USADA files doping charges against Lance

dennisn

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Well, I am retired and at times a bit bored. Guess I'm perfect for the job. And as an added plus I have already confessed to drug use. And, oh yes, alcohol abuse. Wait, maybe it should be radio talk show. I have been told I have a good radio voice or, as someone already mentioned, that may only mean I'm ugly. Perfect.

lol, we could all make our fortunes!

I don't know. We make our fortunes off of drugs, peoples misery, shady doctors, dirty money, overzealous police, rumor and innuendo, and cycling cheats? What do you think? Maybe a bit too ironic????? Naaaaaaah, it's for money!

mfin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2171691/Three-Lance-Armstrongs-teammates-LIFETIME-USADA-bans-doping.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Daily Mail reporting it now... and the Daily Mail know what they're on about, always on the pulse they are

and The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/10/cycling-doping-ban

ddraver

But what affect will it have on House Prices mfin!!!!!!

sherer

LA submits his case again. Down to 25 pages this time

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lanc ... -Complaint

Welsh_Wizard

In summary; 'who gives a fuck?'

Has-been athlete caught with his fingers in the nectar. Same as cops, politicians, bankers and every other fuck nut on this god-forsaken rock.

Rundfahrt

Interesting article that has some interesting info on the USADA.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... ictim.html

dave_1

Yes, from the outside online article, it seems not unfeasible that Armstrong's lawyers could derail USADA or delay them for years.

Rundfahrt

Dave_1 wrote:

Yes, from the outside online article, it seems not unfeasible that Armstrong's lawyers could derail USADA or delay them for years.

Honestly after reading the article I wonder if the plan is to get people looking into USADA and it's powers and then use his powerful political connections to get the government to start questioning USADA and what they actually do.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

Yes, from the outside online article, it seems not unfeasible that Armstrong's lawyers could derail USADA or delay them for years.

Its been tried before. Doesn't work.

It reminds me somewhat of Kash's human rights defence.

The great irony is his organisation (CSE) effectively wrote large parts of what he's fighting against.

le_patron

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Yes, from the outside online article, it seems not unfeasible that Armstrong's lawyers could derail USADA or delay them for years.

Its been tried before. Doesn't work.

It reminds me somewhat of Kash's human rights defence.

The great irony is his organisation (CSE) effectively wrote large parts of what he's fighting against.

Yes, he's basically saying USADA are unlawful and thus their opinion is irrelevant.
And by extension any governing body that has rules that aren't written in law are invalid, be it in sport or anywhere else.
And yet he's previously spent a lot of time and money and going out of his way to support exactly these types of anti-doping efforts in order to support his case for being clean (if you actually believe that.....Iain, maybe you can ask him another question :P )
Now he's caught he says he doesn't believe in any of it anyway.

You can see why the UCI sit on a load of blood passport data etc and only go after those that roll over.

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk ... 0.html?m=1

mfin

Well, he's heavy on the line that:

'My racing License was yearly with the UCI, I had a contract with the UCI because of that. I have NO contract at all with USADA' ...so therefore USADA is useless, irrelevant etc.

...its this kind of thing that is nothing short of stupid.

(I have a Driving License with the DVLA, next time the Police try to nick me for speeding and put points on my license Im might try to use a similar tack).

Also, the article seems to swing at the point it says that USADA are after a 'non analytical positive', as does Lance's document, so we're back to 'never tested positive', it says it on Lance's document. It doesn't say 'Never tested positive in competition apart from corticosteroids for which I got a backdated TUE although I accept I was tested positive, and also my 1999 samples about 6 of them were tested positive for EPO but not in the in-competition tests'.

To me, at least half of the doc comes up as hot air again.

ddraver

Are nt Licences National though? So his racing licence was with US Cycling..?

Is it different for Pro's?

mfin

le patron wrote:

Yes, he's basically saying USADA are unlawful and thus their opinion is irrelevant.

More than that though, he's saying that he has no contract with USADA so he doesn't have to answer to them anyway!

A lot of this doc is still 'guff' layering one thing on top of another. If he wants to say what I just paraphrased then there really is no need to get in to the workings of USADA at all. Certain layers of his argument will be laughed off in seconds, then the Judge will see what's left (if this bloated doc doesn't get chucked for the same reason as the last - which I having read it think it might well do).

mfin

ddraver wrote:

Are nt Licences National though? So his racing licence was with US Cycling..?

Is it different for Pro's?

I think if the License concerned in his legal argument was with US Cycling not the UCI he better wander over with a bottle of Tippex and a Biro and ask if he can change that bit of the doc don't you?

disgruntledgoat

mfin wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Are nt Licences National though? So his racing licence was with US Cycling..?

Is it different for Pro's?

I think if the License concerned in his legal argument was with US Cycling not the UCI he better wander over with a bottle of Tippex and a Biro and ask if he can change that bit of the doc don't you?

There's a UCI A-License you need to race above a certain level, with all the attendant whereabouts and health checks that go with it. I imagine the insurance one takes out with it is more comprehensive than a BC silver membership too.

TheEnglishman

I think the judge that threw out the first attempted lawsuit summed the current situation up well

Mr Armstrong... <your lawsuit> ...is a lengthy and bitter polemic, designed to attract media attention and public sympathy

derbygrimpeur

sounds like desperation to me

mfin

Here's how his filing is supposed to be structured and its content:

Judge's Order:
(1) the basis of jurisdiction,
(2) the legal claims asserted,
(3) against which Defendant each claim is asserted,
(4) the facts supporting each claim,
(5) a brief statement of why the facts give rise to each claims,
(6) the relief sought,
(7) why the claims entitle Plaintiff to the relief sought.

skylla

The resubmitted document by Armstrong et al. has a paragraph entitled "Prayer for Relief". That was me thinking that LA has found religion (seems to happen a lot with ex-sinners and drug users). But noh, it's a legal term...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_for_relief

Vino'sGhost

Nicely put. Armstrong raises some interesting points that without further research i cannot judge. I think the judge can still dismiss this and Im not sure what avenues that leaves open.

Hes not saying hes innocent though, merely that the statute of limitations is past not appropriate to now consider
, USADA has no authority in any case and it would be up to the UCI, he earns enough money and theres enough to urusp the usada authority in any case. Its the legal equivalent of saying 'I have never failed a drugtest'

better than the racing.


Ave Perry Masons calves

rdt

A fair bit appears a cut & paste job of the arguments the defence lawyers would've presented in a criminal case, arguments rendered largely/wholly irrelevant in an arbitration hearing of the type to be actually faced.

Neat way to nail people: use the Feds and orange jump suit perjury-fear to break the omerta, and once everyone's crying like babies and looking to save their own skins wheel them into the ADA to fess-up and grass-up en-masse those whose lawyering-up might have slowed/stalled a criminal case.

skylla

...and this is for Rund-fart:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... -Rats.html

PS: where's BB when you need him....

hommelbier

Sounds like Pat McQuaid is saying "nothing to do with me guv"

http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_sportnieuws/MG_wielrennen/1.1363787

dennisn

skylla wrote:

PS: where's BB when you need him....

Absolutely correct. If I only had a good chart or graph I could understand all this.

sherer

interesting that the claim says that WTC the governing body of triathlons have agreed to pay LA to compete and also give money to his charity. Surely this must be one of the first times a governing body pays the athlete to compete. No wonder they don't do any drug tests at the events any more

LangerDan

sherer wrote:

interesting that the claim says that WTC the governing body of triathlons have agreed to pay LA to compete and also give money to his charity. Surely this must be one of the first times a governing body pays the athlete to compete. No wonder they don't do any drug tests at the events any more

I think the ITU is the governing body per se. WTU is the owner and promoter of the Ironman brand. A bit like how motorsport overall is ruled by the FIA with Formula 1 being handled as a commercial venture outside of the FIA by the Formula One Group.

It was actually the WTUs own rules that have LA benched at the moment - a competitor who is the subject of an active investigation is barred from competing.

sherer

thanks for clearing up the above.

One way to get round this is for USADA to publicly give all the info they have over to the UCI then they can't ignore this any more

ddraver

I think they will when they finish....

Rundfahrt

skylla wrote:

...and this is for Rund-fart:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... -Rats.html

PS: where's BB when you need him....

I read the article back in January (you see I read all of the info, not just what suits my opinions like some people around here) and it's one of the reasons I found the article I posted so interesting. Outside has not exactly been a friend of Armstrong, so the article I posted comes from a source that can be brushed aside as being biased towards LA.

I also think many of you are looking at this from the wrong angle, I'll repost what I wrote last night:

Honestly after reading the article I wonder if the plan is to get people looking into USADA and it's powers and then use his powerful political connections to get the government to start questioning USADA and what they actually do.

ddraver

He's looking at it from a different angle to you...he's making no comment on USADA, just how livestrong is run.

But on the last bit I think you have a point(...however I'm not sure if there is anything to question.)

A large part of the problem is that Armstrong has become so much more than a cyclist now. If it was TJvG, no one would care as that is almost purely sporting, but with Armstrong it's charities, business interets, even other companies run by other people that stand to lose out if USADA find against Armstrong. I can't think of another case where so much was at stake. Even handing down no sanction (or just a token one), leaving the wins, but putting an asterix next to them saying "done with dope" will cause problems!