USADA will investigate

[frenchfry]

I had no idea that so many people on this forum were fans of the "Deadliest Catch"!

Or fans of Eric Cantona

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7rqbl_citation-d-eric-cantona_sport

 

[MacRoadie]

Sometimes it seems trolling is allowed here.

It's the old "and your mother's a *****" deal.

I'm fine with some back and forth, I'm even up for a little good-natured ribbing and the not-too-offensive ad hominem here and there.

It all goes south when someone either can't make a rational argument, or is simply (because they're a simpleton) compelled to make an outlandish and/or offensive statement purely for effect or because they can't argue their point intellectually.

Hence you get responses along the lines of "Well, I don't have a rational argument because eveything I've said so far, came from a Wikipedia article, and, and, your mother's a *****" (or "and Greg LeMond doped").

 

[Polish]

Moving your goalposts, eh?

What Livingston said is consistent with what Jaksche said about Telekom.

It looks like we were both wrong.
You said EPO test was 2002.
I said I thought is was 2001.
But WIKI says 2000...

Yes, most teams were cleaner in 2001/2002 than in 1999/2000.
Riders too - at least the ones that were not banned

 

[thehog]

Once Lance returns the money for the HP/Livestrong laptop line of products I'll be sweet with him.

That’s all he has to do.

A really fast computer that particular model but based on a lie. So the money needs to go back.

 

[patricknd]

You don't really mean that. It will never be "The End" between you and Lance Armstrong.

I can see you hating Armstrong twenty years from now while Lance painfully suffers from the physiological aftermath of his years of doping. You'll be talking about his latest girlfriend, his kids, and his appearance in man love magazines . . ..

Come on! Admit it! It will never be "The End" for you!

some crushes never end

 

[Race Radio]

Landis talks about the Mens Journal interview:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/landiss-view-on-armstrongs-lack-of-fight

To condense what Floyd said into an easy to understand sentence...

"The dude is full of $hit. If you can't figure out by now that he doped you have either been living in a cave or your mom drank too much when she was pregnant"

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong provided Landis with a freelance job forever.

What is a time limitation? 8 years? I think USADA will wait one year more and only then take the 2005 title off.

The time limitation is from the start of the investigation, 2008. That means they can go back to at least 2000....if not earlier

 

[Elagabalus]

A while ago, you'd have been satisfied with just a doping admission. You're getting harder.

Of course, a while ago you were giving us your GBCW ... seems like everyone is hardening up!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

It's the old "and your mother's a *****" deal.

I'm fine with some back and forth, I'm even up for a little good-natured ribbing and the not-too-offensive ad hominem here and there.

It all goes south when someone either can't make a rational argument, or is simply (because they're a simpleton) compelled to make an outlandish and/or offensive statement purely for effect or because they can't argue their point intellectually.

Hence you get responses along the lines of "Well, I don't have a rational argument becuase eveything I've said so far, came from a Wikipedia article, and, and, your mother's a *****" (or "and Greg LeMond doped").

I agree entirely.

 

[KingsMountain]

No, the time limit is from when the USADA makes a formal charge. And since you'll likely want a link for that assertion, let me get my request in first: What's your source for the notion that the date starts with the beginning of the investigation?

 

[BotanyBay]

So, when will McQuaid start running interference?

Or does he no longer need Armstrong? Well, I guess he needs Lance to maintain his silence, so I guess that means he'll run interference again.

Nothing to see here folks. All is well.

 

[Race Radio]

No, the time limit is from when the USADA makes a formal charge. And since you'll likely want a link for that assertion, let me get my request in first: What's your source for the notion that the date starts with the beginning of the investigation?

I suggest reading this nice document on the Hellebuyck case before you make any SOL assertions

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

 

[mewmewmew13]

Sometimes it seems trolling is allowed here.

I think a few people have trolling permits.

 

[MarkvW]

No, the time limit is from when the USADA makes a formal charge. And since you'll likely want a link for that assertion, let me get my request in first: What's your source for the notion that the date starts with the beginning of the investigation?

You should look at the UCI rules. I made the same mistake awhile back.
It is clearly and unambiguously "investigation."

If you think about it, it makes sense. Otherwise good liars (or corruptors) can avoid charges and benefit from their lie.

You can also look at the Hellebucyk (sp?) case. Good example of the rule.

I tried to get to you before the inevitable mean and snarky response. Too late!

Correction: Hellebuyck was a fraudulent concealment case that tolled the operative SOL. I'm not sure it stands for the proposition that the SOL runs from investigation (but I know that the UCI rules do).

 

[BotanyBay]

I suggest reading this nice document on the Hellebuyck case before you make any SOL assertions

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Are they able to go back to 2001 only because Hellebuyck has admitted use (Page 32)?

Does a failure to respond equal an effective admission? Sounds more like a no-contest.

 

[Merckx index]

It looks like we were both wrong.
You said EPO test was 2002.
I said I thought is was 2001.
But WIKI says 2000...

Yes, most teams were cleaner in 2001/2002 than in 1999/2000.
Riders too - at least the ones that were not banned

When the EPO test began to be used (Summer Olympics 2000) is pretty irrelevant to the question of cleaner riders, since riders responded to the test by switching to blood transfusions. IIRC, when Tyler spoke on 60 minutes last year, he described transfusions, not taking EPO (or just doing that). He implicated LA in that, which is reasonable, because he was with Postal up to and including the 2001 TDF. Tyler himself was busted for that in 2004.

Another way riders responded to the test was by micro-dosing. Heras was busted for the original type of EPO as late as 2005. Then other forms of EPO came out that couldn't initially be detected. Remember there was a rash of deaths in 2004 that were ascribed to EPO.

A very heavy burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to claim that there was a window in the early 00's in which the peloton was doping less. Some of the riders may have been taking less EPO, but arguably were getting just as much performance benefits from it. And the big boys were quickly on to transfusions and it may well be, other types of oxygen vectors. One reason I would love to see LA make a full confession is because he could tell us if some of these other things, like Hemassist, were being used. But maybe not without risking further legal troubles.

 

[Polish]

When the EPO test began to be used (Summer Olympics 2000) is pretty irrelevant to the question of cleaner riders, since riders responded to the test by switching to blood transfusions. IIRC, when Tyler spoke on 60 minutes last year, he described transfusions, not taking EPO (or just doing that). He implicated LA in that, which is reasonable, because he was with Postal up to and including the 2001 TDF. Tyler himself was busted for that in 2004.

Another way riders responded to the test was by micro-dosing. Heras was busted for the original type of EPO as late as 2005. Then other forms of EPO came out that couldn't initially be detected. Remember there was a rash of deaths in 2004 that were ascribed to EPO.

A very heavy burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to claim that there was a window in the early 00's in which the peloton was doping less. Some of the riders may have been taking less EPO, but arguably were getting just as much performance benefits from it. And the big boys were quickly on to transfusions and it may well be, other types of oxygen vectors. One reason I would love to see LA make a full confession is because he could tell us if some of these other things, like Hemassist, were being used. But maybe not without risking further legal troubles.

The rash of deaths in 2004 may be due to people believing the "EPO will transform you" myth. Sad.

But my point was that comparing a 2001 Jan/Telekom to 1999/2000 Lance/Postal is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the EPO test changed the landscape.

And if you look at the total Jan/Telekom/Coast/Fuentes/etc you will see it is as dirty as the Lance/Postal/Disco/Ferrari/etc. I think the Jan/etc was dirtier, but that is my opinion. Evidence seems to back up my opinion though.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The rash of deaths in 2004 may be due to people believing the "EPO will transform you" myth. Sad.

But my point was that comparing a 2001 Jan/Telekom to 1999/2000 Lance/Postal is not an apple to apple comparison. Because the EPO test changed the landscape.

And if you look at the total Jan/Telekom/Coast/Fuentes/etc you will see it is as dirty as the Lance/Postal/Disco/Ferrari/etc. I think the Jan/etc was dirtier, but that is my opinion. Evidence seems to back up my opinion though.

So this word keeps cropping up as if it is uncontested and factual and in one chunk....
what do you define as 'evidence'? list some facts , show us actual links or stop making this assertion. Is that reasonable?

 

[KingsMountain]

I suggest reading this nice document on the Hellebuyck case before you make any SOL assertions

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Well, yes, of course I have read the Hellebuyck decision. That decision is what I base my assertion on.

First, the rule on SOL. "No action may be commenced against an athlete..for an anti-doping rule violation...unless such action is commenced within 8 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." [Note to MarkW, the operative word here is "action", not "investigation".

So then the question becomes: what constitutes "action". The Hellebuyck decision gives us the answer in 7.4 (read the bolded statement there) through 7.7. The charging letter is when action commenced, and the Panel explicitly rejects that action had commenced when the USADA submitted allegations to the Review Board or even earlier, as the USADA had argued. The notion that action commenced when an investigation was launched is completely out of the question.

 

[Hugh Januss]

The evidence seems to back up my opinion that Polish does a hugh amount of talking out his a$$.

 

[Polish]

So this word keeps cropping up as if it is uncontested and factual and in one chunk....
what do you define as 'evidence'? list some facts , show us actual links or stop making this assertion. Is that reasonable?

Mewmew, I hate to burst your bubble but Jan was a big time doper. Banned from 2 TdF's for doping. The teams he rode for were busted time and time again. Big Time Doping. Look, I am a hugh Jan fan. Love Jan. But I am not living in denial fcol.

Althoug Jan is so much nicer than Lance. If they decide the winner of a TdF based on niceness - Jan is THE man. Big Mig too.

 

[thehog]

So this word keeps cropping up as if it is uncontested and factual and in one chunk....
what do you define as 'evidence'? list some facts , show us actual links or stop making this assertion. Is that reasonable?

Problem Jan wasn't using Funentes until 2005. He was still Freiburg to that point. Hardly dirtier using your local university compared to Lance shifting millions to Ferrrari.

 

[Race Radio]

Well, yes, of course I have read the Hellebuyck decision. That decision is what I base my assertion on.

First, the rule on SOL. "No action may be commenced against an athlete..for an anti-doping rule violation...unless such action is commenced within 8 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." [Note to MarkW, the operative word here is "action", not "investigation".

So then the question becomes: what constitutes "action". The Hellebuyck decision gives us the answer in 7.4 (read the bolded statement there) through 7.7. The charging letter is when action commenced, and the Panel explicitly rejects that action had commenced when the USADA submitted allegations to the Review Board or even earlier, as the USADA had argued. The notion that action commenced when an investigation was launched is completely out of the question.

If you read closely you will see that the reference to action equaling the charging letter is an IAAF rule. Cycling is governed by the UCI which interprets "action" differently.

I urge you to get in touch with USADA as they have made multiple public statements that they believe that the Hellebuyck case gives them a huge window for sanctioning

 

[thehog]

Once Lance returns the money for the HP/Livestrong laptop line of products I'll be sweet with him.

That’s all he has to do.

A really fast computer that particular model but based on a lie. So the money needs to go back.

Just want to see that picture one more time.

Feels so good to send my numbers to Ferrari. Shumi loves the numbers. (wish he could do something with the ears)

 

[Race Radio]

Remember how Bicycling used to be an endless cheerleader for the Myth? They have realizes that the winds change fast and have quickly jumped over to the winning side