USADA files doping charges against Lance

timoid.

LeicesterLad wrote:

As for RSNT - Will they even start the Tour this year? I'm struggling to see it myself.

And how much longer will the team even exist?

People focus a lot on Armstrong, but I'm proabably as happy that The Hog is getting his comuppance.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

That's what WADA say.

Of course the USADA might not have let the riders know this when they questioned them

DeadCalm

Jez mon wrote:

Crozza wrote:

this sums up my feelings pretty well, based on my limited understanding of the facts, and the problems that I have with a lot of the statements that Bernie claims are backed by "evidence":

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Opinion/Armst ... _2848.html

"If he’s guilty and the only way to enforce a ban on him is through a bogus process, I hope he’s not banned, because then our process suffers."

Surely that should be

If he’s guilty and the only way to enforce a ban on him is through a bogus process, than our original process needs review.

If I was testing a part to go in a jet engine, which kept failing in use, yet stood up to lab tests, I wouldn't scratch my head and go well, it's passing the tests, it must be fine. I'd go, this process is failing to deliver the correct result.

That's not really a good comparison though is it. The process is a quasi-legal one with in-built rules designed to protect the innocent with an acknowledged acceptance that as a result guilty parties may exploit those rules. That's an established part of our legal process. I know almost nothing about the jet engine design process but I assume that there is no real concern over the rights of innocent parts.

I actually think it's a reasonably balanced piece albeit he doesn't try to hide his sympathies for Armstrong and I too am concerned at the inclusion of the Swiss test and the recent blood values in the letter because evidentially they are going to be hard to prove. It's almost as if USADA were uncomfortable relying solely upon testimony of other riders and wanted to get some sort of positive in there to counter the inevitable 'still never tested positive and it's a spiteful conspiracy of jealous former teammates' cries from the Armstrong camp.

I guess they know what they are doing but it could backfire on them.

mididoctors

BikingBernie wrote:

On the subject of the UCI being willing to collude with teams that will help them to further their aims, I wonder what Patrice Clerc is feeling right now.

Everyone will probably remember how it was reported that Armstrong met with the UCI prior the 2009 Tour in order to negotiate how his return to the race would be handled. The aftermath saw the UCI 'fall out' with the AFLD, with the AFLD accusing the UCI of favouritism when testing riders from Armstrong's team in the 2009 Tour, and the UCI then preventing the AFLD from testing riders at the 2010 Tour. Even more tellingly, after his meeting with Armstrong, McQuaid arranged a meeting with the ASO. Shortly after this Patrice Clerc, who was president of the ASO and had taken a strongly anti-doping stance, was sacked. McQuaid's arrogance was such that he even admitted the part he had played in his dismissal saying:

"It's something I shouldn't comment on," McQuaid told ESPN.com Wednesday. "It's an internal Amaury decision. All I would say [to Clerc] is 'goodbye,' and you can read between the lines if you like."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=3621096

I guess that makes the ASO complicit in all this as well...

The sense of unreality surrounding that time was so thick you could package it up and sell it.


it was as thou Lance had become bigger than the sport..... I just couldn't believe what was happening. Madness

Jez mon

DeadCalm wrote:

That's not really a good comparison though is it. The process is a quasi-legal one with in-built rules designed to protect the innocent with an acknowledged acceptance that as a result guilty parties may exploit those rules. That's an established part of our legal process. I know almost nothing about the jet engine design process but I assume that there is no real concern over the rights of innocent parts.

I actually think it's a reasonably balanced piece albeit he doesn't try to hide his sympathies for Armstrong and I too am concerned at the inclusion of the Swiss test and the recent blood values in the letter because evidentially they are going to be hard to prove. It's almost as if USADA were uncomfortable relying solely upon testimony of other riders and wanted to get some sort of positive in there to counter the inevitable 'still never tested positive and it's a spiteful conspiracy of jealous former teammates' cries from the Armstrong camp.

I guess they know what they are doing but it could backfire on them.

It's not a perfect one no. The parts don't have rights, but the designers/engineers who made that part would do. I think USADA have just tried to bundle together all the good evidence they have. Why would they present testimony but not positive tests, or visa versa.

mididoctors

DeadCalm wrote:

I too am concerned at the inclusion of the Swiss test and the recent blood values in the letter because evidentially they are going to be hard to prove. It's almost as if USADA were uncomfortable relying solely upon testimony of other riders and wanted to get some sort of positive in there to counter the inevitable 'still never tested positive and it's a spiteful conspiracy of jealous former teammates' cries from the Armstrong camp.

I guess they know what they are doing but it could backfire on them.

+1

If they falsely accuse him of something that can be proved false... then he could slip the net as everything else will become tainted

mididoctors

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

I thought the feds handed over their stuff?

rick_chasey

mididoctors wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

I thought the feds handed over their stuff?

S'not what's been reported.

mididoctors

maybe it was a deal.. "look guys we dont want to get involved in this sports thing"

fess up to the USADA or we will bust you for real.

afx237vi

Still no response from the UCI?

DeadCalm

Jez mon wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

That's not really a good comparison though is it. The process is a quasi-legal one with in-built rules designed to protect the innocent with an acknowledged acceptance that as a result guilty parties may exploit those rules. That's an established part of our legal process. I know almost nothing about the jet engine design process but I assume that there is no real concern over the rights of innocent parts.

I actually think it's a reasonably balanced piece albeit he doesn't try to hide his sympathies for Armstrong and I too am concerned at the inclusion of the Swiss test and the recent blood values in the letter because evidentially they are going to be hard to prove. It's almost as if USADA were uncomfortable relying solely upon testimony of other riders and wanted to get some sort of positive in there to counter the inevitable 'still never tested positive and it's a spiteful conspiracy of jealous former teammates' cries from the Armstrong camp.

I guess they know what they are doing but it could backfire on them.

It's not a perfect one no. The parts don't have rights, but the designers/engineers who made that part would do. I think USADA have just tried to bundle together all the good evidence they have. Why would they present testimony but not positive tests, or visa versa.

If preparing for a trial one has a number of charges against a defendant, some strong and some weak, it is generally a good tactical idea only to proceed with the strong ones. If the defendant is able to knock down the weaker charges it can be used as a smokescreen to make the whole case seem weaker.

rick_chasey

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

LeicesterLad

Rick Chasey wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Two thing

1) I'm impressed the USADA managed to get all of this information themselves

Was some of it not acquired from the previous federal investigation? Or did they refuse the USADA all access to their findings?

I believe they got it all themselves without the feds. Which is impressing me.

I thought the feds handed over their stuff?

S'not what's been reported.

Rick's right. Everything thats to be presented as outlined in the 'document' is evidence gathered entirely by the USADA themselves, which makes it even more damning. Had the USADA been able to get hold of the Fed stuff, heaven only knows the further devestation that could have been unleashed.

Gazzetta67

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Yellow Peril

Just caught up on this.

Is this the fastest 16 thread pages ever?

I'm not holding out for a fast conclusion to all of this. I assume Fat Pat is hurriedly packing a suitcase and a one way ticket to North Korea. He will be replaced by Biking Bernie.

I think the Shack are finished as well.

iainf72

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Nope. He'll just get a job at the Pret near South Ken tube station.

rick_chasey

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Pfft, it's difficult to say.

For me the biggest thing, Pharmstrong "OMG HE DOPED" aside is the UCI covering up tests.

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Nope. He'll just get a job at the Pret near South Ken tube station.

By virtue of his domicile, does the Hog hold a British Cycling licence? And if so, does that mean BC will have to hold all the disciplinary hearings relating to Bruyneel?

Jez mon

DeadCalm wrote:

If preparing for a trial one has a number of charges against a defendant, some strong and some weak, it is generally a good tactical idea only to proceed with the strong ones. If the defendant is able to knock down the weaker charges it can be used as a smokescreen to make the whole case seem weaker.

I guess it depends how the charges fit together. I don't know. The time taken for this to appear makes me think USADA have probably put the hours in to make a fairly water tight case.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Nope. He'll just get a job at the Pret near South Ken tube station.

He can pop round my house to clean my bike and polish my shoes for a £10er.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Pfft, it's difficult to say.

For me the biggest thing, Pharmstrong "OMG HE DOPED" aside is the UCI covering up tests.

Looking a few weeks ahead.

Does this have any impact on cycling as an Olympic sport? How quickly will/can it all come tumbling down. Will it all come tumbling down even!

rick_chasey

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Pfft, it's difficult to say.

For me the biggest thing, Pharmstrong "OMG HE DOPED" aside is the UCI covering up tests.

Looking a few weeks ahead.

Does this have any impact on cycling as an Olympic sport? How quickly will/can it all come tumbling down. Will it all come tumbling down even!

Yeah, the olympics really care about that stuff...:

symo

On the 18th stage of the 2004 edition of the Tour de France, Simeoni gapped up to a breakaway of six riders that posed no threat to Armstrong's leading position. Nevertheless, Armstrong followed Simeoni, which prompted Armstrong's rival T-Mobile Team to try to catch the breakaway. This would not only catch Armstrong but also eliminate the stage winning chances of the six riders in the original breakaway. The six riders implored Armstrong to drop back to the peloton, but Armstrong would not go unless Simeoni went with him and the two riders dropped back to the peloton. When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused by other riders, including Andrea Peron, Filippo Pozzato and Giuseppe Guerini. In a later interview, he told of how Daniele Nardello also abused him, calling him "a disgrace". Afterwards, Armstrong made a "zip-the-lips" gesture but later said that Simeoni "did not deserve" to win a stage. Two days later was the final stage, which is usually a slow stage in which the Tour winner (in 2004 it was Armstrong) already celebrates his victory. But in this stage Simeoni continuously attacked, to take revenge for what Armstrong did three days before, but was reeled in every time by Armstrong's team.[6] Simeoni was again insulted and spat at by other riders after this.

From Wiki,
LA - Lousy A-hole

BikingBernie

Has anyone seen any good 'tweets' on all this from those in the sport, especially the riders? I have looked up a few but not seen anything.

Wiggo's twitter feed has gone as quite as the day Landis went public. I am surprised that he is not celebrating what will surely be the first ever podium in the Tour de France by a British rider!

Yellow Peril

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Pfft, it's difficult to say.

For me the biggest thing, Pharmstrong "OMG HE DOPED" aside is the UCI covering up tests.

Looking a few weeks ahead.

Does this have any impact on cycling as an Olympic sport? How quickly will/can it all come tumbling down. Will it all come tumbling down even!

It won't impact on the Olympics because the Olympics still tends to have a "holier than thou" mentality as it still lives off its amateur ethos and not dirty professionalism which is what this will be considered. We Brits will also feel holier than thou because we always play with a straight bat and never cheat.

Box Hill will now be replaced by the Moral high ground as the biggest climb in the Olympic Road Race

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yeah, the olympics really care about that stuff...:

Good point. I vaguely remember the UCI getting a warning about doping and it's ramifications as to cycling's Olympic status a few years ago is all.

Yellow Peril

Rick Chasey wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

Still no response from the UCI?

They'll still be sh!tting the bed that that Swiss thing has cropped up again, and are working out whether to ban Bruyneel etc or not.

Does anyone else think that if Bruyneel is found guilty that he will say well if am going down am taking Verbruggen & McQuaid with me.

Pfft, it's difficult to say.

For me the biggest thing, Pharmstrong "OMG HE DOPED" aside is the UCI covering up tests.

Looking a few weeks ahead.

Does this have any impact on cycling as an Olympic sport? How quickly will/can it all come tumbling down. Will it all come tumbling down even!

Yeah, the olympics really care about that stuff...:

That is the worst attempt at YMCA I have ever seen. Christie's right arm should be well over his head!

frenchfighter

Gee wiz

LeicesterLad

frenchfighter wrote:

Fan boys should right click save as these are getting deleted

frenchfighter

“For me the thing that has the most far-reaching consequence is that several witnesses said that Armstrong talked about having a test result covered up,” Ashenden told Cyclingnews.

“That has enormous implications. If the evidence supports that charge it’s likely to descend cycling, which is already fending off a fair bit of criticism, into chaos. It’s hard to understate the ramifications. If Armstrong believed that he had a test that was covered up then that story doesn’t just end with him being sanctioned or not because other people must have been complicit with Armstrong.”

“The credibility of USADA’s witnesses who made those statements is obviously crucial, and would need to be weighed by the independent arbitrators who would decide upon a case if it were eventually opened. But if the account they have is compelling, and corroborative, then the UCI are inevitably going to be drawn into this,” Ashenden said.

“I know the UCI have strenuously denied this allegation in the past, but the story has added gravity now because USADA believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant mentioning the issue in their notice letter. The UCI have a duty to the fans and the public in general to police their sport without fear or favor. If it were found that they had in any way been involved in a cover up then it would be fatal for their credibility,”