USADA files doping charges against Lance

1…6364666869…77

Comments

  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    TheBigBean wrote:
    LA's defence seems to be that he faces two choices:
    (i) plead guilty
    (ii) go to trial and be found guilty.

    Those are the standard choices for guilty people, this is not exceptional.

    I would have to agree with him on the two choices. Not something any of us would want to face.
    Try to remember that he's not guilty until proven guilty. You would want the same for yourself, right? Right? You may have convicted him but in all honesty you don't count. Not at all. For that matter neither do I.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ratherbeintobago wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    LA's defence seems to be that he faces two choices:
    (i) plead guilty
    (ii) go to trial and be found guilty.

    I'm sure it's been said before, but attacking the process (rather than going to court) isn't exactly the best way to proclaim one's innocence.

    Andy

    Isn't it?

    If you feel you're caught in a catch 22 that's not your fault, then I'd say go for it.
    _
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    If you feel you're caught in a catch 22 that's not your fault, then I'd say go for it.

    He took out a racing licence and agreed to this process. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have taken a licence.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    iainf72 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    If you feel you're caught in a catch 22 that's not your fault, then I'd say go for it.

    He took out a racing licence and agreed to this process. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have taken a licence.

    Wasn't specifically referring to Armstrong.
    _
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    If you feel you're caught in a catch 22 that's not your fault, then I'd say go for it.

    He took out a racing licence and agreed to this process. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have taken a licence.

    Wasn't specifically referring to Armstrong.

    Fair enough. But in this case, it is his fault.

    Funny how Bruyneel and Pepe Marti requested arbitration.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    It's only a Catch 22 if he is innocent though Rick.

    If he is, then I think this is strange way of going about showing it. It feels more like someone desperatly searching for a technicality to get out of it to me. After all this is the first time a proper ADO has opened a case on him. Ok so some insuracne company tried to get out of paying some money, but this is a proper investigation into what doping happened with the team.

    Dennis (cos I know what you ll say) - the Grand Jury was not about proving/disproving doping
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    iainf72 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    If you feel you're caught in a catch 22 that's not your fault, then I'd say go for it.

    He took out a racing licence and agreed to this process. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have taken a licence.

    Wasn't specifically referring to Armstrong.

    .

    You lot obviously haven't read any Kafka recently ;).

    Armstrong's f*cked it for himself.
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ddraver wrote:
    It's only a Catch 22 if he is innocent though Rick.

    Not really.

    If the two options are get caught, then the input (whether he is or isn't innocent) is irrelevant.


    [/pedant mode over]
    _
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Well Ok, it's a Catch 22 is USADA are rigged, but does anyone believe that USADA are rigged?

    Come on....
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    ddraver wrote:
    Well Ok, it's a Catch 22 is USADA are rigged, but does anyone believe that USADA are rigged?

    Come on....

    No, he's put himself in the situation, where, whatever happens, he gets caught.

    He could have avoided it by not doping, but that's easy in hindsight.

    Point is, if you want to beat it, you gotta fight the process. Which he's doing. Which makes sense.
    _
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    if as LA claims he didn't dope then wjy not just go to the USADA case and then be heard there. USADA have even said they will hold this in CAS to start with if LA prefers that.

    The whole court case smacks of someone trying to riggle themselves off the hook as they know they are guilty.

    With regards the other comments from Judge Sparks posted today and yesterday, has there been any documents released on line about the Friday ruling
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    sherer wrote:

    With regards the other comments from Judge Sparks posted today and yesterday, has there been any documents released on line about the Friday ruling

    He hasn't ruled. He's given both sides additional time to provide more documentation if they wish.

    What I suspect will happen is USADA will provide more specific detail, while still protecting their witnesses.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    sherer wrote:

    The whole court case smacks of someone trying to riggle themselves off the hook as they know they are guilty.

    For sure, but he's pretty good at wriggling.

    It's not a dead cert. yet.

    As an aside, what's in it for USADA to protect the witnesses?

    Surely they'd be protected by the law against any witness intimidation?
    _
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ddraver wrote:
    ....but this is a proper investigation into what doping happened with the team.

    Dennis (cos I know what you ll say) - the Grand Jury was not about proving/disproving doping

    There may be some who claim that my elevator doesn't go all the way to the roof but I understood what the Grand Jury was doing as opposed to what's going on now. :)
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    sherer wrote:

    The whole court case smacks of someone trying to riggle themselves off the hook as they know they are guilty.

    For sure, but he's pretty good at wriggling.

    It's not a dead cert. yet.

    As an aside, what's in it for USADA to protect the witnesses?

    Surely they'd be protected by the law against any witness intimidation?
    They still (might) need them. Anonymous is better than protected by law.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Sure, but what's going to change their mind?
    _
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    As an aside, what's in it for USADA to protect the witnesses?
    Surely they'd be protected by the law against any witness intimidation?

    Somewhere along the line LA and his attorneys must be given the opportunity to actually face his accusers(witnesses). Not sure how different(if any) a USADA trial is from what you might call a regular courtroom trial.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    dennisn wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    ....but this is a proper investigation into what doping happened with the team.

    Dennis (cos I know what you ll say) - the Grand Jury was not about proving/disproving doping

    There may be some who claim that my elevator doesn't go all the way to the roof but I understood what the Grand Jury was doing as opposed to what's going on now. :)

    Well, as I understand it -

    The GJ was investigating if Federal funds from the actualt postal service USPS were used to fund doping. IF they had found cast iron 100% evidence that LA was doped to the eyeballs and that the UCI covered it up it BUT that no federal funds were used then LA would have been found not guilty.

    LA cannot be found guilty specifically of doping in the US becasue it is not illegal to dope in the US. It is only illegal under the WADA code within sport. All USADA can do is reccomend that he is banned him from the sport (although all sports signed up to the WADA code would have to follow it) and reccomend that he is stripped of the results.

    However, what happens to (and I'm going to use it again) the ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** Brand if that happens is unknown...

    @Rick RE Catch 22 - ah ok Understood :wink:
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ddraver wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    ....but this is a proper investigation into what doping happened with the team.

    Dennis (cos I know what you ll say) - the Grand Jury was not about proving/disproving doping
    There may be some who claim that my elevator doesn't go all the way to the roof but I understood what the Grand Jury was doing as opposed to what's going on now. :)
    Well, as I understand it -
    The GJ was investigating if Federal funds from the actualt postal service USPS were used to fund doping. IF they had found cast iron 100% evidence that LA was doped to the eyeballs and that the UCI covered it up it BUT that no federal funds were used then LA would have been found not guilty.

    LA cannot be found guilty specifically of doping in the US becasue it is not illegal to dope in the US. It is only illegal under the WADA code within sport. All USADA can do is reccomend that he is banned him from the sport (although all sports signed up to the WADA code would have to follow it) and reccomend that he is stripped of the results.

    However, what happens to (and I'm going to use it again) the ***LANCE ARMSTRONG*** Brand if that happens is unknown...

    @Rick RE Catch 22 - ah ok Understood :wink:

    That would seem to be the big picture exactly. Remember that me agreeing with you may not be the best of endorsements. What with my "elevator.....roof" reputation.
  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sure, but what's going to change their mind?

    with a little digging there are quite few stories of people that have been persuaded to withdraw statements or not to testify, whilst others have been 'forced' out of hte cycling business if they publicly accuse (namely LeMond) and of course total character assasination (landis etc...)

    there was one story of one of Armstrongs attornies litterally camping out outside a witnesses home whilst making numerous threats about how if she testifies and is considered to have lied shed be in prison, lose her home etc...
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    bigdawg wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sure, but what's going to change their mind?

    with a little digging there are quite few stories of people that have been persuaded to withdraw statements or not to testify, whilst others have been 'forced' out of hte cycling business if they publicly accuse (namely LeMond) and of course total character assasination (landis etc...)

    there was one story of one of Armstrongs attornies litterally camping out outside a witnesses home whilst making numerous threats about how if she testifies and is considered to have lied shed be in prison, lose her home etc...

    Sure, but that's illegal.
    _
  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    doesnt stop it happening and the majority wont talk about it afterwards either so no complaints are made.

    The first we'll or anyone else will see of the witnesses is prob when they either stand up in court or have their testomonies read out in court - assuming its not closed or off limits to reporters.
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • Monty Zoncolan
    Monty Zoncolan Posts: 341
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    bigdawg wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Sure, but what's going to change their mind?

    with a little digging there are quite few stories of people that have been persuaded to withdraw statements or not to testify, whilst others have been 'forced' out of hte cycling business if they publicly accuse (namely LeMond) and of course total character assasination (landis etc...)

    there was one story of one of Armstrongs attornies litterally camping out outside a witnesses home whilst making numerous threats about how if she testifies and is considered to have lied shed be in prison, lose her home etc...

    Sure, but that's illegal.

    Sure is, but for a witness in that position, is the easier option to not testify, or to give evidence less convincingly (consequences - mainly a sense of disappointment or letting people down) or to stick strictly to your guns and say, "I know you may try to make my life hell but you may be behaving illegally."

    This is (loosely) in my line of work and witnesses are sometimes 'got at', and their weaknesses exploited, when the case turns on their evidence and the stakes are high enough - which they seem to be here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    So the suggestion is Lance has enough on some of the witnesses that USADA feel compelled to keep it anonymous for now?

    Why not say that?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Having said all this, Armstrong knows who they are anyway.
    _
  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    then they may start to work out who has testified.

    say for eg hincappie is discovered for certain to have testified - it may be once retired hes still going to look for income from cycling, who's his clothing range made by? Armstrong still has very strong Nike & Oakley connections, if its one of them Im sure we'd hear about them deciding Hincappe clothing is no longer going to be produced by them.. (ala Lemond being given the boot by trek..)
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    don't forget what LA allegeddly did to Stephanie McIllvaine who worked for Oakley and said he would get her and her husband fired if they said anything about him.

    There's also rumours he intimidated Emma O'Reilly too.

    Try buying a Lemond bike now as well
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the suggestion is Lance has enough on some of the witnesses that USADA feel compelled to keep it anonymous for now?

    Why not say that?

    Sort of begs the question of when do LA and his attorneys get told who these witnesses are? In a "regular" court of law defence attorney's receive ALL evidence that the prosection has BEFORE any trail begins. Then again I'm not sure how USADA, and it's counterparts, laws read or work.
  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Having said all this, Armstrong knows who they are anyway.

    Im sure he has a pretty good idea, but the rumour is (as no one seems to know the source) theyre not all ex team mates , or even cyclists in some instances. How many riders passed through USPS that could have seen enough to have been able to make testimony? It could turn out to be only 4 or 5 ex team mates, yet 30 plus riders that it could be... An awful lot of harasment and it could be the wrong people.. :wink:
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    dennisn wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    So the suggestion is Lance has enough on some of the witnesses that USADA feel compelled to keep it anonymous for now?

    Why not say that?

    Sort of begs the question of when do LA and his attorneys get told who these witnesses are? In a "regular" court of law defence attorney's receive ALL evidence that the prosection has BEFORE any trail begins. Then again I'm not sure how USADA, and it's counterparts, laws read or work.

    You get to know the evidence, but not necessarily who it's from.

    So, you can say "we have what we think is a credible witness testimony that says blah".

    I mean, it's not quite the wire, where people who testify get shot and dumped somewhere noticable so everyone can see what happens when you go to the p0lice.

    I'm just thinking outloud as to why USADA are so keen on keeping the witnesses secret. We know who most of them are, and so do the prosecutors.

    Are they keen to keep it off record till as late as possible to stop Armstrong mouthing off to the press about them?

    It's not like he can come out now and say "whatever Geroge said, it's bull." That looks bad.
    _

Categories