What do we know... Armstrong

[Realist]

Can we collate the evidence against Armstrong concisely? I'm sure there are a lot of things missing from my account. Just bullet points, provide references if asked? Would be helpful to have something to summarise what is currently known. Probably not worth going into legal technicalities and bank accounts and suchlike. Can we do technicalities of the case in another thread?

DIRECT EVIDENCE
1. 6 positive tests from the 1999 tour. Mike Ashenden confirms these results are solid and can be relied on. Mike Ashenden: not typically prone to conspiracy theories.

2. Direct testimony of Frankie Andreu that Armstrong took drugs and discussed drugs with his doc (SCA dep)

3. Direct testimony of Betsy Andreu as above (SCA dep)

4. Direct testimony of Michael Anderson that he found an androgen in Armstrong's bathroom (counterclaim)

5. Emma O'Reilly to Walsh that corticosteroid prescription was faked

6. Direct testimony of Floyd Landis that he received drugs, encouragement and instruction in using drugs from Armstrong

7. Hearsay evidence of Lemond and others regarding Stephanie McIlvain's recollection of the conversation the Andreu's testimony regarding hospital bed confession (saying she agreed with the statements, before saying they were false under oath at the trial).

I'm sure I've missed things here? Help out?

INDIRECT/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
1. Ex-postal riders turning positive. Too many to list. Someone want to try?

2. Almost all previous competitors in the TdF 1999-2005 admitting to use or turning positive or being involved in Puerto. Unlikely that a non-doped athlete could compete with these people given the typically small margins in elite sport. Again, too many riders to list, someone take a shot?

3. Association with Ferrari

4. Intimidation of Simeoni (watching this live is what almost removed all doubt for me - the 'zip your lips' gesture was practically an admission of guilt).

GENERAL EVIDENCE REGARDING PREVALENCE OF DOPING
1. Analytical positives. There are some.

2. Non-analytical stuff. There are way more. Proving the testing doesn't work. We get into the land of assumptions here... but presumably we don't find all the Puerto's. We know about Ferrari, about the german clinic, about Puerto. But who knew about Puerto before it came out? Noone mentioned it. It was all Ferrari and Conconi. So there's probably more we don't know about.

3. I've heard from some well-published exercise physiologists that because of various things they've found out, they now find it difficult to enjoy watching professional cycling. I've heard from riders who've been exposed to drugs in the early 2000's and quit riding or scaled back their ambitions to the amateur level. I've seen amateurs at regional races I've known to dope (f*wits - I've beaten some of them). Sorry I can't be more specific. Plenty of people have similar stories.

4. Game theory. No, really.

 

[sars1981]

Some of the best evidence (imo) is in Lemond's taped phone-call with Stephanie McIlvain. I mean here is a girl, Armstrong's contact at Oakley, admitting that she heard what Frankie and Betsy Andreu heard but saying that she is too scared to tell the truth. The audio quality of that recording is absolutely sh#t and I think it would be referred to more if it wasnt so unlistenable. Somebody who knows how to use some noise reduction software should try to clean that up a bit for the file. I suppose it's not so important now since Lance is most likely going to be raped by this federal investigation. But before this Landis affair that was really a "diamond in the rough".

 

[Hawkwood]

I'm sorry if this is repeating what others have written before in this forum, but I'm interested in your point number 5, but can't remember the exact circumstances relating to Armstrong's TUE. When re-reading Voet's book the other day I noted something he wrote about a French winner of Gent Wevelgem in the 1990s. I did some digging and found he was most likely referring to Philippe Gaumont, and on looking at the Wikipedia article on him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Gaumont I found the following:

`He gave details such as how to avoid being tested positive for corticoids: how, for instance, to irritate one's testicle sac using salt in order to provoke a rash and obtain a prescription for some corticoid cream. Since urine tests do not distinguish between (legal) corticoid applied as creams, with a prescription, and (illegal) injections, such prescriptions are used to mask doping.'

Does this have any relevance to Armstrong's use of corticosteroids?

 

[Animal]

Interesting NPR article today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

 

[sars1981]

I'm sorry if this is repeating what others have written before in this forum, but I'm interested in your point number 5, but can't remember the exact circumstances relating to Armstrong's TUE. When re-reading Voet's book the other day I noted something he wrote about a French winner of Gent Wevelgem in the 1990s. I did some digging and found he was most likely referring to Philippe Gaumont, and on looking at the Wikipedia article on him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Gaumont I found the following:

`He gave details such as how to avoid being tested positive for corticoids: how, for instance, to irritate one's testicle sac using salt in order to provoke a rash and obtain a prescription for some corticoid cream. Since urine tests do not distinguish between (legal) corticoid applied as creams, with a prescription, and (illegal) injections, such prescriptions are used to mask doping.'

Does this have any relevance to Armstrong's use of corticosteroids?

Thanks for imagary of Lance sitting naked on his couch attacking his b#ll-sack with a nail-file.

 

[Hawkwood]

Thanks for imagary of Lance sitting naked on his couch attacking his b#ll-sack with a nail-file.

He might have got a friend to do it for him!

 

[sars1981]

He might have got a friend to do it for him!

Yeah, there's a dude who hangs around this forum who wouldnt need to be asked twice.

 

[Adamastor]

Interesting NPR article today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863

Sorry, do you mean it is interesting today to read again the NPR article dated 24th June 2006 ?

 

[sars1981]

I think that's him right there.

 

[Animal]

Sorry, do you mean it is interesting today to read again the NPR article dated 24th June 2006 ?

Doh! Saw the page timestamp right at the top saying July 15 2010.

I now see that that's when the page was served, not the time the article was added.

Not very intuitive page design there!

 

[Fester]

Sorry, do you mean it is interesting today to read again the NPR article dated 24th June 2006 ?

I found it incredibly poignant. It's more interesting to note such an article was published in 2006. So obviously the case on Lance has existed probably since a long time back.

People must have been happy enough to let his past discretions pass and he could have sailed away happily into retirement, with the odd doping story to haunt him, like every other champion. The ego -however- go the better of him!

It goes to show, it's nothing but a game and there are far greater issues and injustices going on in the world.

 

[Hawkwood]

Yeah, there's a dude who hangs around this forum who wouldnt need to be asked twice.

Given LA's TDF performance he needs to get on the phone quick to arrange another session.

 

[Mainerider]

Does anyone know why Betsy's testimony was never simply corroborated by the doctor that asked the question ? Do privacy laws protect this type of evidence? That seems like a gaping hole in the chain of events, although maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Cerberus]

Does anyone know why Betsy's testimony was never simply corroborated by the doctor that asked the question ? Do privacy laws protect this type of evidence? That seems like a gaping hole in the chain of events, although maybe I'm missing something.

It's not know what doctor was supposed to have asked the question, Betsy said she didn't believe it was one of the normal doctors.

 

[sars1981]

Does anyone know why Betsy's testimony was never simply corroborated by the doctor that asked the question ? Do privacy laws protect this type of evidence? That seems like a gaping hole in the chain of events, although maybe I'm missing something.

That works both ways! It's just as interesting to note that lance hasn't deposed the Dr to refute the story. Most likely Dr/client confidentiality protects it being discussed without LA agreeing to it. And the reasons Lance might not agree to it are more than obvious.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Does anyone know why Betsy's testimony was never simply corroborated by the doctor that asked the question ? Do privacy laws protect this type of evidence? That seems like a gaping hole in the chain of events, although maybe I'm missing something.

Good question - because it was one that puzzled me to until I read FLTL.

It was a training hospital - so the 2 Doctors were never found.
One of LA's Doctors submitted a written testimony that he was not there -which is true, as when Betsy was shown a foto of the Doctor she said he was not one of the Doctors that questioned Armstrong.

 

[Mainerider]

That works both ways! It's just at interesting to note that lance hasn't deposed the Dr to refute the story. Most likely Dr/client confidentiality protects it be discussed without LA agreeing to it. And the reasons Lance might not agree to it are more than obvious.

Very true. Although dated, that article is a great summary of those events. What I find incredible about him is that he is so arrogant and cocky that he feels comfortable admitting this stuff in front of people that he feels either adore him or are intimidated by him so much that they'd never call him on it.

 

[Mainerider]

Good question - because it was one that puzzled me to until I read FLTL.

It was a training hospital - so the 2 Doctors were never found.
One of LA's Doctors submitted a written testimony that he was not there -which is true, as when Betsy was shown a foto of the Doctor she said he was not one of the Doctors that questioned Armstrong.

Really? It's hard to believe that they couldn't locate the two doctors. Kind of scary actually for reasons other then the Armstrong affair.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Really? It's hard to believe that they couldn't locate the two doctors. Kind of scary actually for reasons other then the Armstrong affair.

Two days after the Andreus gave their testimony the LAF gave an endowment of $1.5 million to that hospital.

 

[poupou]

Good question - because it was one that puzzled me to until I read FLTL.

It was a training hospital - so the 2 Doctors were never found.
One of LA's Doctors submitted a written testimony that he was not there -which is true, as when Betsy was shown a foto of the Doctor she said he was not one of the Doctors that questioned Armstrong.

Should we believe that Novitsky could find that doctor now?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Should we believe that Novitsky could find that doctor now?

No.... there is a line from 'The Wire'

"You follow drugs, and you get drug addicts and drug dealers - but you start to the follow the money and you don't know where the **** it's going to take you."

Novitsky isn't interested in dopers or Doctors - he will follow the papertrail and the money.

 

[ricara]

Two days after the Andreus gave their testimony the LAF gave an endowment of $1.5 million to that hospital.

Doctor, I have to give you my admiration -- you always come up with the best gory details! You should be working for Novitsky.

So if LAF raises $50 million per year and they gave $1.5 million to the hospital that saved Lance's life, where does the other $48.5 million go?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Doctor, I have to give you my admiration -- you always come up with the best gory details! You should be working for Novitsky.

So if LAF raises $50 million per year and they gave $1.5 million to the hospital that saved Lance's life, where does the other $48.5 million go?

Awareness. ...

 

[buckwheat]

Doctor, I have to give you my admiration -- you always come up with the best gory details! You should be working for Novitsky.

So if LAF raises $50 million per year and they gave $1.5 million to the hospital that saved Lance's life, where does the other $48.5 million go?

Skeezers aka Hookers and Blow.

 

[Realist]

Some of the best evidence (imo) is in Lemond's taped phone-call with Stephanie McIlvain. I mean here is a girl, Armstrong's contact at Oakley, admitting that she heard what Frankie and Betsy Andreu heard but saying that she is too scared to tell the truth. The audio quality of that recording is absolutely sh#t and I think it would be referred to more if it wasnt so unlistenable. Somebody who knows how to use some noise reduction software should try to clean that up a bit for the file. I suppose it's not so important now since Lance is most likely going to be raped by this federal investigation. But before this Landis affair that was really a "diamond in the rough".

Is there a copy of a soundfile somewhere? I could have a go at it filtering it. I saw reference to this in the dep of Armstrong at SCA but I assumed it wasn't publicly available.