Jump to content
gulliver

USADA charges Armstrong - Part 2 - "Reasoned Decision"

Recommended Posts

I've closed the other thread, it's well passed it's used by date.

 

The obvious clear facts at this stage are:

USADA charged Lance Armstrong along with Johan Bruyneel, Dr Michele Ferrari, Dr Pedro Cela, Dr Louis Garcia del Moral and Pepe Marti. for a number of doping offences as laid out in the charging letter.

Armstrong attempted to take the USADA to court contesting that they did not have jurisdiction.

The Court ruled against Armstrong.

 

Armstrong advised the USADA he would not contest the charge.

Bruyneel & Marti are both contesting the charges, Ferrari & del Moral either ignored the charge or advised they would not contest.

 

USADA issued a life time ban advise for those 3 that did not contest the charges.

 

This brings us to the current point of the "Reasoned Decision" document to be issued to the UCI and WADA who are to either approve the ban along with lost race results or take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sports to contest the findings.

 

That's at least the procedure we the general public see in all other PED cases.

 

So this discussion from here on is on the "Reasoned Decision" document and it's content etc.

This document is due to be issued by the 15th.

 

Yes I'm a little early but I thought I'd do it now because they other thread is far to old and gone around in circles that were all pretty dizzy by now.

 

A fresh start and get of the angst and baiting from earlier and discuss the topic.

If you can't discuss/debate the topic then don't post.

 

 

edit: I moved Gullivers post from part 1, it's gone in as first post since it had an older post time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, the latest from a Swiss court re the Floyd Landis defamation case with 'Postman Pat' and his equally dodgy predecessor.

Got a laugh out of what he is NOT allowed to say about them in the future..

 

Article two of the verdict goes into quite specific detail as to what Landis is not allowed to say about the UCI in the future, noting that it is forbidden for him to say that the UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen “have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind.”

 

 

Maybe the the last few could be part of the new Trannies posting guidelines re Downseys thread!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone catch the latest UCI press release about Floyd?

Comedy gold..!

 

 

Absolutely priceless and the defamation judgement is also embarraingly priceless - Hillarious (particularly if Landis didn't even know he was a defendant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good write up on the UCI v's Landis defamation case.

http://inrng.com/2012/10/uci-are-not-terrorists/

 

This is basically the same defamation case that has been bought out against Paul Kimmage.

Kimmage is defending whereas Landis did not. In an interview with cyclingnews Verbruggen (former head of the UCI) had said "The problem is we can't find Landis,"

So Landis had apparently not even been served a court notice.

I'm sure he would have known via media and word of mouth but nothing official??

They couldn't have tried to hard, I don't think Landis has gone to ground and is in hiding. Perhaps they should have knocked on his front door???

 

Now what happens to those two case if/when it comes out through the Armstrong doping syndicate that the UCI had covered up positive tests, had taken monies and all the other things that have been claimed.

Does Landis have the opportunity to take the UCI to court for defamation or what ever the charge would be for that sort of thing?

Kimmage's case is not until December so I'd see that being dropped in that instance but I would assume it also opens up the door for Kimmage to put in his counter suite should he chose?

 

Remember this is all part of the whole Armstrong syndicate saga and that the UCI or elements of the UCI are reported to be have been involved to some degree.

 

Note: The whole UCI organisation would not be involved but only a small percentage that all this drama would really apply to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Landis have the opportunity to take the UCI to court for defamation or what ever the charge would be for that sort of thing?

 

Can't see what he would charge them over. What loss has he suffered by not being able to call them names?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see what he would charge them over. What loss has he suffered by not being able to call them names?

 

As a counter to them taking him to court, as his claims would have been correct (if the USADA documents show the UCI was involved)? The court had ruled Landis was to pay damages, so there is always the return of those damages I would assume.

I don't know that's why I asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a counter to them taking him to court, as his claims would have been correct (if the USADA documents show the UCI was involved)? The court had ruled Landis was to pay damages, so there is always the return of those damages I would assume.

I don't know that's why I asked.

 

I wonder if they'll find him quicker to collect than when they were looking before the case? :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UCI have tried the same with silencing Lemond??

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-failure-to-silence-lemond

 

The UCI doesn't think that it is corrupt.

 

Lemond and Landis have called the UCI "corrupt".

 

The UCI considers the allegations defamatory.

 

Nothing too surprising so far :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so amazing to me that in 2012 probably the two biggest sports in the world (Soccer and Cycling) have governing bodies so corrupt to their core there are oil rich African countries that are run more cleanly. Will the ever be 'clean'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THis will eb my final post on this topic.

 

Here is an actual quote _ i won't write who said it , it's in the mainstream media - I read it in an Australian Magazine - suffice to say he is very reputable has never lied previously about PED's , has never ever been suspected of anything except being an utter gentleman .

 

" A fellow told me that he was approached by 2 men in suits who said if he made a statement saying he had witnessed Lance using performance enhancing drugs - he would never have to worry about money for the rest of his life"

 

 

Hmmm - just say that was true .......hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest C.C

THis will eb my final post on this topic.

 

Here is an actual quote _ i won't write who said it , it's in the mainstream media - I read it in an Australian Magazine - suffice to say he is very reputable has never lied previously about PED's , has never ever been suspected of anything except being an utter gentleman .

 

" A fellow told me that he was approached by 2 men in suits who said if he made a statement saying he had witnessed Lance using performance enhancing drugs - he would never have to worry about money for the rest of his life"

 

 

Hmmm - just say that was true .......hmmm

 

oh dear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" A fellow told me that he was approached by 2 men in suits who said if he made a statement saying he had witnessed Lance using performance enhancing drugs - he would never have to worry about money for the rest of his life"

 

 

FFS Hilly, we covered that in Part 1. Phil Liggett came out with that exact quote in an interview in South Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

FFS Hilly, we covered that in Part 1. Phil Liggett came out with that exact quote in an interview in South Africa.

 

 

Don't you mean Grandpa Simpson..?

 

simpsons_cycling_v2.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't you mean Grandpa Simpson..?

 

simpsons_cycling_v2.png

 

That's great. Paul Kimmage and the Schleck brothers are hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hints of a Spanish Lab???

I have no idea on the reference though.

 

 

Yeah.. not sure what that means, but it will mean something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance interview in LAVA magazine. Is this an official WTC mag? Could WTC be positioning themselves to have LA race Kona next year?

http://lavamagazine..../#axzz28TNrMJ00

 

David Walsh's response and also again questioning why the Livestrong charity paid for a lobbyist to got to Capitol Hill to petition against USADA's funding

http://en.twitter.com/DavidWalshST

 

story source on lobbyist:

http://online.wsj.co...3567249064.html

 

Here is one of the comments on the LAVA magazine story from Velonews

 

My reading between the lines, and I would be surprised if I'm wrong, is that he's setting the tone for what's about to come out which he knows he won't be able to continue to simply deny.

 

"My concience is clear" = I did what everybody else was doing. I denied as you would have done and every rider did. (Not that him being concern about his concience was something that was ever evident).

 

"I look forward" = from now on looking back is not going to be so pleasant anymore.

 

“We have a rough business plan, but we’re not ready to make an announcement next week or next month,” = we first have to see how big is the blow, but trust people will continue to buy into my "everything I do, I do it for you (cancer sufferer" pitch because, as everybody knows, it's easier to fool someone than to convince him he's been fooled.

Edited by gulliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance interview in LAVA magazine. Is this an official WTC mag? Could WTC be positioning themselves to have LA race Kona next year?

http://lavamagazine..../#axzz28TNrMJ00

 

David Walsh's response and also again questioning why the Livestrong charity paid for a lobbyist to got to Capitol Hill to petition against USADA's funding

http://en.twitter.com/DavidWalshST

 

story source on lobbyist:

http://online.wsj.co...3567249064.html

 

Here is one of the comments on the LAVA magazine story from Velonews

 

My reading between the lines, and I would be surprised if I'm wrong, is that he's setting the tone for what's about to come out which he knows he won't be able to continue to simply deny.

 

"My concience is clear" = I did what everybody else was doing. I denied as you would have done and every rider did. (Not that him being concern about his concience was something that was ever evident).

 

"I look forward" = from now on looking back is not going to be so pleasant anymore.

 

“We have a rough business plan, but we’re not ready to make an announcement next week or next month,” = we first have to see how big is the blow, but trust people will continue to buy into my "everything I do, I do it for you (cancer sufferer" pitch because, as everybody knows, it's easier to fool someone than to convince him he's been fooled.

 

 

Lance is friendly with Jay Prasuhn, the guy that interviewed him. Not sure if it has anything to do with WTC or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance interview in LAVA magazine. Is this an official WTC mag? Could WTC be positioning themselves to have LA race Kona next year?

http://lavamagazine..../#axzz28TNrMJ00

 

David Walsh's response and also again questioning why the Livestrong charity paid for a lobbyist to got to Capitol Hill to petition against USADA's funding

http://en.twitter.com/DavidWalshST

 

story source on lobbyist:

http://online.wsj.co...3567249064.html

 

Here is one of the comments on the LAVA magazine story from Velonews

 

My reading between the lines, and I would be surprised if I'm wrong, is that he's setting the tone for what's about to come out which he knows he won't be able to continue to simply deny.

 

"My concience is clear" = I did what everybody else was doing. I denied as you would have done and every rider did. (Not that him being concern about his concience was something that was ever evident).

 

"I look forward" = from now on looking back is not going to be so pleasant anymore.

 

“We have a rough business plan, but we’re not ready to make an announcement next week or next month,” = we first have to see how big is the blow, but trust people will continue to buy into my "everything I do, I do it for you (cancer sufferer" pitch because, as everybody knows, it's easier to fool someone than to convince him he's been fooled.

 

 

hate to break it to you but the haters are well and truely in the minority when it comes to Lance. Transitions has a very high percentage of the overall haters.

 

So I reckon any series he runs will go well.

Edited by Harts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why everybody who thinks Lance cheated is automatically a hater. I don't know the guy, but he cheated. I don't hate him or any other cheating cyclist or Kenyan runner. Admittedly some on here really seem passionate in there feelings towards Lance, the majority however, just know he cheated and would like him to fess up and move on rather that using cancer as a shield.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why everybody who thinks Lance cheated is automatically a hater. I don't know the guy, but he cheated. I don't hate him or any other cheating cyclist or Kenyan runner. Admittedly some on here really seem passionate in there feelings towards Lance, the majority however, just know he cheated and would like him to fess up and move on rather that using cancer as a shield.

 

I feel the same way mhvh. I don't hate him either. In a way feel sorry for him that he might have been seduced into using PEDs found himself in the situation where he either continued to take PEDs or stops using them and dropped out of TdF contention.

If it's shown that LA cheated, I couldn't care less whether he keeps his TdF titles or not. Many of those claiming LA has been singled out by USADA have also argued that you can't take theTdF titles away from him because most of the top finishers in 1999-2005 were subsequently found to have used PEDs. Ironically that makes it look like LA was singled out for oversight with regard to PEDs.

 

Yes I think he did it and agree Tyler's book is a good read. The Secret Race sadly shows how easy it was to dope and get away with it. Tyler was arguably just unlucky and/or careless to get caught. That he lied is only what you'd expect anyone would instinctively do in the same situation. Armstrong was obviously a better cyclist than Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton, but to discredit them as witnesses on the basis that they're known cheats and liars would imply that LA was conversely able to dope without ever cheating or lying. Go figure.

 

 

Don't buy into the hater vs fanboys debate, it's just been invented to distract. You can guarantee that when the details of all of this are finally made public by USADA and the UCI, the same people will launching the same abuse and will harp on and on about how it "will make all the haters happy".

Edited by gulliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'we take eye for an eye til no one can see'

 

So after all the discussion, a one word answer please, Should LA be allowed to race (and prob podium) Kona?

Yes or No?

 

No

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion there is no place for drugs in sport – period. I do not mind the hard line the WTC took at all. They are trying to sport clean. That said, there have been murder trials that have gone from start to finish quicker than the Lance Armstrong case. On the other hand, I feel that if USADA is trying to crucify someone’s reputation let’s see the evidence. I am sick of innuendo and rumor. I want to see what they have. There are two sides to the story, and I think the public is entitled to see every frame of reference

 

I also have a tough stance on doping in sport and all kinds of cheating. Do it the right way or you should be drummed out of the sport. If clean athletes loses a paycheck and a victory because of someone who had a great race because they took drugs or cut the course, the cheater should be convicted and kept out of sport. On the other side of the coin, if you are trying to ruin a man’s reputation, I want to see something. I do not want to hear talk. I do not want to hear rumor. I want to know what led USADA to believe categorically that Lance is a cheater.

 

I do like to see due process and this case has all the hallmarks of a witch hunt -- until USADA shows what they have "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion there is no place for drugs in sport – period. I do not mind the hard line the WTC took at all. They are trying to sport clean. That said, there have been murder trials that have gone from start to finish quicker than the Lance Armstrong case. On the other hand, I feel that if USADA is trying to crucify someone’s reputation let’s see the evidence. I am sick of innuendo and rumor. I want to see what they have. There are two sides to the story, and I think the public is entitled to see every frame of reference I also have a tough stance on doping in sport and all kinds of cheating. Do it the right way or you should be drummed out of the sport. If clean athletes loses a paycheck and a victory because of someone who had a great race because they took drugs or cut the course, the cheater should be convicted and kept out of sport. On the other side of the coin, if you are trying to ruin a man’s reputation, I want to see something. I do not want to hear talk. I do not want to hear rumor. I want to know what led USADA to believe categorically that Lance is a cheater. I do like to see due process and this case has all the hallmarks of a witch hunt -- until USADA shows what they have "

 

I am of the same opinion. Ultimately it is not what you know, but what you can prove. I am amazed that Lance didn't go not guilty and obtain the Full Brief of Evidence. Get an adjournment and pick holes in USADAS brief. Then if it is water tight plead guilty at the next mention.

 

One thing is for sure he is a super tactician so I am sure there are aces up his sleeve somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we ban the word "haters" from use on this forum? Will the ignore function work for a single word? Especially for non-African Americans. Especially Australians. Especially Australians referring to Lance Armstrong. In fact I started a web site: www.becomeahateronthewordhater.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, the only real true hater of Lance, lemond. Haha, my iPad just corrected lemond to lemons and that's about the size of it. Sour! Lemond hated Lance from the start cause he stole the media's focus away from Lemond. The upshot of all this angst and argument is we will never get consensus on the Lance situation. The haters can produce all the proof and words they like, but the lance lovers will never accept it. So why dont we all piss it off and focus on something more important. There's a triathlon season underway or about to start depending on where you live.

Dust of your race gear it's time to think racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go, the only real true hater of Lance, lemond. Haha, my iPad just corrected lemond to lemons and that's about the size of it. Sour! Lemond hated Lance from the start cause he stole the media's focus away from Lemond.

 

 

Damn! Drop completely false bombs like that and then tell everyone to forget about the topic. Awesome!!

 

Lemond was a big backer of Lance when he first came on the scene. Then he found out he was a doper and turned against him. Lance PR machine put it out there that Lemond was jealous. Truth is Lemond is a man of integrity, won the tour clean three times and hates drugs in cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion there is no place for drugs in sport – period. I do not mind the hard line the WTC took at all. They are trying to sport clean. That said, there have been murder trials that have gone from start to finish quicker than the Lance Armstrong case. On the other hand, I feel that if USADA is trying to crucify someone’s reputation let’s see the evidence. I am sick of innuendo and rumor. I want to see what they have. There are two sides to the story, and I think the public is entitled to see every frame of reference

 

I also have a tough stance on doping in sport and all kinds of cheating. Do it the right way or you should be drummed out of the sport. If clean athletes loses a paycheck and a victory because of someone who had a great race because they took drugs or cut the course, the cheater should be convicted and kept out of sport. On the other side of the coin, if you are trying to ruin a man’s reputation, I want to see something. I do not want to hear talk. I do not want to hear rumor. I want to know what led USADA to believe categorically that Lance is a cheater.

 

I do like to see due process and this case has all the hallmarks of a witch hunt -- until USADA shows what they have "

 

A bit of cold hard truth killed the 500 test meme, so lets do it now on the witchhunt. What exactly about the process is a witchhunt. Q Was he the only one charged? A 5 other parties have been suspended or subject to hearings. Q Is it a fair process/due process A; well he signed up to the process when he took out a cycling licence, the judge in his first attempt at stymieing the hearing explicitly stated that if due process was not followed it was appealable; there would have been 3 adjudicators , of which he had to agree to 2 of, if he went to arbitration and then there is the CAS, or the US judicial system, if due process was not followed in the arbitration hearing. Sounds fair to me Q Was he somehow forced into not contesting the charges A Maybe, but given his wealth, it was probably not going to be relevant reason why he did not contest. Interestingly either he or Livestrong funded a lobbyist to "explore" USADAs funding, so we're not talking financially deprived litigants.

 

So tell me what makes it a witch hunt? Who havent they gone after that they should have?

 

so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So tell me what makes it a witch hunt? Who havent they gone after that they should have?

 

so

 

 

Sorry pasta head - thats Crowies view not mine - forgot to put the source in there. Comes from his Slowtwitch IV

 

Better direct your enquiry to Crowie rather than me - unless it changes your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry pasta head - thats Crowies view not mine - forgot to put the source in there. Comes from his Slowtwitch IV

 

Better direct your enquiry to Crowie rather than me - unless it changes your opinion

 

So you dont think its a witch hunt? And you think due process hasnt been followed? Or is the "lack of due process" from Crowie as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you stop ruining these f-king threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else thinking that including "Reasoned Decision" in this thread's title was a tad ambitious?

 

 

I must admit I did think that more information had come to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed all the tit for tat bitchy or non topic related posts.

People are entitled to debate the topic and state their views of the topic without being branded.

It's not that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you got the info lemond liked lance, have a read of the article in Le Quipe and velo press that lemond wrote after lance won the his first world champs race. Not much praise from a fellow country man.

If you want to get technical about cheating, lemond was considered to have cheated by using aero bars by many in the cycling world, when he won the 89 tour. I disagree, as do a lot of other people, but there are many who still believe he cheated.

Note that I used to be a big lemond fan and still think he was good. But in the last 10 years he has damaged his image by banging on about lance. We could jut as easily question his gun shot wound to his leg while hunting. How do we know it wasn't from a drug deal gone wrong. See how simple it is to use words to cast aspersions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed all the tit for tat

 

 

Good move Trev. The tatts mightn't have been pretty but the tits were obviously fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you got the info lemond liked lance, have a read of the article in Le Quipe and velo press that lemond wrote after lance won the his first world champs race. Not much praise from a fellow country man.

If you want to get technical about cheating, lemond was considered to haves cheated by using aero bars by many in the cycling world, when he won the 89 tour. I disagree, as do a lot of other people, but there are many who still believe he cheated.

Note that I used to be a big lemond fan and still think he was good. But in the last 10 years he has damaged his image by banging on about lance. We could jut as easily question his gun shot wound to his leg while hunting. How do we know it wasn't from a drug deal gone wrong. See how simple it us to use words to cast aspersions.

 

 

This sort of post does my head in. And Hilly who caste a few aspersions on cadel is now a lover of clean sport.

 

time to reassess imho. if you caste aspersions on cadel and or lemond based on nothing, you have got zero credibility on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly OT, but yet another reason why cycling needs to take a walk through a hall of mirrors...

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vinokourov-to-take-up-management-position-at-astana

 

 

The exact details of 'Vino's' role is yet to be announced however, many would expect him to move into a directors role and to be in attendance at next year’s Tour de France.

 

If the UCI had any 'swingers', and/or brains, they would just try their hardest to NOT let this happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading that article it amazes me that USADA decided to pinch ARMSTRONG before they had their ducks in a row IE the BRIEF was complete. If Police did not deliver a brief when someone is accused of a similar offence IE LIFE SENTENCE then they would draw adverse criticism of the highest order from the judicial system.

 

So far when ever someone has been critical of the process people shoot them down saying that USADA have played by the rules, athletes sign onto the rules by getting a license etc. Do you really have a choice when you want to compete? It is either their way or the highway.

 

Ultimately they have written them, then have applied them, and decided the outcome. Dangerous, cloudy and leads to corruption and abuse of process.

 

In society we have each part separated Governments write them, Police apply them, courts decide them. I guess all the angst, assumptions, etc etc have come from an organisation doing whatever it wanted and always maintaining "it within the rules."

 

People claim that it was never a witch hunt but since the brief is not complete it was certainly to prevent LA from racing Kona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...