USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
the problem with trying to go after all 5 is that only one of them has to be licenced in the US so they have no jurisdiction to ban them.
See Valverde and CONI who initially banned him in italy but couldn't do any more than that as they didn't have the lience to do more.
Could the other 4 just completely ignore this0 -
I can't remember exactly how it works, but no, they can't ignore it. And the USADA can get them banned
If you sign the WADA code, one of the rules is you respect the decisions of other ADA's. This means you can't get done twice for the same thing, but also gives the chance for things like this to happen. If they were found guilty by USADA, CONI et al have to respect itFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
The Valverde case isn't the best example as the Spanish Federation essentially chose to ignore the CONI decision, much as they chose to try and ignore Contador's positive test.
CONI would love to ban Ferrari and have, by reports I've seen, been very willing and helpful with the requests they've had from USADA.
Armstrong's tactics are clear; make as much noise as possible about never testing positive, attack the timescales and hope that some people still believe him to be innocent, even if the USADA appointed panel rules otherwise.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:I reckon as long as he keeps his cash he doesn't care.
Future cash flow should take a huge hit though.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Future cash flow should take a huge hit though.
How many millions does one man need? Besides. if he gets short he could always tap up Livestrong...0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:How many millions does one man need? Besides. if he gets short he could always tap up Livestrong...
http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnections.pdf
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Austin/lance-armstrong/37831991.aspx
I particularly like the way his private jet, sorry the Lance Armstrong Foundation's private jet that was used by Armstrong when he was 'raising awareness' by going to bike races and so forth, was owned by another of Armstrong's companies, 'Mellow Johnny's Aviation', so the profits to be made from leasing the plane to to the LAF went to him and his associates, or so it appears!
It is also interesting looking back at the annual reports of the LAF just how much they have spent on legal advice, with this often been the biggest single expenditure item. Still, it must be expensive defending the reputation of Armstrong, and without this the LAF is nothing, so I am sure it was money well spent.
As a PR exercise the LAF has also been worth tens of millions to Armstrong over the years.0 -
Send in the bailiffs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sport ... oping.html
Sunday times might also see their £200,000 returned.0 -
Wow, 43 pages and I just noticed it today. This could be THE one. By the way are there any other charts or graphs that do whatever it is that bikingbernies does?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:iainf72 wrote:The Mad Rapper wrote:iainf72 wrote:Gave the response to AP before he gave it to the USADA as well.
Complete PR exercise. Not doing anything to actually defend himself.
He did say recently he wasn't going to defend himself. Is that just because he CBA, or is it because he knows he's bang to rights?
I think it's more complex than that. Maybe he CBA, but Bruyneel, Ferrari, Del Moral etc will not behave the same way, and if they decided to cut a deal it would be utterly disastrous for him. Also, if USADA get them, there will be expensive civil cases.
His ideal scenario would be to say "I'm not fighting this at all, I can't be bothered, do whatever you will" and the evidence never see's the light of day. But with 4 other players that just can't happen.
That's known as perjury.
In addition any statements that were made during the Federal investigation have to match what's said at a UsADA hearing. Mr. Hincapie included otherwise they face being charged at a federal level.
No one wil be lying for Armstrong on this one. Way too much at stake.
Also Armstrong and money. He has little. Don't be fooled that he's wealthy. He's not.0 -
skylla wrote:Send in the bailiffs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sport ... oping.html
Sunday times might also see their £200,000 returned.0 -
whiteboytrash wrote:Armstrong and money. He has little. Don't be fooled that he's wealthy. He's not.0
-
Still, I have wondered whether the credit crunch and banking crisis, with the knock-on effect on the stock market and economy, were one reason behind LA's comeback years, i.e. the need to bring in some new capital quickly to replace losses or keep somebody happy.0
-
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-lan ... 1391.story
An individual familiar with the case but unauthorized to speak publicly about the matter said it was noteworthy that Armstrong stopped short in his response of submitting a sworn statement under oath that he has never doped.
hehFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
From 'The clinic', Joe Papp's view on the USADA action:Knowing the folks at USADA as well as I do, I'd describe them as ice-cold and fairly unemotional and unflappable. They think several moves ahead even when ordering dinner and early-on in the process I figured the best way to deal with them was not to try to be crafty or clever, b/c they'd eventually walk me into a brick-wall or punji-stick trap of my own making.
For them to even have decided to charge Lance they must be 99% confident/sure of being able to present sufficient evidence to win a conviction. Otherwise they wouldn't risk it. For them to have decided to charge several people along w/ him and bundle the crimes into a single massive conspiracy means the evidence is overwhelming.0 -
only thing I wonder about is I can't see LA doing a full confession but I think maybe he will end up saying he did the same as what everyone was doing and so therefore should still keep his wins0
-
Doesn't he then go down anyway for perjury because of the SCA thing, or did he not perjure himself in that ?0
-
the thing with the SCA case was there is no clause in there to say he needed to be clean.
It's only if his titles are taken off him they can claim the money back and as with Riis the ASO just did a star but he's still listed as the winner0 -
The statute of limitations is 3 years for perjury, so he has no case to answer for
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-sta ... erjury.htm0 -
-
Beatmaker wrote:0
-
http://www.sporza.be/permalink/1.1343830
Lemond visits de Cauwer.
Looks and sounds like a big fat American on holiday, especially with the camera...0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Jay Reisinger, the Pittsburgh attorney who represents Pettitte, points out that Armstrong’s prestige is more vulnerable than Clemens’ was. While Major League Baseball was never going to invalidate Clemens’ 354 wins — baseball stats don’t work that way — Armstrong’s titles are vulnerable, and losing them would rob him of his whole identity.
“He has a legacy as a seven-time Tour de France winner,” says Reisinger, who also represented Alex Rodriguez amid doping controversies, of Armstrong. “If he has a negative outcome in the USADA hearing, those can be taken away, and given who he is and what he has stood for, the money he raises for his foundation, that’s what made him the name that he is today.”
Plus it's not just aimed at him, it includes Bruyneel and others, although I'd imagine Ferrari would happily just ignore it too0 -
TailWindHome wrote:gattocattivo wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Armstrong has enough cash and enough to lose that he can get 5 people to tow his line.
Tow it? Where to?
Rick. The phrase is 'toe the line'. Though, like many English idioms, the incorrect version makes more sense....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line?vm=r
OT but I always thought it came from bare knuckle fighting where you had to stand with your toe at the line and slug it out.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:From 'The clinic', Joe Papp's view on the USADA action:Knowing the folks at USADA as well as I do, I'd describe them as ice-cold and fairly unemotional and unflappable. They think several moves ahead even when ordering dinner and early-on in the process I figured the best way to deal with them was not to try to be crafty or clever, b/c they'd eventually walk me into a brick-wall or punji-stick trap of my own making.
For them to even have decided to charge Lance they must be 99% confident/sure of being able to present sufficient evidence to win a conviction. Otherwise they wouldn't risk it. For them to have decided to charge several people along w/ him and bundle the crimes into a single massive conspiracy means the evidence is overwhelming.
Statements like that sort of make me wonder just who are these seemingly self annointed guardians of sport. Most likely a bunch of lawyers. For my money give me sports and competition anyday over a bunch of talking head lawyers. I would much rather watch the TDF than Court TV.0 -
-
dennisn wrote:BikingBernie wrote:From 'The clinic', Joe Papp's view on the USADA action:Knowing the folks at USADA as well as I do, I'd describe them as ice-cold and fairly unemotional and unflappable. They think several moves ahead even when ordering dinner and early-on in the process I figured the best way to deal with them was not to try to be crafty or clever, b/c they'd eventually walk me into a brick-wall or punji-stick trap of my own making.
For them to even have decided to charge Lance they must be 99% confident/sure of being able to present sufficient evidence to win a conviction. Otherwise they wouldn't risk it. For them to have decided to charge several people along w/ him and bundle the crimes into a single massive conspiracy means the evidence is overwhelming.
Statements like that sort of make me wonder just who are these seemingly self annointed guardians of sport. Most likely a bunch of lawyers. For my money give me sports and competition anyday over a bunch of talking head lawyers. I would much rather watch the TDF than Court TV.
Well that particular guardian was a fourth rate cyclist who had to dope to maintain that level, then got caught, then gave lectures about the ills of doping while simultaneously selling doping products to 200 people without any medical advice and then when arrested grassed up everyone he could think of to keep his sorry arse out of jail. He now tells Armstrong obsessives what they what to hear with huge doses of moralising in the hope that just a handful of people may forget that he's an utter scumbag.Twitter: @RichN950 -
dennisn wrote:
Statements like that sort of make me wonder just who are these seemingly self annointed guardians of sport. Most likely a bunch of lawyers. For my money give me sports and competition anyday over a bunch of talking head lawyers. I would much rather watch the TDF than Court TV.
Sort of with you there Dennis.
OTOH, I don't especially fancy watching a doping arms race and I would rather that the people who Armstrong seems to have wronged get their justice. Getting people like Bruyneel and Ferrari out of the sport also (potentially) helps prevent doping.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0