USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

wikipedia says this


ETA: Man Switzerland is a small country. The lab and WADA were in the same town - probably literally around the corner from one another...

The UCI did not sign up to the WADA code until 2004.
So in 2001, any positive would only have been between UCI and the IOC.

 

[sniper]

Ashenden's comments on the case here.

hammer-hitting-nail-on-head stuff from Ashenden!

 

[LauraLyn]

i agree. i said this before - it is not clear at all if usada will voluntarily allow another delay.

moreover, more delays and stalling is exactly what team armstrong wants...but there are undeniable elements of legal maneuvering and politics here including some of the developments we, the outsiders, have no knowledge of.

acting on what is known publicly - and i tried to keep track with as much as was allowed - i would not grant another extension.

i would also, not write the dq letter until i sniffed the air around the 5th circuit.

The only thing you could now possibly smell around any Federal court building regarding this case is red herring.

There is a good chance the USADA will get blindsided in the next few hours. Not because there is less to see in the public domain, but simply because they didn't see as clearly as they should have.

There has been an eerie quietness on the side of Armstrong & Co. since Judge Sparks ended his nap. Barring what we are looking at but don't see, it would not be surprising to find this silence go to midnight tonight.

 

[L'Etranger]

Originally Posted by L'Etranger

Isn't an even more obvious explanation that 2001 was before the creation of WADA, so the UCI could much more easily suppress a positive?

wikipedia says this

It was set up on November 10, 1999 in Lausanne, Switzerland, as a result of what was called the "Declaration of Lausanne",[1] to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against drugs in sport.

ETA: Man Switzerland is a small country. The lab and WADA were in the same town - probably literally around the corner from one another...[/QUOTE]

You' re right, Big Ring, WADA was in existence in 2001, but cycling didn't sign onto the WADA code until Aug 2004, so the procedures mentioned by Ashenden would not have been in place in 2001, if I understand it correctly.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see that Dr. Maserati had already addressed this point.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

UCI is toast. And at this point, the triangle of love will have differences in desired outcomes as it appears the process will not be stoppable. Not too many tears will be shed by the Pro riders union either. Or the bike companies that have to jump through hoops to get certifications.

 

[Benotti69]

Ashenden's comments on the case here.

Bet UCI wont comment, neither will Team LieStrong.

Why is it Ashenden pointing this stuff out and not cycling journalists?

 

[sniper]

Nice intervention by Ashenden reported by our very own CN:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

lots of ifs and buts but the message is clear (to me) - he thinks there's been an UCI cover up

good to see that the central question is no longer "did LA dope?" but "did UCI cover it up?"

slowly but gradually making progress.

Why is it Ashenden pointing this stuff out and not cycling journalists?

+1, really

 

[RichWalk]

Bet UCI wont comment, neither will Team LieStrong.

Why is it Ashenden pointing this stuff out and not cycling journalists?

Good point surely they can't still be towing the 'don't bite the hand that feeds' line?

 

[Markyboyzx6r]

Bet UCI wont comment, neither will Team LieStrong.

Why is it Ashenden pointing this stuff out and not cycling journalists?

Agreed. Incredible that no journalist has gone digging.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Bet UCI wont comment, neither will Team LieStrong.

Why is it Ashenden pointing this stuff out and not cycling journalists?

It was a cycling journalist who called Ashenden.
It is a cycling journalist who has put this stuff out.

Also, you say the UCI & LA won't comment - and I agree. Is that "cycling journalists" fault? Not much you can do when Pat ignores your calls.

 

[rickshaw]

obvious answer

Agreed. Incredible that no journalist has gone digging.

I don't know outside of English but:

All the real cycling journalists (Kimmege & Co) have already said this stuff. There are no cyber space journalists. All the race commentators, hardware geeks, etc are just cheerleaders, for a brand, a team, a rider, a particular race. How many of the CN "news" stories even have a name on them?

 

[Benotti69]

It was a cycling journalist who called Ashenden.
It is a cycling journalist who has put this stuff out.

Also, you say the UCI & LA won't comment - and I agree. Is that "cycling journalists" fault? Not much you can do when Pat ignores your calls.

Did they even bother the UCI or TeamArmstrong for comments. Do they mention that both refused to answer emails from CN regarding Ashenden's comments.

But we dont need Ashenden to tell us these things. Why cant a journalist write this without needing Ashenden? This story could have been written years ago!

Cycling media has been marching to the Armsrtong drumbeat for too long, just because they now creep out from under it when it looks like the Titanic is sinking does not excuse them.
Only recently did CN dare to ask McQuid a hard question!

 

[Benotti69]

I don't know outside of English but:

All the real cycling journalists (Kimmege & Co) have already said this stuff. There are no cyber space journalists. All the race commentators, hardware geeks, etc are just cheerleaders, for a brand, a team, a rider, a particular race. How many of the CN "news" stories even have a name on them?

CN stories rarely have a name on them because they are copy and paste jobs.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Take the discussion of CN to the appropriate subforum, please.

Further off-topic postings will be deleted.

Susan

 

[thehog]

Take the discussion of CN to the appropriate subforum, please.

Further off-topic postings will be deleted.

Susan

Big Day for Lance. I wonder if he'll let Travis win?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Did they even bother the UCI or TeamArmstrong for comments. Do they mention that both refused to answer emails from CN regarding Ashenden's comments.

But we dont need Ashenden to tell us these things. Why cant a journalist write this without needing Ashenden? This story could have been written years ago!

Cycling media has been marching to the Armsrtong drumbeat for too long, just because they now creep out from under it when it looks like the Titanic is sinking does not excuse them.
Only recently did CN dare to ask McQuid a hard question!

Interesting. So you think that LA has the entire cycling media in the bag?

Sorry for the reply to your post. I had not seen the warning by Susan W.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Did they even bother the UCI or TeamArmstrong for comments. Do they mention that both refused to answer emails from CN regarding Ashenden's comments.

What are CN (or anyone else) supposed to ask?
Benson asked McQuaid if he would resign - you expect Pat to change his answer?

But we dont need Ashenden to tell us these things. Why cant a journalist write this without needing Ashenden? This story could have been written years ago!

Cycling media has been marching to the Armsrtong drumbeat for too long, just because they now creep out from under it when it looks like the Titanic is sinking does not excuse them.
Only recently did CN dare to ask McQuid a hard question!

Certainly some elements of the media have sucked up to Armstrong - but others have asked questions, not much they can do when they get ignored and ultimately blacklisted by the various groups.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Big Day for Lance. I wonder if he'll let Travis win?

I am pretty sure that everyone is aware of this since thehawgie has reminded us so many times now.

Notice your opinion is that LA will let Travis win, or is that your opinion?

I am confused because with all your reminders it seems or appears you might be wishing for a continued fight between LA and USADA.
Just trying to understand what it is theHog wants.

 

[thehog]

I am pretty sure that everyone is aware of this since thehawgie has reminded us so many times now.

Notice your opinion is that LA will let Travis win, or is that your opinion?

I am confused because with all your reminders it seems or appears you might be wishing for a continued fight between LA and USADA.
Just trying to understand what it is theHog wants.

Hog wants arbitration. Hog wants Lance to take stand. Hog wants Lance to fight.

Hog thinks Lance will wimp out. Throw in the towel. Hog thinks Lance is scared.

Travis will win but not win the way Hog wants.

 

[Muriel]

Only recently did CN dare to ask McQuid a hard question!

Isn't every question hard for McQuaid?

Sorry, cheap shot. As you were!

 

[noddy69]

Big Day for Lance. I wonder if he'll let Travis win?

Not totally in the loop here. Does he have to answer charges by today or forfeit ?

not to worry Google answered for me.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hog wants arbitration. Hog wants Lance to take stand. Hog wants Lance to fight.

Hog thinks Lance will wimp out. Throw in the towel. Hog thinks Lance is scared.

Travis will win but not win the way Hog wants.

OK Hog.

I guess the only thing anyone can do now is wait for either a press con. or a legal file.

Maybe goober can come back and give us some more predictions?

 

[Morbius]

Can LA simply ignore the deadline?

More specifically, can he refuse to accept USADA's jurisdiction and not respond, then appeal any penalty to CAS on technical grounds? Doing that would keep the evidence out of public domain for a considerable time. He would have to make a public statement saying that is what he is doing, ahead of USADA announcing he has accepted 'guilt'.

 

[LauraLyn]

Can LA simply ignore the deadline?

More specifically, can he refuse to accept USADA's jurisdiction and not respond, then appeal any penalty to CAS on technical grounds? Doing that would keep the evidence out of public domain for a considerable time. He would have to make a public statement saying that is what he is doing, ahead of USADA announcing he has accepted 'guilt'.

Not a good play by Armstrong. CAS would almost definitely turn down an appeal where the complainant did not exhaust their previous avenues.

More to the point is to what extent are Armstrong, Bruyneel, and the two others on the same page.

 

[thehog]

Can LA simply ignore the deadline?

More specifically, can he refuse to accept USADA's jurisdiction and not respond, then appeal any penalty to CAS on technical grounds? Doing that would keep the evidence out of public domain for a considerable time. He would have to make a public statement saying that is what he is doing, ahead of USADA announcing he has accepted 'guilt'.

That was my take. Appeal the sentence not the judgment. Could work. He’d be still banned for life but he might save 5 Tours.