HOLY !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!

[alex]

The evidence is so overwhelming that nobody has seen it or heard it.

because there is still at least one individual who has elected to go to arbitration in this case

you think the USADA would go after these people with no, or just a little bit of evidence? if the evidence doesnt exist or is so poor, why wouldnt cancer jesus contest it in arbitration?

[fthills]

Doesn't change the fact that nobody outside of USADA knows what the evidence is .

I go back to Haneef. The might of the commonwealth with far more resources than any antidoping body
said this and that about him , on TV, in the papers , in court even, by upstanding people one and all
and none of it was held to be correct in the end.

So much so that we had to pay Haneef an undisclosed amount of taxpayers money to make it right.

Now it may well be that USADA has a case but I'd like to hear or read it .

I'd ike to know too, if anyone cut a deal with USADA for preferential treatment in exchange for testimony

[RonK]

The evidence is so overwhelming that nobody has seen it or heard it.

One who most certainly has is Armstrong himself, and it was apparently overwhelming enough for him to decide not to dispute it.

And no doubt he would prefer it not be released into the public domain.

[Chuck]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... ailed.html

Excellent article....

For Tygart is the Eliot Ness-type figure who has refused to be cowed or bullied by the aggressive stance of sports stars who have engaged in sophisticated doping conspiracies. His efforts, at times working alongside federal law agencies, have brought down some of the most iconic figures in sport: Jones, sprinters Justin Gatlin and Tim Montgomery, and now Armstrong. And anyone who believes in the value of sport should be rejoicing.

No one accused USADA of having a vendetta when it helped take down Jones, Gatlin and Montgomery.

Yet he cheated. And, on any rational assessment of the facts, he did cheat. Those who suggest that there is no evidence, that due process has been neglected, that the proceedings have been a farce or a witch-hunt, have not been following the story. Or, more likely, they have been following Lance Armstrong’s Twitter account.

Tygart’s organisation, USADA, speaks of more than a dozen witnesses prepared to testify against Armstrong. The indictment speaks of ‘direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping’ using EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone and that Armstrong encouraged the others to do it. For good measure, USADA also say there is scientific data suggesting blood manipulation in 2009.

Only a man with a monstrous ego, with a peculiar charismatic gift for constructing a Messianic personality cult, could believe all those witnesses were just racked with jealousy and spite. ‘It’s all about Lance,’ seems to be the summary of the defence.

There is, it seems, copious evidence Armstrong doped. There has been no proper cross-examination of that evidence, but only because Armstrong has chosen to end the process. That is his choice and it seems a cynical one, to allow his defenders to clutch a fig-leaf of doubt to cover his shame.

But Armstrong cannot have it both ways. He cannot scream his innocence from the rooftops and then say he’s not contesting the process. If you want to clear your name, there are no short cuts. You have to fight to the end. We might have a degree of sympathy if this was a small-time, impoverished athlete. But if anyone had the resources and the will for this fight, then Armstrong was that man.

Do not be fooled by those who suggest due process has not been observed. The US federal courts this week threw out Armstrong’s challenge, which claimed USADA had violated his constitutional rights. If USADA had made a false turn, do you not think Armstrong’s lawyers might have exposed it?

Which is why Tygart and his organisation deserve enormous credit. If you really want to rid sport of drugs, rather than merely pay lip- service to the idea, as many sports federations, governments and shoe companies do — Nike, for now, continue to support Armstrong — then you need warriors like Tygart.

Above all, do not listen to those who say that because all were doping in his era, Armstrong is still a true champion. That would be to surrender to the malign forces that would reduce sport to a circus designed to enrich its participants and hangers-on.

Somewhere in the peloton in the Nineties was a man who was clean, who finished perhaps 30th in the Tour de France. Who knows now if he would have been Armstrong’s equal? Who knows if he might have been an even more charismatic champion? Maybe he grew depressed and quit as numerous team-mates eventually surrendered to the curse of the needle, because they saw a sport in which so many colluded with cheats that it had become the norm.

That man was suffocated by cynicism and we never got to know his name. It is for him that Travis Tygart pursued this fight, and his ultimate victory was as important as anything celebrated in the Olympic Stadium this month.

Now it may well be that USADA has a case but I'd like to hear or read it .

Whatever your view of this case I think this is the one thing we might all agree on. But you won't get any joy asking here, none of us has any say in that. You'd be better off trying to contact Armstrong through one of his sites and pose that to him.

[Baldy]

I hope everything does come out. I hope they gut the UCI and replace its head. I dont really care what happens to Lance Armstrong, other than him being punished for cheating. Which he has been ....I think Seems like the answer depends on who you ask.

Take a guy like Contador. There are 2 ways to look at it, he did not mean to take it[possible?] or he took it knowingly[possible?] Choosing the first one sees me being labelled a cult member,stupid or whatever. I'm not saying Lance fits this example, not that we have seen it but the way they talk its a pretty well sewn up case. No problem from me there. I just choose to give the guy the benefit of doubt[Bertie], like I do with all the riders. It is possible any of them could be microdosing or have done it in the past.

If some people behind the sport are dodgy, its not that unreasonable to imagine them trying to corrupt the riders, even without their knowledge.

Some people have been 100% sure Armstrong doped for years, some have been sure he did not. The rest of us had no idea.If everything USADA has done is above board, their motives pure and they put the same kind of effort into every case....then I will gladly change my mind about them.

[clackers]

The evidence is so overwhelming that nobody has seen it or heard it.

Your hero doesn't want you to, FT ...

We'll see some of it in the Bruyneel arbitration case, though.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Who exactly are you talking about? Hincappie? Vaughters? Riis? All the USpostal team[including all staff?] Vino and Astana? The people who were given deals in the quest to get Armstrong? Christina Watches?

How do we decide who to go after? Is there a presumption of guilt for staff/trainers/directors that manage guilty athletes?

On June 12th USADA contacted Armstrong, Johann Bruyneel, the doctors Michele Ferrari (Italy), Pedro Celaya (Luxembourg, who currently works with Team RadioShack), Luis Garcia del Moral (Spain) and the Spanish trainer Pepe Marti. This case is much more than just Armstrong's own doping.

So far Armstrong, Ferrari & del Moral have accepted their sanctions, i.e. life time bans for doping, trafficking, organised doping and cover up. Bruyneel, Mori & Celaya have requested to go to arbitration. The evidence against them will be very similar to that for Armstrong.

Anyone involved in the sport is covered by the provisions, which include support staff, trainers, coaches, soigneurs, managers, directors, etc etc (this is stipulated in UCI's own rules pertaining to doping - a rule that UCI president McQuaid got completely wrong and failed to uphold when he refused to acknowledge Ferrari's sanction). Ferrari is a doctor who oversaw the administration of EPO on a grand scale. He still operates today and provides coaching services to many athletes. his website is called 53x11. It makes me sick.

If one of your clients tests positive and is found guilty, would you be happy for them to come after you? From what I understand USADA[maybe our guys too?] can open an investigation with little to no evidence. Which would stop you and your business doing your job until the investigation is complete.

The ADA has to have substantial evidence in order to take such action. Anyone who thinks USADA doesn't have substantial evidence is in denial.

In such a hypothetical case, since I would have no knowledge of any client's doping, nor any involvement in the supply or administering of doping substances or methods, nor involved in any cover up, then just because an athlete without my knowledge does something stupid, does not implicate me, nor have I breached the anti-doping code. Hence I have nothing to fear, other than residual reputational damage from having coached a doper. The non-riders being sanctioned in this existing case are those that are organising, supplying and administering doping products and methods.

If such as case were to arise with an athlete of mine, then the relevant ADA can question me as much as they like and I will happily cooperate with them. We have a strict anti-doping code, it's written into all our client's contracts, and any doping violation (whether that's a positive doping test or other relevant evidence) results in an immediate termination of service. The advice I would give my (now former) client is to seek legal advice and to make immediate contact with the ADA and cooperate fully, because if they don't, I would be advising the ADA of my knowledge (in the case that it's something other than a doping positive, which of course the ADA would already know about). That would be the final conversation I would have with them, beyond seeking any monies owing as stipulated in our contract.

I've not had that experience thankfully, although I have in the past had a team mate go positive and receive a 2-year ban. That was a shock, and an unpleasant experience.

[RICHARDH]

then I will gladly change my mind about them.

Can i ask what makes you think they have acted incorrectly other that Armstrong says they have? can you name some law they have bent in prosecuting him? because there's a Judge that says they haven't

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Now it may well be that USADA has a case but I'd like to hear or read it .

We all would. Keep in mind however than quite a bit of it is already in the public domain, but there is a substantial body of testimony that we are yet to see.

Reminds me of this item:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance- ... ill,29313/

[Baldy]

If such as case were to arise with an athlete of mine, then the relevant ADA can question me as much as they like and I will happily cooperate with them. We have a strict anti-doping code, it's written into all our client's contracts, and any doping violation (whether that's a positive doping test or other relevant evidence) results in an immediate termination of service. The advice I would give my (now former) client is to seek legal advice and to make immediate contact with the ADA and cooperate fully, because if they don't, I would be advising the ADA of my knowledge (in the case that it's something other than a doping positive, which of course the ADA would already know about). That would be the final conversation I would have with them, beyond seeking any monies owing as stipulated in our contract.

That's the kind if attitude that needs to be ingrained into the system from the top down. Maybe it already is? Garmin is the only one I can think of that talks about it.

[eeksll]

And no doubt he would prefer it not be released into the public domain.

Does anyone know if that is the case. That is, because LA has chosen not to contest, the evidence will not be released publicly?

[RICHARDH]

USADA has said that there is no reason that they can't release the evidence and as soon as other cases have been wrapped up they will do so, as Alex said this isn't just about Armstrong and Johann has decided to go to arbitration so they'll hold onto the evidence until that's been sorted and then we'll get a look at it.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If such as case were to arise with an athlete of mine, then the relevant ADA can question me as much as they like and I will happily cooperate with them. We have a strict anti-doping code, it's written into all our client's contracts, and any doping violation (whether that's a positive doping test or other relevant evidence) results in an immediate termination of service. The advice I would give my (now former) client is to seek legal advice and to make immediate contact with the ADA and cooperate fully, because if they don't, I would be advising the ADA of my knowledge (in the case that it's something other than a doping positive, which of course the ADA would already know about). That would be the final conversation I would have with them, beyond seeking any monies owing as stipulated in our contract.

That's the kind if attitude that needs to be ingrained into the system from the top down. Maybe it already is? Garmin is the only one I can think of that talks about it.

And examples like this one announced over night should give some more pause for thought:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12750 ... itive.aspx

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If such as case were to arise with an athlete of mine, then the relevant ADA can question me as much as they like and I will happily cooperate with them. We have a strict anti-doping code, it's written into all our client's contracts, and any doping violation (whether that's a positive doping test or other relevant evidence) results in an immediate termination of service. The advice I would give my (now former) client is to seek legal advice and to make immediate contact with the ADA and cooperate fully, because if they don't, I would be advising the ADA of my knowledge (in the case that it's something other than a doping positive, which of course the ADA would already know about). That would be the final conversation I would have with them, beyond seeking any monies owing as stipulated in our contract.

That's the kind if attitude that needs to be ingrained into the system from the top down. Maybe it already is? Garmin is the only one I can think of that talks about it.

The sad thing is, this sort of attitude is mostly just rhetoric from a lot of teams, and over the years the individuals that spoke up and actually took action were ostracised and denied opportunity to make a living in the sport. One hopes that it is improving, but this is why it is so vital to weed these pricks out.

[ColinOldnCranky]

The evidence is so overwhelming that nobody has seen it or heard it.

Agreed. But Armstrong Inc has, it seems to me, to have taken every step it could to keep it that way by avoiding the process through legal challenges.

And just at the moment when he has run out of options to delay facing his accusers he pulls out.

For an innocent party that would have been the opportunity to challenge and expose the fraudulent charges. Unfortunately for a guilty party that also means that they also have to face questioning in a place where you don't get to play silly buggers and avoidance and PR spin. And it is only at THAT stage that Armstrong called "uncle" and becomes "exhausted" and pulls out.

Without that "exhaustion" we would finally get to see the proof if there is any.

or in other words...

you think the USADA would go after these people with no, or just a little bit of evidence? if the evidence doesnt exist or is so poor, why wouldnt cancer jesus contest it in arbitration?

[Ross]

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/lance- ... nary-dope/

This is an interesting article

The problem for some sceptics is that not only has Cadel Evans himself at times used one member of the Armstrong conspiracy, the Italian Dr Michele Ferrari, for career and ‘training’ advice, but at least on two occasions – such as when winning the 2009 World Championships and the 2011 Tour de France – Evans has refused to agree with suggestions by journalists that his victory was a victory for clean cycling.

[Xplora]

Rossco, ^^^
I don't follow the cycling events much but I remember quite clearly that Cadel refused to say anything about Schleck in the last mountain stage last year when he took off on a screamer and the peleton couldn't catch him. You could see he could have said something, but didn't.

I honestly don't think Cadel is 100% clean, and when you see what he is competing with, I don't think he could do anything different? The slabs of red in the "TdF results" for Lance's wins tells a grim story.

[RICHARDH]

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/lance- ... nary-dope/

This is an interesting article

The problem for some sceptics is that not only has Cadel Evans himself at times used one member of the Armstrong conspiracy, the Italian Dr Michele Ferrari, for career and ‘training’ advice, but at least on two occasions – such as when winning the 2009 World Championships and the 2011 Tour de France – Evans has refused to agree with suggestions by journalists that his victory was a victory for clean cycling.

To clear up the Ferrari link with Cadel, that was when he was switching from Mountain Biking to Road his agent was Tony Rominger he asked Ferrari to asses if Cadel has the physiology to be successful this was the extent of it. Evans has said things in the past about doping in cycling as has people like Gilbert. As far as him not agreeing that his win is a victory for clean cycling, that's just smart. What happens when another big name gets busted or a couple ?

Is there absolute proof that Evans is clean ? No just like there is no absolute proof any rider is clean, but track Evans success . As Vaughter's said in his article its been getting better since 2006. So as the Peloton is getting cleaner Evans has been getting better, i think that points to something.

[wombatK]

So as the Peloton is getting cleaner Evans has been getting better, i think that points to something.

It would be a whole lot easier to believe this if the UCI allowed greater transparency. But instead, this year they
banned real-time tracking which might have shown better evidence of the credibility of team SKY (UKPostal ?) and
the rest of the peloton.

While some analysts (notably Tucker, at http://www.sportsscientists.com) did some rough back-of-the-envelope analysis
of Wiggins' performance on an early stage short climb of this years TDF, any serious effort to examine the performance
was stymied by UCI's ban.

I can't find any official documents on UCI's website which either give details of the ban or reasons behind it. Only
indirect references in various other blogs to letters UCI sent to team directors. Most blogs suggest maybe there
were commercial considerations behind the ban - perhaps preventing making a business that might give internet
users an even better vantage point than TV. But if that was the motive, they could easily have stitched up a
deal for someone to pay for rights to provide the service. It leaves open the possibility that it was to help
cover up performances that simply weren't credible, particularly when there seems to be no other public explanation
of why it was required.

Cheers

[RICHARDH]

I believe it had something to do with the broadcasting rights , which would mean it probably originated with the ASO . One of the few times the UCI aren't really to blame

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Well having power meter data really isn't going to change much, and neither is an assessment of ascension rates. See this item:
http://alex-cycle.blogspot.com.au/2010/ ... -mass.html

[rustguard]

so 1999 samples tested positive for EPO but procedures were so corupted the results were unusable. Well interesting because LA actually won the TDF more than once so that leaves at least another 6 years of B samples for testing under rigorus standards? If EPO can now be detected and If LA is so guilty why has nothing surfaced?

If I had to bet either way I dont think the odds would be much different. Until the witnesses are named and testimony given its impossible to offer a verdict. I have read all the links in this thread and so far; everything is based on the testimony of Landis and Hamilton. Which was not quoted in any links that I read in this thread.
Everything else was 100% opinion or guilt by assosiation.

Funny that Lindy Chambelin was brought up because people really were so venimous and nasty in there opinions during that case. My advice is that if you paport to being an inteligent character at least drop the spitefulness from your condemnation, be patient, more will be revealed.

[biker jk]

Australia's Dr Ashenden replies to Phil Liggetts defence of Armstrong. Rustguard might observe that there was no test for autologous doping (reinfusing own blood) during the Armstrong era. Also note what the French anti-doping agency has said about delays in testing Armstrong after stages which provided him with enough time to beat the tests.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... ess-indeed

[clackers]

so 1999 samples tested positive for EPO but procedures were so corupted the results were unusable.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from, Rustguard.

http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden

Well interesting because LA actually won the TDF more than once so that leaves at least another 6 years of B samples for testing under rigorus standards?

We'd love to be able to re-test all the samples from pro-racing, but which labs would still have them? The 1999 ones were a special case.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

so 1999 samples tested positive for EPO but procedures were so corupted the results were unusable. Well interesting because LA actually won the TDF more than once so that leaves at least another 6 years of B samples for testing under rigorus standards? If EPO can now be detected and If LA is so guilty why has nothing surfaced?

You need to read a bit more on testing for EPO, and how easy it is to avoid detection.

If I had to bet either way I dont think the odds would be much different. Until the witnesses are named and testimony given its impossible to offer a verdict. I have read all the links in this thread and so far; everything is based on the testimony of Landis and Hamilton. Which was not quoted in any links that I read in this thread.
Everything else was 100% opinion or guilt by assosiation.

As far as I know, the case involves direct witness testimony from about 10 people, as well as testing data right up to and including 2010.