NY Times - Cyclists are said to back claims Armstrong doped

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

Legal question - would there be a statute of limitations on any "crime" that would be implied by these 1999 positiives?

There could be, however I believe it's being investigated under the RICOact which doesn't have a statute of limitations.

rick_chasey

What do you guys think the realistic conclusion of the investigation will be?

DaveyL

I don't know why, but I have a feeling LA won't see the inside of a jail, though his reputation will be trashed and he may get some sort of doping sanction, and that they will nail some of the (other) businessmen involved in the team.

sherer

not a WADA expert but I thought you had to have a A and B sample positive and there is only the B sample left now. I assume this has been stored properly although I expect any defense will probably claim otherwise.

Think someone told me they can now create an A and B sample with a single sample now but not sure if that is correct.

What I would like to see from this case is not the fall of one man but a whole root and branch investigation into cycling, the team managers who are part of the old guard who feel you have to dope to compete and the UCI who seem to be as corrupt as hell.

iainf72

I think Kleber pointed out if he's found guilty of a crime related to doping, he could face a doping sanction based on that case.

If he lies, he'll go to prison. If he doesn't, his rep will be in the pan but he won't go to prison.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

I think Kleber pointed out if he's found guilty of a crime related to doping, he could face a doping sanction based on that case.

If he lies, he'll go to prison. If he doesn't, his rep will be in the pan but he won't go to prison.

So which of those do you think is most likely?

sherer

don't forget this is just going to a Grand Jury so far nit sure what powers they have but isn't this a sort of pre trial thing to decide if this can then go to a proper court trial ?

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

So which of those do you think is most likely?

I don't know. If the chips are really down, I think LA might not be as brash as people think.

I see a top Italian anti-doping prosecutor is involved too - Is that for the Ferrari angle I wonder?

Kléber

iainf72 wrote:

If he lies, he'll go to prison. If he doesn't, his rep will be in the pan but he won't go to prison.

It's not wild thinking to imagine Fabiani, Armstrong and others have been working on a plan to cover the announcement of any bad news. Simple things like "everyone else was doing it", "I've done lots for charity" and other statements to mitigate the fall out.

That said, were this to happen the fall is going to be big, people can't expect to land on their feet here.

Nevertheless, note the investigation is into the potential illegal use of money. It's possible the top guys in the team are done for doing the wrong things financially but the sporting side and the riders are excluded.

No_Ta_Doctor

On the point of retesting samples, I can think of a couple of scenarios where retesting would be useful.
1) Perform additional tests
2) Provide additional documentation of the tests being performed to ensure admissability in court - it's possible that it might require an accredited lab or procedure (not wada accreditation, but US justice system) for instance.

It's also worth noting that blood passport aside, tests and positives are processed individually by the UCI/WADA. This explains the requirement of a B sample +ve before they sanction an athlete. The feds, on the other hand can use a series of samples to show they haven't picked up a false positive.

DaveyL

I can't be arsed typing it all out again so I refer you to my post at the top of the page.

cal_stewart

I'm I missing something here. The FEDS don't care about a doping ban, all they want from the samples is to show LA is a lier so a jury will not believe a word he says. It does not matter if its not good enough for WADA as they are not the one being the case. Its to soil his rep at least and at best show he was on PEDs and link it to Fed Money.

So why all the talk of a doping ban. It would be a waste of WADAs money.

No_Ta_Doctor

Having been duly referred to the answer the honourable gentleman gave some moments ago....

DaveyL wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

I don't see why any of the tests would be legally inadmissible - the evidence would just be stronger or weaker depending on whether there were two samples etc.

If the tests are not legally admissible then why was he not prosecuted in 2005? A conspiracy? It would be "evidence" from a normal court's point of view but not enough to convict, from a WADA point of view. But if they are admissible now, why bother re-testing?

That's the wrong way round surely? If they weren't legally admissible then he wasn't prosecuted because of that. I'm assuming you just typed a not where you didn't mean to.

I can see various reasons the old tests might not have been admissible in a court, mainly to do with paperwork/procedure etc.

That said, even if they were admissible, he wouldn't have been prosecuted until someone actually went to the bother of putting a case against him. Was doping a criminal case in the US, or France back in 2005? I can't remember.

Don't forget that the case now being made is one of misuse of public funds, that's an angle that might not have occurred to many prosecutors in 2005.

DaveyL wrote:

Steve2020 wrote:

Without knowing what was tested for the first time round and what was stored, it is hard to speculate on why they might test again. All we know about the first samples is that they didn't lead to a doping positive (unless the Tour de Suisse incident is true).

Exactly. So my question still stands - what tests are they going to do now to show this is a positive, *over and above* what has already been done?

[/quote]

I imagine there's a whole range of possible corroboratory testing they could do. What's new on the testing scene related to EPO since 95? New masking agent tests possibly? Maybe they just want to go back and do a few of the tests that were available at the time that weren't carried out.

DaveyL

No tA Doctor wrote:

I can see various reasons the old tests might not have been admissible in a court, mainly to do with paperwork/procedure etc.

That said, even if they were admissible, he wouldn't have been prosecuted until someone actually went to the bother of putting a case against him. Was doping a criminal case in the US, or France back in 2005? I can't remember.

Don't forget that the case now being made is one of misuse of public funds, that's an angle that might not have occurred to many prosecutors in 2005.

Yes, I included an extra "not" that shouldn't have been there. My points are:

The tests don't *need* to be admissible in court (from a WADA perspective). They can be used as *evidence* - i.e. strong indications that doping was going on, and which, coupled with everything else the case assembles, enough to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" that it was the case. If the tests were inadmissible back then in a WADA sense then any tests now are still inadmissible in a WADA sense as they still only have the B samples! So what is the point in re-testing them? What else are you going to get out of it?

No tA Doctor wrote:

I imagine there's a whole range of possible corroboratory testing they could do. What's new on the testing scene related to EPO since 95? New masking agent tests possibly? Maybe they just want to go back and do a few of the tests that were available at the time that weren't carried out.

Masking agents? The 2005 tests on the 1999 samples *detected* epo! So either no masking agents were used or they weren't very good!

Again - why do they need new, "corroborating" testing, on the *same B samples*? If I've shot someone in the temple, what's the point in doing an autopsy to see if I've poisoned the victim as well? It might add to the case against me?

If anyone is going to re-test these samples for something new, or any of Armstrong's samples for that matter, why haven't they been tested already? Are the AFLD not really bothered about nailing Armstrong? If Jeff wanted the samples tested for something, he could send AFLD an e-mail.

He's probably over there to interview AFLD and others on their experiences of dealing with LA and his team, and to find out the stuff that l'Equipe never bothered to leak..

ratsbeyfus

That makes sense Davey_L, and I agree.

No_Ta_Doctor

Ah Davey, I see where you're coming from now.

I actually agree with you that I don't think they'll be retesting, but were only there for some background interviews and to fill out the gaps. I think it was the bit where the AFLD interviewee said they'd give Novitsky access to everything, including the contents of the fridge, that probably started the speculation. My own speculative input on why retesting should have been prefaced with a huge IF they really are going to retest.

Arkibal

Whatever this means, if anything...

U.S. federal government officially asked the French judicial authorities to co-operate in the investigation
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 ... sportsNews

DaveyL

Maybe there was something dodgy about Lance's long black socks after all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11775465

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Ah Davey, I see where you're coming from now.

I actually agree with you that I don't think they'll be retesting, but were only there for some background interviews and to fill out the gaps. I think it was the bit where the AFLD interviewee said they'd give Novitsky access to everything, including the contents of the fridge, that probably started the speculation. My own speculative input on why retesting should have been prefaced with a huge IF they really are going to retest.

the lab can't hand over every and all samples...they have no knowledge of who each sample is from because if they do they are criminals unfit to do the job they do because it means they got the information from outside the lab about what samples to ever so conveniently pick up from the fridge and give to this drain on public money that is Novitsky

DaveyL

Dave_1 wrote:

the lab can only hand over every and all samples...they have no knowledge of who each sample is from because if they do they are criminals unfit to do the job they do because it means they got the information from outside the lab about what samples to ever so conveniently pick up from the fridge and give to this drain on public money that is Novitsky

Except for the ones they already know belong to Armstrong (e.g. the 1999 ones) because Armstrong agreed to be identified with them. (According to Walsh in the Lance to Landis book, I think)

I've got this wonderful image of Novitzky turning up with a cool box to take the samples back on the plane to the US.

andyp

The l'Equipe journalist, whose name I've momentarily forgotten, sought out both the UCI and Armstrong's permission to get access to his 1999 drug test results. Permission was given by both parties so any accusation of illegal behaviour is, frankly, risible.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

this drain on public money that is Novitsky

You don't think fraud should be investigated? Fraud against a US government agency?

"I tell you what chaps, lets not worry about Bernie Madoff, he made significant charity contributions" - Would that fly?

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

this drain on public money that is Novitsky

You don't think fraud should be investigated? Fraud against a US government agency?

"I tell you what chaps, lets not worry about Bernie Madoff, he made significant charity contributions" - Would that fly?

Yeah, but expenditure has to be in proportion to the crime. You don't spend £100,000 investigating who stole some shoes from the local shop.

Armstrong's no Madoff, he took $18 billion. In fact, I'd argue there's not actually been any fraud. US Postal paid for advertising and they got advertising. (Although Novitsky obviously knows more about US law than me).

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

Yeah, but expenditure has to be in proportion to the crime. You don't spend £100,000 investigating who stole some shoes from the local shop.

Armstrong's no Madoff, he took $18 billion. In fact, I'd argue there's not actually been any fraud. US Postal paid for advertising and they got advertising. (Although Novitsky obviously knows more about US law than me).

Do you think it needs to be proportional to the crime? I was on jury duty last year and a couple of petty crimes got to a full jury trial. (5 pounds nicked from someone, for example)

I think the issue is what the contract between USPS and Tailwind said. I believe it's common in these kind of contracts that they specifically mention the rules of the sport being adhered to.

Also, for all the concentration on Armstrong, perhaps some of his business partners are the bigger fish for the government

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Do you think it needs to be proportional to the crime? I was on jury duty last year and a couple of petty crimes got to a full jury trial. (5 pounds nicked from someone, for example)

Just because it happens, it doesn't mean it's acceptable. I believe there are proposals to stop this sort of thing in this country.

But that's an aside really.

They do seem to be spending a lot on this case, though. Probably more than is merited (IMO). But, hey, I'm not American, so what do I care.

rick_chasey

Sport is big business.

This kind of sh!t needs to be investigated.

Just because doping in sport is a 'white-collar' crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled properly.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

They do seem to be spending a lot on this case, though. Probably more than is merited (IMO). But, hey, I'm not American, so what do I care.

If you look on the flipside of the coin, it sends a message that no one is above scrutiny.

dave_1

Re 1999
Ressiot said he wanted to check TUEs but infact he had prior knowledge of research at the lab and so was able to match the bar codes. He lied to LA about his intentions in seeking consent to get the control forms and lied to the UCI too. Matching barcodes was what he was about. Good journo, dumb LA.

blazing_saddles

iainf72 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

They do seem to be spending a lot on this case, though. Probably more than is merited (IMO). But, hey, I'm not American, so what do I care.

If you look on the flipside of the coin, it sends a message that no one is above scrutiny.

That, apparently is the philosophy employed when these investigations are put into motion.
No expense spared, irrelevant of the bottom line of the alleged crime.
Admittedly, a bone of contention to the tax payer, but morally solid.

The 1999 tests, possible re-tests, showergate samples, Astana dump samples, whatever.
I'm yet to figure out how all of this can be reconstituted to form tangible evidence that can become the blue touchpaper that ignites a RICO indictment.

iainf72

Bit of info from the Italians

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian ... estigation