USADA - Armstrong

[Hugh Januss]

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.

If the length of suspensions has not been decided and will not until this case ends, and any leniency is only a word of mouth agreement, maybe LA is trying to force the USADA's hand to lengthen those suspensions by whinning about favoritism and so on, with the thought of getting back at the "stoolies".

 

[ChrisE]

If the length of suspensions has not been decided and will not until this case ends, and any leniency is only a word of mouth agreement, maybe LA is trying to force the USADA's hand to lengthen those suspensions by whinning about favoritism and so on, with the thought of getting back at the "stoolies".

IF they will be suspended, why the wait?

 

[Kennf1]

This seems to all be a set-up for what will be in Luskin's letter to the USADA tomorrow.

I still don't see the long term strategy here (if there is one) with Armstrong's statements. Offering reduced sanctions for "substantial assistance" isn't exactly a new procedure with USADA. And why would a rider walk into USADA offices and tell them "what they want to hear" in exchange for a reduced sanction, if they would never have been sanctioned but for the statement/admission? This is entirely different from Floyd's situation, who was already in the process when USADA allegedly made the same overture.

Perhaps we should start assembling a list of the cumulative tests that were passed by Hincapie, Vandeveld, Zabriskie, and Leipheimer?

On a side note, hearing Lance use the phrase "unconstitutional" is like hearing a Kardshian begin a sentence with "I think it was Shakespeare who said...."

 

[ChrisE]

This seems to all be a set-up for what will be in Luskin's letter to the USADA tomorrow.

I still don't see the long term strategy here (if there is one) with Armstrong's statements. Offering reduced sanctions for "substantial assistance" isn't exactly a new procedure with USADA. And why would a rider walk into USADA offices and tell them "what they want to hear" in exchange for a reduced sanction, if they would never have been sanctioned but for the statement/admission? This is entirely different from Floyd's situation, who was already in the process when USADA allegedly made the same overture.

Perhaps we should start assembling a list of the cumulative tests that were passed by Hincapie, Vandeveld, Zabriskie, and Leipheimer?

On a side note, hearing Lance use the phrase "unconstitutional" is like hearing a Kardshian begin a sentence with "I think it was Shakespeare who said...."

Why would these 4 voluntarily admit anything to USADA? I think I read upthread that GJ testimony or interviews in the Fed case were not given to USADA. This cannot be true IMO.

 

[MarkvW]

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.



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.

USADA only needs to tell Lance what he is accused of doing. It doesn't need to tell him how they will prove it. That information is provided later.

As Tygart says, USADA has not even finalized their case. They may even get new witnesses (like dope dealing expert witnesses (Papp)) after the case is started.

 

[mr. tibbs]

Why would these 4 voluntarily admit anything to USADA? I think I read upthread that GJ testimony or interviews in the Fed case were not given to USADA. This cannot be true IMO.

Yeah, I've assumed USADA has the GJ stuff from the get-go, else why the timing?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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 article says that everyone who crossed Lance will see their name in the papers within the next few weeks. "Go big or go home" strategy...in reality, not a bad strategy to take at this point. Flood the media with all kinds of questions about everything and confuse the situation as much as possible so that even if convicted, he can say it was all just a calculated vendetta with a foregone conclusion and his legions of followers will still buy the myth...

 

[ChrisE]

Yeah, I've assumed USADA has the GJ stuff from the get-go, else why the timing?

They must (again, I am going from memory of somebody saying there wasn't sharing), or else they have lying fatigue. They are truthful with the feds, then lie to the USADA not knowing wtf would come out of that? Talk about needing a drink. This is getting good.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

IF they will be suspended, why the wait?

Because if you hand out the suspensions early, and they are over by the time they testify, they are more likely to change their story maybe? In fact, why even testify if you are already popped and got no leniency?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why would these 4 voluntarily admit anything to USADA? I think I read upthread that GJ testimony or interviews in the Fed case were not given to USADA. This cannot be true IMO.

"IMO" being the operative component of that statement...

 

[ChrisE]

Because if you hand out the suspensions early, and they are over by the time they testify, they are more likely to change their story maybe?

C'mon. You don't really believe that do you? And, if they are that fickle and most of them are at the end of their career anyway, then how much sway does that hold? GH said he wat retiring, LL is 38, etc.

And even if that is plausible then that is potentially creating a cluster**** and how "right" is that serving suspension in the fricking winter? The other thread about LL winning the tour is folly, but it would be hilarious if he did and your theory was true.

 

[ChrisE]

"IMO" being the operative component of that statement...

OK, so if they were assured nothing would be handed over then they were idiots admitting anything to USADA (morals aside). If they were not assured, or if testimony was handed over, then I can understand.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Why would these 4 voluntarily admit anything to USADA? I think I read upthread that GJ testimony or interviews in the Fed case were not given to USADA. This cannot be true IMO.

Assuming for a minute that all these charges are true (not a stretch needed for that) it is not much of a job to get them to tell the truth. All USADA have to do is mention who all they have spoken to previously with the intimation that they have told the truth, and that anything short of the truth on the current witness' part could go badly for them. Honesty would become contagious.

 

[ChrisE]

Assuming for a minute that all these charges are true (not a stretch needed for that) it is not much of a job to get them to tell the truth. All USADA have to do is mention who all they have spoken to previously with the intimation that they have told the truth, and that anything short of the truth on the current witness' part could go badly for them. Honesty would become contagious.

Understood, thus my "lying fatigue" statment upthread.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

C'mon. You don't really believe that do you? And, if they are that fickle and most of them are at the end of their career anyway, then how much sway does that hold? GH said he wat retiring, LL is 38, etc.

And even if that is plausible then that is potentially creating a cluster**** and how "right" is that serving suspension in the fricking winter? The other thread about LL winning the tour is folly, but it would be hilarious if he did and your theory was true.

1. You have no proof that any of that is true.
2. People ALWAYS give out the candy before they get the money...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

OK, so if they were assured nothing would be handed over then they were idiots admitting anything to USADA (morals aside). If they were not assured, or if testimony was handed over, then I can understand.

And that would be completely consistent with someone who knew what the heck they were doing. Some of these guys are pretty smart, and can read the tea leaves pretty well. So far, the USADA seems to be playing the most competent game of anyone, why would you expect they didn't calculate very good reasoning for doing everything they have done?

I wouldn't count morality to be at play in much of anything here, but call me jaded.

 

[spetsa]

OK, so if they were assured nothing would be handed over then they were idiots admitting anything to USADA (morals aside). If they were not assured, or if testimony was handed over, then I can understand.

It was well documented at the start of the Fed investigation, that Tygart and his staff were sitting in on interviews with the Feds. I would venture to guess, that if the USADA took their own notes, they are well within the legal rights of using that info in cases brought by themselves. This is much different than the USADA using info that was handed over from interviews in which they were not present. All of the talk of illegally obtained info is BS.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why would these 4 voluntarily admit anything to USADA? I think I read upthread that GJ testimony or interviews in the Fed case were not given to USADA. This cannot be true IMO.

Vaughters said 2 years ago that he and members of his team would assist in any investigation by either the Feds or USADA. From them they would have plenty of info about others like GH & LL.

It was reported that USADA are not relying on GJ evidence, I will get a link to it.

Yeah, I've assumed USADA has the GJ stuff from the get-go, else why the timing?

The timing? That was to let the Fed case go ahead - when it was pulled it was obvious that the USADA would step up.

Because if you hand out the suspensions early, and they are over by the time they testify, they are more likely to change their story maybe? In fact, why even testify if you are already popped and got no leniency?

Exactly - and it is in the AD Rules. No sanctions of the other will come until the USPS Conspiracy is heard - then USADA can apply the appropriate sanctions. If Lance wants the riders out of the Tour, a quick confession would get the ball rolling.

Here is the Rule:

300. After a final CAS decision under article 346 or the expiration of time to appeal, only the Anti-Doping Commission may suspend a part of the applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA.
If the Anti-Doping Commission suspends any part of the period of Ineligibility under this article, it shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision.
Comment: the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Doping Commission under this article shall also apply to a final decision at the national level in those cases that were referred to the National Federation under article 203.

 

[Jeremiah]

Great article

Don't know if this has been posted.

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

The only other option is full catharsis. Cycling needs to lance the boil.

And the tainted generation have to be the ones to do this. Too many people working in cycling today have secrets in their pasts which might compromise their integrity. Many have privately renounced their past, including individuals who have done extremely well in team management or other aspects of the sport, and whose success is partly down to the contacts and reputations they gained as riders. Putting up a nice building on shaky foundations is bad architectural practice.

This is where the USADA witnesses come in. They’ve been granted anonymity in the process. “USADA sought to give riders an opportunity to be a part of the solution in moving cycling forward by being truthful and honest regarding their past experiences with doping in cycling,” the letter stated. Armstrong’s lawyers predictably made hay with this. “

Great argument as to why JV must also come clean eventually.

 

[Armanius]

I am curious as to when Levi, George, Christian, and Dave Z doped. And if there were any positive tests as opposed to other non-test evidence that USADA got a hold of.

 

[MarkvW]

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?

Simeoni? Gilberto and Lance had no probs AFAIK.

 

[Merckx index]

300. After a final CAS decision under article 346 or the expiration of time to appeal, only the Anti-Doping Commission may suspend a part of the applicable period of Ineligibility with the approval of WADA.
If the Anti-Doping Commission suspends any part of the period of Ineligibility under this article, it shall promptly provide a written justification for its decision to each Anti-Doping Organization having a right to appeal the decision.
Comment: the exclusive jurisdiction of the Anti-Doping Commission under this article shall also apply to a final decision at the national level in those cases that were referred to the National Federation under article 203.

You seem to be reading this as saying that sanctions for these riders cannot start until after the hearing process for LA and co. is finished. But the way I read it, it says that a sanction (“ineligibility”) already in effect prior to the hearing (which is almost always the situation in a doping case) cannot be reduced prior to finishing the hearing and any appeal. Thus Floyd could not have his sanction reduced during the period he was challenging the ruling.

These riders have already, we presume, confessed. They have waived their right to any hearing. The process for them is finished. So whatever the rationale for not suspending them now, it is not contained in this passage. The hearing has no bearing on their sanctions, except, I presume, if they reneged on what they testified earlier to USADA, there would be a greater sanction (two years instead of six months or whatever).

To Chris’ point that started this, these riders are known to testify to the feds. Regardless of whether USADA has access to that testimony (as another poster pointed out, the government can’t share this testimony with USADA, because the latter is not a government agency), USADA would know they testified, and the riders would know that if they testified differently in front of USADA they might be in legal problem. Beyond that, as I explained in an earlier post that was ridiculed by several here, there are ways of getting their testimony beginning with Floyd and Tyler, and gradually widening the circle of implication. It’s not rocket science.

 

[MarkvW]

You seem to be reading this as saying that sanctions for these riders cannot start until after the hearing process for LA and co. is finished. But the way I read it, it says that a sanction (“ineligibility”) already in effect prior to the hearing (which is almost always the situation in a doping case) cannot be reduced prior to finishing the hearing and any appeal. Thus Floyd could not have his sanction reduced during the period he was challenging the ruling.

These riders have already, we presume, confessed. They have waived their right to any hearing. The process for them is finished. So whatever the rationale for not suspending them now, it is not contained in this passage. The hearing has no bearing on their sanctions, except, I presume, if they reneged on what they testified earlier to USADA, there would be a greater sanction (two years instead of six months or whatever).

To Chris’ point that started this, these riders are known to testify to the feds. Regardless of whether USADA has access to that testimony (as another poster pointed out, the government can’t share this testimony with USADA, because the latter is not a government agency), USADA would know they testified, and the riders would know that if they testified differently in front of USADA they might be in legal problem. Beyond that, as I explained in an earlier post that was ridiculed by several here, there are ways of getting their testimony beginning with Floyd and Tyler, and gradually widening the circle of implication. It’s not rocket science.

Something to consider: A rider could confess his glutes off but it wouldn't be significant from a sanction point of view until a formal accusation was made. Don't assume the riders have waived anything--it is in their interest to stretch this out and it is in USADA's interest to perform their side of any deal only after the ride has fully performed his side.

 

[Berzin]

 

[thehog]

You seem to be reading this as saying that sanctions for these riders cannot start until after the hearing process for LA and co. is finished. But the way I read it, it says that a sanction (“ineligibility”) already in effect prior to the hearing (which is almost always the situation in a doping case) cannot be reduced prior to finishing the hearing and any appeal. Thus Floyd could not have his sanction reduced during the period he was challenging the ruling.

These riders have already, we presume, confessed. They have waived their right to any hearing. The process for them is finished. So whatever the rationale for not suspending them now, it is not contained in this passage. The hearing has no bearing on their sanctions, except, I presume, if they reneged on what they testified earlier to USADA, there would be a greater sanction (two years instead of six months or whatever).

To Chris’ point that started this, these riders are known to testify to the feds. Regardless of whether USADA has access to that testimony (as another poster pointed out, the government can’t share this testimony with USADA, because the latter is not a government agency), USADA would know they testified, and the riders would know that if they testified differently in front of USADA they might be in legal problem. Beyond that, as I explained in an earlier post that was ridiculed by several here, there are ways of getting their testimony beginning with Floyd and Tyler, and gradually widening the circle of implication. It’s not rocket science.

I used to think you were smart but you actually have no idea.