forces can often point the finger at each other forever. They also damaged the media's creditablity because people begin to doubt if such a source exists.

I might speculate: in this case (today) it could even be a cycling interest feeling damaged by the timing of the review board announcement.

Or not? Facts? No, only some opinion. About two cents worth.

Come on Billy you know me well. Everything I say is 100% fact.

Looks like one paper has slipped up and revealed its source….. news at 9.

 

[D-Queued]

Of course it wouldn’t have come from Bruyneel or Armstrong direct. Who are they kidding. As if they’d pick up the phone and call up the paper. They planted it with someone else to the drop.

You know this for a fact or are you speculating. If it is a fact, please tell us from who. If it is not a fact known to you, then you might what to state is as your opinion.

It very well could be the Armstrong side is playing the press, but if Dutch law protects journalists as here, then the game goes on and we will probably never know.

...

Assuming:

1. Lance is at least as smart as Floyd

Then, minimally, Lance would have been no closer than sitting beside his version of Will Geoghan when the dirty tricks henchman decided to make the dirty tricks (or witness harassment) call.

2. That Lance's version of Will G is smarter than Will G

Then, Lance's henchman would have blocked his number/caller id before making the call - in this case to the Dutch newspaper.

3. You are right about Dutch law/newspapers

Then, we will never know.

Dave.

 

[Armanius]

Assuming:

1. Lance is at least as smart as Floyd

For Armstrong's sake, I hope he is smarter than Landis!!!

 

[thehog]

Come on Billy you know me well. Everything I say is 100% fact.

Looks like one paper has slipped up and revealed its source….. news at 9.

http://drupal-sporten.tv2.dk/tour/2012-07-05-doping-indrømmelser-komplot-af-armstrong

Danish paper saying the leak came from Armstrong.

Matt Rendell confirms.

 

[gerundium]

journalist of the telegraaf article now live on late-night TdF program. will keep you posted.

EDIT: reporter thinks the deal-making is indicative of a witch-hunt. -_- how surprising.

 

[DominicDecoco]

Don't know if this has been posted.

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/features/lance-armstrong-the-end/

 

[Der Effe]

journalist of the telegraaf article now live on late-night TdF program. will keep you posted.

EDIT: reporter thinks the deal-making is indicative of a witch-hunt. -_- how surprising.

Clearly Armstrong his buddies. Mart Smeets will **** him off if he gets the chance as well. The old boys network...

 

[Digger]

If it was Armstrong's camp responsible for the leak it might turn out yet another costly mistake. Some already mentioned why. That the specific named riders are most likely those who gave the evidence is hardly a surprise, the surprise. In fact, an average Joe will likely interpret the leak as: 'yeah it now it makes more sense that Armstrong doped do and his denials are bull.'

The key here, if Armstrong originated the leak, as I have already mentioned, is the reference to a 6-months suspension (vigorously denied by the targets).

We will have to see how things will have developed, but on my end I simply don't see how naming witnesses can benefit Armstrong's strategy...neither PR-wise nor legally.

That's why this saga, unlike the federal project, is likely to wrap up rather quickly - to deny Armstrong the spinning time, and of course b/c there is no viable defense on facts he can put up.

I expect the hearing panel's decision by early february

It was a leak from LA camp. How do you discredit riders who have never tested positive? You invent the 6 mth suspension story to make it look like a deal was cut.

 

[BillytheKid]

http://drupal-sporten.tv2.dk/tour/2012-07-05-doping-indrømmelser-komplot-af-armstrong

Danish paper saying the leak came from Armstrong.

Matt Rendell confirms.

The paper says...ok, this is the same Dutch paper that did the first story or is it another?

 

[Merckx index]

So if I understand this latest news, LA did leak the witnesses' names, to a reporter who thought he was doing LA a favor by printing them? Wow.

Edit: According to that link, this is just Rendell's opinion, based on the same kind of reasoning many here have employed. Nothing verified about the source of the leak.

I expect the hearing panel's decision by early february

Assuming there is a hearing—and LA has just four more days to request one—it will probably begin in late October. I’ll be surprised if the decision doesn’t come down long before February, though the presence of six defendants does complicate things.

It shouldn’t take long to present the testimony and make a decision. Except for the blood values, which I’m quite sure are at best supporting evidence, this is not a typical doping case where non-scientific arbs have to pore over the data presented by scientific experts. It’s just a simple, do I or don’t I believe this witness’s testimony. Even if every witness gets an entire day to present testimony and be cross-examined, they would be done in less than two weeks.

What makes it so hard to predict is that there seems to be no way to judge how effective witness testimony will be. Ten or more ex-teammates may all say that they heard that LA doped, but how many will say that they saw him dope, or that he gave them dope, or told them to dope? The USADA letter has phrases like “multiple riders with first hand knowledge will testify that Lance Armstrong used…”, “witnesses who were aware of Armstrong’s use…”, and so on. What this means in terms of what individual riders actually saw as opposed to were told by someone else is often ambiguous. There are several references to “eyewitness” statements, but only one refers to LA doping (the testosterone or oil). Maybe I’m reading too much into this letter—lawyers feel free to comment--but I find it interesting that except for that one drug, they do not specifically say that these witnesses observed LA doping. As noted, “first hand” is also used several times, but it’s not clear to me that this is the same as eyewitness.

And even assuming multiple riders will testify they saw him dope, or that he told them to dope, etc., how many can verify a particular time and place, as opposed to somewhere in a general period of time? It can’t be easy to remember specific details after all this time—IIRC, Tyler never suggested a specific time and place—and if details are lacking, how convinced will the arbs be? I think they will accept this testimony only if it is from several riders other than Floyd and Tyler, and only if the descriptions are highly similar. It would really be vital if two or more riders can recall seeing LA dope together, with each verifying the presence of the other(s). A couple of cases like that I think would do it.

 

[thehog]

The paper says...ok, this is the same Dutch paper that did the first story or is it another?

Little bit of a geography lesson for you.

Danish means Denmark and Dutch means Holland – clear?

Appears the paper in Demark was also “approached” with the story that the other 4 printed.

 

[BillytheKid]

Little bit of a geography lesson for you.

Danish means Denmark and Dutch means Holland – clear?

Appears the paper in Demark was also “approached” with the story that the other 4 printed.

Sorry Denmark. Is the one fingering LA opposed in any way to the others?

 

[gerundium]

Journalist from the telegraaf said about his source that it was a source from america who contacted them. So this seems to be correct.

also that he wasn't the only paper that was approached by this person. smear campaign churning into full swing?

 

[BillytheKid]

I'll wait till the fog of war lifts. Apologies to both Dane and Dutch.

 

[mr. tibbs]

I've seen none of them deny testifying, only Vaughters and BMC saying no riders have gotten 6 month suspensions.

I see what you're saying, but I think that JV is doing some semantic wiggling here.

Vaughters is only really saying that no suspensions have been announced. The "future" clause he sticks in at the end of that tweet only means that, as of right now, today, July 5, there have been no suspensions announced that will go into effect now or in the future. And that's technically accurate.

In a few months, though, suspensions (that he may even already know about, but that have not been officially announced) may be announced. After that announcement, if he were to re-tweet the tweet we're discussing, he'd be lying. He's telling the truth now, though: no suspensions have been announced.

#billclinton

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Re: Leak

Or...
The "leak" was an attempt to go fishing. You release a few names, and see what bites. The lawyers then can prepare based on what is hooked.

Yep. As I said earlier, he is beating the bushes to see what flies out.

 

[MD FACG FACP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger
So confronting a witness in public toilets, thus risking being charged with witness intimidation by the Feds, is cool and collected?

You are missing my point. There's more to it than just simple intimidation. It's a matter of trying to figure out the "more" part of it.

I find it amusing that some truly think the reason behind the leaks is simply explained by Armstrong being an idiotic bully. Bullies can be calculating too.


But you didn't answer Digger's question. You are missing his point, that being LA has a his-tory of being a deuce. What was his calculated move with Simoni?