USADA files doping charges against Lance

mfin

BikingBernie wrote:

skylla wrote:

Welcome to the ride. Read the leaked 15 page document that was leaked to the WSJ. It's dynamite.

But tells us little that wasn't already public knowledge...

+1 Agreed

Its waiting to hear what evidence there is and who has testified what, and we're in for a wait.

skavanagh.bikeradar

I think after 16 years we can do the waiting patiently thing.

mfin

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

skylla wrote:

Welcome to the ride. Read the leaked 15 page document that was leaked to the WSJ. It's dynamite.

But tells us little that wasn't already public knowledge...

There is a significant difference between an internet loon saying it and the USADA saying it.

To be fair, a lot of the specific accusations in the doc have been said before over the years though, nothing really that new. None of the content seemed that new to me.... but yeah, its the clout of USADA saying it this time and with confidence to launch these proceedings.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Anyone know where I can get a nice steak whilst wearing my new CheatStrong wristband

mfin

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

I think after 16 years we can do the waiting patiently thing.

Can we?? ...'are we there yet, dad, are we there yet, are we there yet, daaaad, are we there yet'

BikingBernie

greeny12 wrote:

Holy cow - missed this bit previously:

But according to USADA, Armstrong’s test results from his comeback years of 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” If true, that means that even as “everybody” stopped doing it, Armstrong kept right on going.

Cheeky sod!

You probably also missed 'the graph' indicating that he was still blood doping in 2009 and which was in the public domain almost 3 years ago, and is also to be found earlier in this thread.

bigdawg

something that stands out in that letter (the lawyers one..) is that they are berating and complaining about the USADA using grand jury testimony and accompanying novitsky in the prior investigation - please don't let this be what they use to throw out the evidence and another investigation gets closed without being completed.

rick_chasey

NOT THE GRAPH.

timoid.

greeny12 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2012/06/lance_armstrong_doping_will_the_latest_investigation_prove_his_guilt_or_exonerate_him_once_and_for_all_.html

Holy cow - missed this bit previously:

But according to USADA, Armstrong’s test results from his comeback years of 2009 and 2010 are “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” If true, that means that even as “everybody” stopped doing it, Armstrong kept right on going.

Cheeky sod!

That's really the punchline. If he had stayed sitting on his porch whittling wood, drinking beer and annoying the neighbours people might have left him alone. Instead he came back with to take the peees out of cycling again. But the cycling world moved on somewhat from those times and this suit is the result.

He's a grade A jerk with and ego to match. I really hope he is collared by this.

josame

15 page letter here...

http://road.cc/sites/default/files/arms ... ng0613.pdf

iainf72

bigdawg wrote:

something that stands out in that letter (the lawyers one..) is that they are berating and complaining about the USADA using grand jury testimony and accompanying novitsky in the prior investigation - please don't let this be what they use to throw out the evidence and another investigation gets closed without being completed.

Except that they didn't use GJ testimony. I'd say the piece around Travis is more FUD and trying to say it's not fair. But if the same athletes were called by the USADA and said the same thing, all of their complaints don't amount to a hill of beans

mfin

If Lance does have his titles stripped I think we should all donate a minimum of £10 to the American Cancer Society so that some good comes out of it in the way Lance would want.

skavanagh.bikeradar

He could dontate some of his personal (ill-gotten) fortune himself. If the allegations are true.

mfin

skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:

He could dontate some of his personal (ill-gotten) fortune himself. If the allegations are true.

Well, maybe we could set up a page to channel the donations and then send the total to Lance and see if he'll match it. (hopefully multiplied a few times as he's well off)

Anyone who's familiar with setting up these kind of pages easily able to do so for the bikeradar community??

LangerDan

Going back to the issue of alleged collusion between USPS and the UCI, it may shed some light on the number of former USPS (or Disco or Astana)riders who were nabbed after they had departed.

Assuming that some degree of "protection" had been agreed, it would be in the interest of the key players (LA, JB etc) for as few people as possible to know about such an arrangement. Therefore many riders on the squad may have regarded the lack of positives as indicative that their programme was keeping them below the UCI radar. When they left the fold, they kept on with their "safe" programmes, but now without the safety net. Hence they get caught.

BikingBernie

iainf72 wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

skylla wrote:

Welcome to the ride. Read the leaked 15 page document that was leaked to the WSJ. It's dynamite.

But tells us little that wasn't already public knowledge...

There is a significant difference between an internet loon saying it and the USADA saying it.

And there I was thinking that Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Filippo Simeoni, Dr. Michael Ashenden, Betsy Andreu Stephanie McIllvain etc. etc. etc. were all real people. :shock:

skylla

BikingBernie wrote:

skylla wrote:

Welcome to the ride. Read the leaked 15 page document that was leaked to the WSJ. It's dynamite.

But tells us little that wasn't already public knowledge...

It tells you and us little. However, what we (and that includes you) are saying bears little weight. This is USADA and another Amercian awakening.

ddraver

iainf72 wrote:

How many people have emailed the addresses on the USADA letter with a picture of Nelson from the Simpsons saying "ha ha"

I posted it here...but I confess i don't have the balls to do that!

BikingBernie

LangerDan wrote:

Going back to the issue of alleged collusion between USPS and the UCI, it may shed some light on the number of former USPS (or Disco or Astana)riders who were nabbed after they had departed.

Assuming that some degree of "protection" had been agreed, it would be in the interest of the key players (LA, JB etc) for as few people as possible to know about such an arrangement. Therefore many riders on the squad may have regarded the lack of positives as indicative that their programme was keeping them below the UCI radar. When they left the fold, they kept on with their "safe" programmes, but now without the safety net. Hence they get caught.

Maybe Armstrong, who is notoriously vindictive with regards anyone he feels has 'betrayed him' (for example by leaving the team) or who he feels is taking any of his limelight (consider the dreadful way he treated Contador) just let the powers that be know he 'wouldn't be sorry' if they were busted. OK, that's a bit 'tin foil hat' but after all we have seen I don't think that it is an impossibility.

Squaggles

Surely the UCI are not going to survive this ? Will we actually get some real change in the way the sport is run ?

prawny

BikingBernie wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Going back to the issue of alleged collusion between USPS and the UCI, it may shed some light on the number of former USPS (or Disco or Astana)riders who were nabbed after they had departed.

Assuming that some degree of "protection" had been agreed, it would be in the interest of the key players (LA, JB etc) for as few people as possible to know about such an arrangement. Therefore many riders on the squad may have regarded the lack of positives as indicative that their programme was keeping them below the UCI radar. When they left the fold, they kept on with their "safe" programmes, but now without the safety net. Hence they get caught.

Maybe Armstrong, who is notoriously vindictive with regards anyone he feels has 'betrayed him' (for example by leaving the team) or who he feels is taking any of his limelight (consider the dreadful way he treated Contador) just let the powers that be know he 'wouldn't be sorry' if they were busted. OK, that's a bit 'tin foil hat' but after all we have seen I don't think that it is an impossibility.

Extra tin foil hat, but Floyd is still saying he was busted for something he didn't do. Maybe when he was using sythetic testosterone with Lance but HGH with phonak and Lance put a call in, just saying like.

prawny

iainf72 wrote:

bigdawg wrote:

something that stands out in that letter (the lawyers one..) is that they are berating and complaining about the USADA using grand jury testimony and accompanying novitsky in the prior investigation - please don't let this be what they use to throw out the evidence and another investigation gets closed without being completed.

Except that they didn't use GJ testimony. I'd say the piece around Travis is more FUD and trying to say it's not fair. But if the same athletes were called by the USADA and said the same thing, all of their complaints don't amount to a hill of beans

Also, that defence didn't work for Valverde, I assume because these are doping investigations and not criminal ones.
Would I be correct in assuming that the evidence gathering wouldn't need to be up to quite as high a standard as a criminal case. Then if he is sanctioned the the Feds could use those sanctions in a criminal case?

frenchfighter

What is the exact name of the charge he could receive and potentially go to prison for?

josame

prawny wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

bigdawg wrote:

something that stands out in that letter (the lawyers one..) is that they are berating and complaining about the USADA using grand jury testimony and accompanying novitsky in the prior investigation - please don't let this be what they use to throw out the evidence and another investigation gets closed without being completed.

Except that they didn't use GJ testimony. I'd say the piece around Travis is more FUD and trying to say it's not fair. But if the same athletes were called by the USADA and said the same thing, all of their complaints don't amount to a hill of beans

Also, that defence didn't work for Valverde, I assume because these are doping investigations and not criminal ones.
Would I be correct in assuming that the evidence gathering wouldn't need to be up to quite as high a standard as a criminal case. Then if he is sanctioned the the Feds could use those sanctions in a criminal case?

That's just silly (no offence meant) but if they had the evidence they didn't have to wait for this before they prosecute.....

moray_gub

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Moray Gub wrote:

Gazzetta67 wrote:

God you go out for a meal on a midweek and this breaks what have i missed ??

Does this mean he will be stripped off his titles and more importantly will his lovechild "Moray Gub" ever come on here again 8)

I see no reason why i wouldn't come on here and we will see how it all pans out after all we had moronic Celtic fans like you coming your pants hailing Jeff the Hero the last time when the Grand Jury investigation was it its height and we all know how that turned out. Still this gives you the chance to bring forth your Hincapie at Pla D'Adet story ad naseum almost as bad as the bloody graph from that other obsessive. Persoanlly i couldnt give a monkeys either way though its old hat .

Moray I implore you to watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia6dV_G5UxE&feature=player_embedded

...surely you can see the funny side of this? (...tiptoes out of the room...)

Aye not bad those Hitler things are a bit played out though but check out the Harry Potter one easily the best ive seen .

Coriander

On a point of order (because I am a pedant and do like to know these things), articles and people keep saying that USADA could strip the divine one of his TdF wins. Can they? Or is it ASO's race and therefore only their right to decide who has won it? Can USADA only declare that his lordship was dopped to the gills when he won, thus giving ASO reason to act?

skylla

frenchfighter wrote:

What is the exact name of the charge he could receive and potentially go to prison for?

It's not a criminal investigation! However, Feds could get involved again once USADA is done!

frenchfighter

skylla wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

What is the exact name of the charge he could receive and potentially go to prison for?

It's not a criminal investigation! However, Feds could get involved again once USADA is done!

Yeah, I mean if they do. What can they bring against him?

skylla

josame wrote:

prawny wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

bigdawg wrote:

something that stands out in that letter (the lawyers one..) is that they are berating and complaining about the USADA using grand jury testimony and accompanying novitsky in the prior investigation - please don't let this be what they use to throw out the evidence and another investigation gets closed without being completed.

Except that they didn't use GJ testimony. I'd say the piece around Travis is more FUD and trying to say it's not fair. But if the same athletes were called by the USADA and said the same thing, all of their complaints don't amount to a hill of beans

Also, that defence didn't work for Valverde, I assume because these are doping investigations and not criminal ones.
Would I be correct in assuming that the evidence gathering wouldn't need to be up to quite as high a standard as a criminal case. Then if he is sanctioned the the Feds could use those sanctions in a criminal case?

That's just silly (no offence meant) but if they had the evidence they didn't have to wait for this before they prosecute.....

That's not silly. USADA is better placed to argue in favour of doping offences. From there it's a small step to reopen the FEDs investigation. Remember that the USADA does not -of course!- have the power for grand jury hearings.

You see, this has been setup to cause maximum damage! Sit back and enjoy.

prawny

josame wrote:

That's just silly (no offence meant) but if they had the evidence they didn't have to wait for this before they prosecute.....

None taken, hence the question mark. I was just wordering whether, if say, they had some evidence that wouldn't be admissable in court because of the way they came about it (bearing in mind I watch a LOT of CSI) but then became public knowledge in a doping investigation it might then be usable?

Again just conjecture, I'm not a legal eagle. I just find it hard to belive that USPS were doping but not using the sponsors money to pay for it, ergo there should have been something from the federal case.