# in praise of USADA



## dellzeqq (18 Oct 2012)

I appreciate this is probably the least controversial thread of all time, but it needs saying, not least because you'd struggle to find an answer to the question 'what's in it for them'.

They've taken an almighty crack at a national hero - Lance Armstrong is way out of Marion Jones' league

They've inconvenienced some of the biggest sports sponsors in the US

.....In consequence they've probably dealt a real blow to US professional cycling for years to come, and, however fervent your desire to clean up sport, nobody can be happy about that

They've gone where the UCI didn't want them to go, and where the Feds failed to go.

All in all it smacks of good old-fashioned reverence for the truth. How very, very unfashionable.


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Oct 2012)

+1


----------



## Hacienda71 (18 Oct 2012)

Well said


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I appreciate this is probably the least controversial thread of all time, but it needs saying, not least because you'd struggle to find an answer to the question 'what's in it for them'.
> 
> They've taken an almighty crack at a national hero - Lance Armstrong is way out of Marion Jones' league
> 
> ...


It's a right bang up job. LA likely may never be able to come clean until statute of limitations have passed but there is nothing in his cycling career left to respect apart from his nerve. It's quite remarkable so far but I think if the UCI are smart then USADA/WADA will be able to help more-so in setting a path for cycling into the future. So their role should not be over.

But I am happy that this layer of scum is being lifted from the US scene. There are already young clean riders out there with the likes of Phinney and Van Gaarderen, so I don't see this as a blow to the present and the future, more-so to a group of ageing riders and to past romantic mythologies. 

Garmin sowed seeds of renewal years ago, spawning the approaches of SKY and Greenedge - many people are well into that journey of moving on in the anglo-saxon part of the peloton at least.


----------



## Panter (18 Oct 2012)

Nope, can't agree, they're picking on Lance


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

To put my previous post more succinctly:

Yes USADA done a great job.
But there is a large part of N.American Cycling that is already clean and for them, rather than being a blow, this is more of a shot in the arm.


----------



## Dilbert (18 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> To put my previous post more succinctly:
> 
> Yes USADA done a great job.
> But there is a large part of N.American Cycling that is already clean and for them, rather than being a blow, this is more of a *shot in the arm*.


Lets hope not 

I agree entirely I think there are a huge number of young clean cyclists across the world who can take the sport forward if given the chance to do so


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Panter said:


> Nope, can't agree, they're picking on Lance


 Just you and Lance left then Chris!
Actually just you cos Lance knows he's guilty!


----------



## Panter (18 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Just you and Lance left then Chris!
> Actually just you cos Lance knows he's guilty!


 
Looks that way Rich  Still, if I can keep the faith, maybe Lance can


----------



## Booyaa (18 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I appreciate this is probably the least controversial thread of all time, but it needs saying, not least because you'd struggle to find an answer to the question 'what's in it for them'.
> 
> They've taken an almighty crack at a national hero - Lance Armstrong is way out of Marion Jones' league
> 
> ...


Totally agree.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Oct 2012)

Panter said:


> Looks that way Rich  Still, if I can keep the faith, maybe Lance can


fair play. Faith's a wonderful thing.


----------



## Noodley (18 Oct 2012)

In what way have the dealt a blow to US pro cycling for years to come?

Is this another topic you have a general idea about but then just make things up?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Oct 2012)

Someone at USADA is going to build a political career on nailing Pharmstrong and old-fashioned reverence for the truth. Mark my words.


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Someone at USADA is going to build a political career on nailing Pharmstrong and old-fashioned reverence for the truth. Mark my words.


If they do, good luck to them. They deserve it.


----------



## thom (18 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Someone at USADA is going to build a political career on nailing Pharmstrong and old-fashioned reverence for the truth. Mark my words.


Travis Tygaart ? He seems a pretty low key guy. Perhaps he can go on to WADA or another sporting institution but the very fact that hardly anyone knows who he is/they are means I think it's a long shot for public office.


----------



## johnr (19 Oct 2012)

So what's the chances of USADA bringing out their own line of cycling clothing? Adidas would probably be willing to partner up. don't you think?


----------



## 007fair (19 Oct 2012)

2107295 said:


> I'm still prepared to believe that he doesn't believe he is guilty. I think he believes he was just doing that which was necessary to prepare himself properly and to make sure the playing field was level.


 
It was only recently that I was made aware of how close Armstrong's era was after the Festina scandal. Festina was supposed to be the point where the sport had hit rock bottom, fully exposed as thoroughly corrupt - and the year after this was going to be the new dawn of a clean cycling era. Enter stage left Mr Armstrong who calously saw this situation as an opportunity to take systematic doping and deceit to a whole new level. He knows how guilt he is .. he knows.


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Travis Tygaart ? He seems a pretty low key guy. Perhaps he can go on to WADA or another sporting institution but the very fact that hardly anyone knows who he is/they are means I think it's a long shot for public office.


 The Eliot Ness of Professional Bike Racing...?


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2012)

007fair said:


> It was only recently that I was made aware of how close Armstrong's era was after the Festina scandal. Festina was supposed to be the point where the sport had hit rock bottom, fully exposed as thoroughly corrupt - and the year after this was going to be the new dawn of a clean cycling era. Enter stage left Mr Armstrong who calously saw this situation as an opportunity to take systematic doping and deceit to a whole new level. He knows how guilt he is .. he knows.


He knows he doped, but he doesn't believe he did wrong. Armstrong believes that it is the rules that are wrong, just as the robber believes that he is doing no harm to the people he robs because the insurance company will pick up the tab, and if his victim is not insured it is "His own fault". And if he hurts anyone who tries to stop him that's there fault for sticking their noses in.

The more I read about Lance the closer his DNA seems to a gangland boss than a sportsman.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

All very laudable but after a summer in which cycling hit a new high globally, it is now been pulled down lower than at any time in its history following the publicity and media frenzy surrounding Hamilton and USADA. Rabobank is probably the first of many sponsors that will pull out of the sport before the next season and cycling will take years to recover if it ever does. As a memorable line went from a medical publication "The operation was a technical success but unfortunately the patient died"


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> All very laudable but after a summer in which cycling hit a new high globally, it is now been pulled down lower than at any time in its history following the publicity and media frenzy surrounding Hamilton and USADA. Rabobank is probably the first of many sponsors that will pull out of the sport before the next season and cycling will take years to recover if it ever does. As a memorable line went from a medical publication "The operation was a technical success but unfortunately the patient died"


Rubbish, the patient is in no danger of dying. Sponsors come and go, they always have done and there will still be a Tour de France next year plus a full set of classics and all the minor races. If the sport diminishes in commercial value so what? The fact that fewer riders retire as multi millionaires won't make a jot of difference to anyone with a genuine interest in racing, and if fewer bandwagon jumpers buy a Boardman or a Trek that won't either, just as it didn't when TV coverage was limited to twenty minutes on World of Sport on a Saturday and you had to search the Telegraph for the column on yesterday's stage report. If you think a high media profile and shedloads of cash sloshing about of is a price worth paying for leaving the sport in the hands of a despicable c*nt like Armstrong that's your problem.


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2012)

From Cycling Weekly -

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/blog/535201/how-armstrong-tried-to-bully-us.html


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Rubbish, the patient is in no danger of dying. Sponsors come and go, they always have done and there will still be a Tour de France next year plus a full set of classics and all the minor races. If the sport diminishes in commercial value so what? The fact that fewer riders retire as multi millionaires won't make a jot of difference to anyone with a genuine interest in racing, and if fewer bandwagon jumpers buy a Boardman or a Trek that won't either, just as it didn't when TV coverage was limited to twenty minutes on World of Sport on a Saturday and you had to search the Telegraph for the column on yesterday's stage report. If you think a high media profile and shedloads of cash sloshing about of is a price worth paying for leaving the sport in the hands of a despicable c*nt like Armstrong that's your problem.


 
Time will tell which of us is right. There probably will be a TdeF next year but the Rubicon was crossed many years ago and the TdeF is now heavily dependent on sponsorship from the towns paying to be included on the route to the team sponsors. I doubt it could now make the transition back to being a low budget race. But we shall see by the end of this winter how many teams still have sponsorship. Its clear from the Rabobank decision that its not a budgetary issue because they will still be paying the team next year. They just don't want their name being associated with road cycling any more which is why the riders will ride without their name on the team or clothing. If one of the staunch long term sponsors of cycling makes that decision what do you expect the transient sponsors will do? Its a bit like Ferrari or McClaren pulling out of F1. I can't see it being anything other than severely career limiting at the moment for a marketing man to stand up in front of a Company Board and suggest they sponsor a cycling team.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Time will tell which of us is right. There probably will be a TdeF next year but the Rubicon was crossed many years ago and the TdeF is now heavily dependent on sponsorship from the towns paying to be included on the route to the team sponsors. I doubt it could now make the transition back to being a low budget race. But we shall see by the end of this winter how many teams still have sponsorship. Its clear from the Rabobank decision that its not a budgetary issue because they will still be paying the team next year.
> They just don't want their name being associated with road cycling any more which is why the riders will ride without their name on the team or clothing. If one of the staunch long term sponsors of cycling makes that decision what do you expect the transient sponsors will do? Its a bit like Ferrari or McClaren pulling out of F1. I can't see it being anything other than severely career limiting at the moment for a marketing man to stand up in front of a Company Board and suggest they sponsor a cycling team.


 
What is presented as clear here is supposition.

1. You don't know its not a budgetary issue with Rabobank as opposed to a minimum contractual notice - when Honda pulled out of F1 for budgetary reasons they funded the team post exit.
2. Rabobank are still funding amateur teams so they're still interested in cycling, not expensive cycling.
3. Its a good idea to sponsor a cycling team now as you have a better chance of winning by cycling, not cheating.
4. Dave Brailsford made a point of being a clean team - fairly prescient and bankable - do you think the public view of Sky, Wiggins, Cav is harmed by the LA scandal? Next year's a new season - the public can hardly remember who won the last X-Factor.


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Rubbish, the patient is in no danger of dying. Sponsors come and go, they always have done and there will still be a Tour de France next year plus a full set of classics and all the minor races. If the sport diminishes in commercial value so what? The fact that fewer riders retire as multi millionaires won't make a jot of difference to anyone with a genuine interest in racing, and if fewer bandwagon jumpers buy a Boardman or a Trek that won't either, just as it didn't when TV coverage was limited to twenty minutes on World of Sport on a Saturday and you had to search the Telegraph for the column on yesterday's stage report. If you think a high media profile and shedloads of cash sloshing about of is a price worth paying for leaving the sport in the hands of a despicable c*nt like Armstrong that's your problem.


 
You know what - this is so so true of life generally.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Oct 2012)

Whenever a pocket of corruption is unearthed in the police it inevitably reflects badly on the public's perception of the police force in general. 

The reality though is that there's a continuous process of renewal going on: the good and the bad overlap. Exposing the bad gives the good a chance to fight for the upper hand. I suspect it's much the same in cycling but there are a good number of exciting young riders coming through and there's plenty of room for hope.


----------



## thom (19 Oct 2012)

I think he doped. 
I think he thinks he doped.
I think he thinks everyone thinks that he thinks he doped. 

Will he confess ? Perhaps. Maybe he won't because he's perjured himself in the SCA case so he'll never confess for fear of jail time. Maybe he will. Who knows what goes on in La-La land ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Travis Tygaart ? He seems a pretty low key guy. Perhaps he can go on to WADA or another sporting institution but the very fact that hardly anyone knows who he is/they are means I think it's a long shot for public office.


I wasn't thinking he'd stand for President. Lots of other public office jobs in the good ole US of A. People will build careers on the Pharmstong case, even nice-guy-eddie, low key types.


----------



## Crackle (19 Oct 2012)

Maybe he will and take a few people with him who he thinks have let him down, UCI president's for example. How much of a hero would he be then. I'm still not holding my breath.


----------



## thom (19 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I wasn't thinking he'd stand for President. Lots of other public office jobs in the good ole US of A. People will build careers on the Pharmstong case, even nice-guy-eddie, low key types.


I think his first concern after this case will be protecting the mandate of USADA against Congressional restrictions. Cycling clearly isn't the only sport with doping issues - perhaps he'll try to look into these next.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> I think his first concern after this case will be protecting the mandate of USADA against Congressional restrictions. Cycling clearly isn't the only sport with doping issues - perhaps he'll try to look into these next.


then we must wish him well, because if he tries to take on the vested interests in the sports that Americans care about, and where doping is a problem, football, baseball and basketball, the next time we hear his name may well be in the obituary columns.


----------



## thom (19 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> then we must wish him well, because if he tries to take on the vested interests in the sports that Americans care about, and where doping is a problem, football, baseball and basketball, the next time we hear his name may well be in the obituary columns.


Indeed - it's all very perverted there.

I found out something hilarious just today about USADA's process:

LA's agent, Bill Stapleton was the head of the Athlete's Advisory Council when USADA was founded. He had a lot involvement in drawing up the codes and rules that USADA follows.

You just couldn't make it up.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Indeed - it's all very perverted there.
> 
> I found out something* hilarious* just today about USADA's process:
> 
> LA's agent, Bill Stapleton was the head of the Athlete's Advisory Council when USADA was founded. He had a lot involvement in drawing up the codes and rules that USADA follows.


 
Ain't it just!


----------



## Longshot (19 Oct 2012)

2107295 said:


> I'm still prepared to believe that he doesn't believe he is guilty. I think he believes he was just doing that which was necessary to prepare himself properly and to make sure the playing field was level.


 

In which case, not only was he a dirty cheating scumbag, he was a deluded dirty cheating scumbag.


----------



## thom (21 Oct 2012)

Travis Tygart on Youtube :



It seems remarkable that this low-key guy and his USADA org were able to expose this whole thing.

Chapeau.

Edit: oh yes, the UCI are to announce tomorrow.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Travis Tygart on Youtube :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is what concerns me most, although it is an unpopular stance.

Does anyone believe that this is all new to the USADA and that no-one knew anything or had any suspicions of the alleged corruption in the UCI, widespread systematic doping in the Peleton and all the other issues until recently?


Deal with Armstrong for his actions - but then appoint an independent examination into how all these groups failed to prevent / detect doping at this level


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Does anyone believe that this is all new to the USADA


 
Apparently so. Travis Tygart signed a sworn statement on 3 May 2005 that said USADA had never had an adverse finding against Armstrong in all their tests.


----------



## kedab (21 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> ... just as it didn't when TV coverage was limited to twenty minutes on World of Sport on a Saturday


 
i was wondering what show it was on!...cheers


----------



## johnr (21 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Travis Tygart on Youtube :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




... only takes one honest man to stop an army (or some similar aphorism)


----------



## Orbytal (25 Oct 2012)

An unasuming guy with a Super Hero name bringing down one of US biggest stars.

Does he wear a Big T under his business shirt and run into bike sheds to change in a flash then appear from nowhere to take statements from pro riders who are mesmerised that he has come from thin air and say whatever he wants. 

Shall the TDF be renamed form the Tour De Lance to the Tygart De France?

Has Dr T won the battle but lost the war?


----------



## 007fair (25 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Travis Tygart on Youtube :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good video Interesting when he said that athletes have only two choices when cornered for doping offences. Deny and fight back (marion jones, and of course the lovely LA - or admit, and move on) Marion Jones went to prison, once she admitted to the offences, due to lying under oath. Same should happen to LA but can a court convict him if he does not admit to it ? If all USADA have is witness statements can they or someone else take LA to court and charge him with perjury? 

Surely this won't just drop out of the limelight now he has been stripped of his TdF titles.


----------



## thom (25 Oct 2012)

007fair said:


> Same should happen to LA but can a court convict him if he does not admit to it ? If all USADA have is witness statements can they or someone else take LA to court and charge him with perjury?


Marion Jones perjured herself - she had denied steroid use to federal agents before 2000 but then admitted doping in 2007 during the BALCO investigation. So she went to jail.

The federal case against LA was dropped and LA avoided going through USADA's dispute process, so he avoided perjury there but he did deny doping in the infamous SCA lawsuit.
SCA will argue that amounts to perjury to claim back around $10 from LA. If they win and demonstrate in a law court that LA committed perjury, that may imply jail time. It will be interesting if LA decides to settle with SCA in a way that avoids the issue...


----------



## 007fair (25 Oct 2012)

Cheers Thom yes I know about the SCA case and them wanting their money back Had forgotten that that was where LA swore innocence under oath. That will be an interesting case if it becomes reality.


----------



## Orbytal (25 Oct 2012)

SCA case was a hearing without legal oath. The case found in favour of LA because the contract did not have a doping condition in it. SCA were aware of this and tried it out anyway losing and paying $7.5million instead of $5 million. They are not entitled to the $2.5 million as down to themselves and the contract would be amended to agree with hearing. 

Are SCA able to get anything back based on LA no longer title holder, that depends on final agreement. Normally in cases like these it is full and final with no revisit ability under any conditions.

I would suggest that as only added legal cost were in the final agreement I.e. no damages it was final, however time shall tell. SCA knew last time it was a lost cause but they went ahead anyway so maybe they will do the same again even if it was a final decision in the hope he gives in.


----------



## johnr (25 Oct 2012)

I'm not sure you're right Orbytal. The Australian TV documentary's excerpt of the Armstrong affidavit showed the lawyer introducting his questions by checking LPh understood that though they were in a conference room it was the same as giving evidence in a court. I presume, therefore, that an oath was administered.

Given that he was lying to get his mitts on a large amount of dosh, I'd expect a judge to take a dim view. But, of course, if he pays up before it gets to court the question would remain moot.


----------



## Orbytal (26 Oct 2012)

@johnr I would not agree with respect to the oath. The information, I assume, is from SCA case and this was a hearing. SCA had the option to go legal but declined and went for arbitration instead. If you also look for longer excerpts on the deposition as it should be referred to you shall find that it was taken over at least 164 minutes and we are afforded no more than 11 minutes and 13 seconds which is 7%. I have not seen any more than this but would welcome if to view any more if it exists. The difficulty in viewing this format is missing 152 minutes or 93% and suggesting we know the content and context of it. 
SCA also contested the case on doping whilst they accepted the contract had NO doping qualifications in it. The whole case was erroneous and they were told this by the hearing panel.

If you add to this BA/FA depositions they over heard a DR say certain things you are left with 2 options, either the DR says he did say these things and goes to jail for breaching patient confidentiality or he says no id did not happen. Is the DR willing to go to jail for them?

EO'R needs 3rd part agreement of everything she says and this is unlikely and if 1 person says she is wrong her deposition is either 50/50 or void.

I may be wrong but my understanding is LA has in fact made no oath under Federal or State Law and therefore if he says nothing he cannot perjure himself and nay attempt now he can plead 5th!

I personally have no issue with anything that has gone on as they ALL doped no question however if you do not take time to remove the flowery language and the wonderful descriptions of TH and FL and JV you would think they have not been serial perjurers or done for fraud!

Scrub the emotive language and look at raw data and can I believe 1 side over the other. When you do this you see why FDA dropped their case.

That does not mean it was not right what has been reported, it is, but you also need to understand that proving it legally would not happen.

It also means that for USPS = every other team at the time. Hype is great and we all enjoy it but we also need to scrub it away to see the facts as they are.

It does however make for great debates and discussion and that is why we love it and put up with it!


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> JV you would think they have not been serial perjurers or done for fraud!


what are you accusing Vaugjhters of?


----------



## philipbh (26 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I may be wrong but my understanding is LA has in fact made no oath under Federal or State Law and therefore if he says nothing he cannot perjure himself and nay attempt now he can plead 5th!


 
If you look at the transcript of Lance Armstrongs deposition the following exchange is recorded fairly early on in the proceedings

Jeffrey Tillotson acting for SCA Promotions asks the questions and LA gives his answers:

_Q. You understand that although we're in the conference room of your lawyers, you are giving testimony as if you are in a court of law. _
_Do you understand that?_
_A. Correct._
_Q. And that penalties of perjury attach to this deposition just like they would to a court of law proceeding._
_ A. Of course._


----------



## Orbytal (27 Oct 2012)

@dellezqq JV gave a signed affidavit to LA and his legal team for the 2005 case that he knew nothing about doping by LA or within USPS. He changed that later but the signed affidavit is in the records.

@philipbh I appreciate what he is saying BUT it was a hearing and not a State or Federal Court or any Legal situation whatsoever. If you do not wish to accept what I am saying I suggest you research it yourself and see for yourself, it has NO legal standing. SCA had the option to go to court. The hearing did not in fact conclude and SCA requested to terminate the hearing and settle outwith it which they did. 

SCA brought the case despite the fact there was NO doping clause in the contract, it was show of bravado to see if LA would give in and he did not and that is why SCA settled out of the hearing.

If I was the lawyer I would say the same but it is meaningless.

I would advise that you don’t believe the HYPE attached with this case as it reeks of deceit and irregular practice by WADA/USADA.

This is all a matter of record.

I shall also say before I get anyone wishing to say I am deluded or an LA lover I am not and I have known for years he and all the rest have doped and my issue is how he has been pursued as part of a vendetta between WADA and UCI.

Both organisations are so corrupt it is shameful and none of us can take any of them seriously.


----------



## rich p (27 Oct 2012)

[quote="
I shall also say before I get anyone wishing to say I am deluded or an LA lover I am not and I have known for years he and all the rest have doped and my issue is how he has been pursued as part of a vendetta between WADA and UCI.

Both organisations are so corrupt it is shameful and none of us can take any of them seriously.



[/quote]
What makes you say that WADA is corrupt?
A vendetta? What makes you say that?
The FBI were investigating Armstrong and subsequently USADA took it over after the case was dropped. Neither WADA or the UCI were involved until the eveidence was recently presented in the Reasoned Decision.


----------



## Orbytal (27 Oct 2012)

D Pound was seriously reprimanded by IOC for his intervention with French lab forcing them to extract LA samples as part of a supposed group test and also revealed to press about the tests. IOC said if they had jurisdiction over Pound he would have been sacked. His actions contravened WADC rules and basically corrupted the integrity of WADA and their procedures. His actions led to UCI taking Legal action against him.
He was replaced after calls for his head.

UCI and WADA have been at war for years and it is shameful. Look at Vrijam report.


----------



## DogTired (27 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> D Pound was seriously reprimanded by IOC for his intervention with French lab forcing them to extract LA samples as part of a supposed group test and also revealed to press about the tests. IOC said if they had jurisdiction over Pound he would have been sacked. His actions contravened WADC rules and basically corrupted the integrity of WADA and their procedures. His actions led to UCI taking Legal action against him.
> He was replaced after calls for his head.
> 
> UCI and WADA have been at war for years and it is shameful. Look at Vrijam report.


 
Could you please supply some references for :

D Pound being reprimanded by the IOC.
D Pound forcing them to extract LA samples.
D Pound revealing to the press about the tests.
IOC saying this that they would sack Pound if they could.
What actions of D Pound contravened which 'WADC' rules.
 
I haven't come across this before so it'd be interesting to find out more.


----------



## Orbytal (28 Oct 2012)

If you look up the legal issues between Pound and UCI as well as LA letter to IOC. All derived from Vrijam Report. Vrijam was a Dutch lawyer and also former head of Dutch Anti-doping organisation, worked for Pound and WADA.

When you look at everything related to LA and WADA just now reverse that to 2005 and LA/UCI to WADA.

UCI sued Pound after their relationship had failed beyond repair. WADA tried to nail LA in 2005 and found to corrupt their own rules.

If anyone has the question WHY would USADA spend over 3/4 of their budget on chasing 1 retired athlete (not a whole sport!) in 2012 when all the current athletes are preparing for London 2012 it comes from historic vendettas between UCI and WADA. USADA basically ignored their own athletes in 2012 as they prepared for their 1 in 4 years atempt at 1 event to chase 1 retired athlete.

The current USADA case also contravenes WADC rules on a number of levels and reflects the 2005 affair but with a different result.

Anyone who believes this matter is about 1 rider who doped needs to look at the history and determine how they feel. UCI and WADA as far as I am concerned are a disgrace and need reformed.

This whole matter is HYPED up by Tygart as the greatest doping case in history which is the same as his other over HYPED claims. If you want to believe him try and reconcile the East German State System, USSR State System, Romanian State System etc. and add to that the WHOLE history of Cycling and then you start to see what constitutional doping is NOT 1 Team doing the same as every other Team.

This case is born from a vendetta years ago and rolled out like a Hollywood Premier.

Read the title of USADA report and look at the sanctions and then say this was not an orchestrated witch hunt against 1 man to get at 1 organisation.

Sickening for Cycling and sickening for Sport.


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

I have 3 choices. I can't decide whether to answer these ludicrous, unsubstantiated claims, let someone else with more time do it or just put Orbytal onto my currently vacant ignore list.


----------



## DogTired (28 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> If you look up the legal issues between Pound and UCI as well as LA letter to IOC. All derived from Vrijam Report. Vrijam was a Dutch lawyer and also former head of Dutch Anti-doping organisation, worked for Pound and WADA.
> 
> ... Other stuff edited out...
> Sickening for Cycling and sickening for Sport.


 
No, I think I asked for some references to your specific points. I'm not looking up stuff for you. Have you confused the following?

LAs letter to the IOC about Dick Pound is not the same as the IOC being reprimanded by the IOC. He wasnt reprimanded at all, the IOC merely *recommended* he use greater prudence during public announcements. Considering the tone of LAs letter DP comments at the time were well restrained. 
The 'fact' that Vrijman worked for Pound and WADA. Did he really?
UCI suing Dick Pound. The UCI tend to sue everyone in the Swiss Courts. A lot of the time. There's a court down the road from the UCI offices that they use. Was it successful?
What a witch-hunt is? A witch-hunt randomly accuses a load of people with accusations that can't be denied. This was *NOT* a witch-hunt. Did you mean a vendetta? Like I've said before, one man's vendetta is another mans' campaign for truth and justice.
So, again, if you could come up with references to the claims you made previously, such as:

D Pound being reprimanded by the IOC.
D Pound forcing them to extract LA samples.
D Pound revealing to the press about the tests.
IOC saying this that they would sack Pound if they could.
What actions of D Pound contravened which 'WADC' rules.
Then that would be appreciated. After we get through this we can discuss what really has been sickening for cycling. Hanging blood-bags from picture hooks in cheap hotels does it for me.


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

Cheers DogTired, you've saved the rest of us a huge amount of time.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I have 3 choices. I can't decide whether to answer these ludicrous, unsubstantiated claims, let someone else with more time do it or just put Orbytal onto my currently vacant ignore list.


You can leave it to Dog Tired, so option 2. I always admire people who can be bothered to answer this stuff, it's a thankless task, as I seriously doubt it will illicit any kind of sensible response.


----------



## rich p (28 Oct 2012)

p.s. The Vrijman whitewash report was laughable and has been widely derided. Bringing that up as evidence does Orbytal's wild accusations no good.


----------



## thom (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> You can leave it to Dog Tired, so option 2. I always admire people who can be bothered to answer this stuff, it's a thankless task, as I seriously doubt it will illicit any kind of sensible response.


Afraid after 2 messages, option 3 was chosen !


----------



## johnr (28 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Afraid after 2 messages, option 3 was chosen !


 +1


----------



## 007fair (28 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> If anyone has the question WHY would USADA spend over 3/4 of their budget on chasing 1 retired athlete (not a whole sport!) in 2012 when all the current athletes are preparing for London 2012 it comes from historic vendettas between UCI and WADA. USADA basically ignored their own athletes in 2012 as they prepared for their 1 in 4 years atempt at 1 event to chase 1 retired athlete.
> The current USADA case also contravenes WADC rules on a number of levels and reflects the 2005 affair but with a different result.
> Anyone who believes this matter is about 1 rider who doped needs to look at the history and determine how they feel. UCI and WADA as far as I am concerned are a disgrace and need reformed.
> This whole matter is HYPED up by Tygart ...
> ...


 
You are doing the opposite from convincing me because your choice words makes me feel you are trying to force your opinion rather use logical arguments based on the facts or the big picture

Vendetta..?
I'm no expert but it appears to me that USADA did _exactly_ what they are supposed to do. You say they had a 'vendetta' against UCI but surely it was because the UCI were were an obstruction where they should have been an allied force - either through incompetence or because they were in on the deceipt. USADA must have found that frustrating - as did many people - as they knew what was going on. That is not a definition of vendetta. 

Why do you dislike USADA when they were the only ones with enough substance to see the problem though - would you rather the sport was left as it was? ... WHY?

Hype HYPE!
Tygart / HYPED ..? if you compare your description of Tygart to Tygart in person the only conclusion I would come to is whoever wrote the description was damning himself with inaccuracy (Ulterior motive). People have said that their focus on LA is not fair but the omerta was so strong that they had to focus somewhere and the top/ highest profile/ toughest nut was the obvious choice. Break that and the rest would follow.

If Tygarts words were Hyped - then can you tell me who has deceived more people for so long than LA ? If no one .. then are they not just stating the facts?

Witch Hunt .. As above. Seems strange that LA used this phrase often. Witches don't exist - Dope cheats do. 'Witch Hunt' are words used by the guilty frustrated that the accusation is persistent. Are USADA to be damned for persistence? If the guilty won't admit no matter what evidence is on the table then they deserve to be hounded forever. Or do we reward stubborn denial with reprieve? There was always a way to stop the witch hunt - but LA wouldn't / couldn't take it ..


----------



## Orbytal (28 Oct 2012)

@dogtired So when your employer send you a letter, the only IOC Member to get one, that’s a slap on the wrists. I take it when D Pound himself talk about being reprimanded that’s BS as well. 

Who worked for who? Does Tygart work for Pound at any time or Fahey? Nope!!!

Vendetta? Suppose I did mean that as I said it in the post! Maybe you should read about what I am saying and be more accurate and when you research stuff try and do the same.

Try looking closer at what the whole 2005 issue included with the requests made to FFC from WADA and see what these were and what their remit was. I would be interested to know what you think!

How much do YOU know about Mr Pound? Maybe before you jump in and say no vendetta and no corruption you should look into it a LOT more and see what he has done in his career how many organisations and sports he has accused of doping.

NHL 2/3 doping by Mr Pound. Really where did you get your figures from Mr Pound OH I actually made them up. Try that one.

OR

The whole USA track and field are doping really how do you figure that OH it’s obvious isn’t it?

OR

The Jamaican sprinters are doping. How do you get that Mr Pound OH I think they are!

WOW and this is what is good in sport and you like to defend that guy?

Why don’t we go to Mr Fahey with his Mr Contador was getting a suspended sentence until the Spanish President spoke up for him so now he is getting a ban instead. GREAT so a ban = who speaks up.

GET YOUR facts straights first before trying to jump in with what you say.

I am happy to go over ANYTHING I say but please don’t come back with opinion and nonsense. It’s like you believe he is a Copper so he must be a good guy. Naive and deluded and no idea about the history of sport let alone the long running feud between cycling and WADA.

What about 2005 test were positive Mr Pound said and it looked very like it SO Can YOU tell me why LA was not sanctioned? Let’s see how much you know about 6 positive tests and NO sanctions. WHY no sanctions big guy. You like to take short answers on a post that I am happy to debate at length with you but you appear to devoid of critical facts.

You can do what richp does and make out you know something but cannot be bothered to deal with it which basically means you know nothing, no comment = no comment = no knowledge.

You also appear to have a fan club on this s so why not get everyone working on it and we shall see where we end up.

I suspect you will start and see what I have and hopefully you will be big enough to say OK there is a point here. But I am not holding my breath as it appears that IF you don’t like a comment it’s wrong.

I also assume from I read you believe LA and he alone doped or USPS alone doped and had exclusive UCI access!

Let’s see what you have and feel free to involve the entourage.

Remember try and look outside the black and white as you will find more answers there.

Keep it real big man.


----------



## Orbytal (28 Oct 2012)

@007 Do YOU believe doing it now or next year or at least later in the year would change the decision?

I don’t and I question WHY do at a 1 in 4 year time? Why at that time spend the majority of the budget on it in an Olympic year.

If you had the biggest year of your business life would you take the same steps or plan it out so you can do justice to both. LA is retired all the current athletes are not.

Let me know why you feel it was justified at this time?

HYPE! Have you read the language in the USADA file? It is NOT a prosecution submission but looks like one it should be reasoned and it gives NO historical data on riders and sanctions they have had and why to provide a balanced view and explain why on this occasion they accept the balance of testimony and how it fits together.

What about Confidentiality clause in WADC? How do you agree with athlete’s names to remain secret until a charge sheet is issued but USADA named him and others but kept witness names quiet and also informed the public of the charges and his guilt before the charge sheet was issued! When they issued the sanctions are you aware that the press received them before LA?

My argument is not did he dope, of course he did and so did all the other Teams doing EXACTLY the same. My issue is when those governing sports cannot work within their own rules and offer 1 athlete as the ends justifies the means!

I knew he was doping when I watched him because I knew everyone before doped and since. The sport is cleaner WRT EPO but still being used as micro doping but the new challenge is genetic modified stimulation for enhancement and WADA are playing catch up.

If you believe the ends justifies the means then fine I don’t. I would rather they changed the rules for compliance and not ignore them.

Why do you think IOC for the first time in their history wrote to a Member warning them of their conduct?

If you have any issue about what I am saying go and look at reallocating titles. A hint for you is 2005 goes to Sastre as all others dopers, admitted or caught and/or by DR association or Team association. Sastre finished in 21st place.

Try looking also at Sastre climbing times and his output on them also and you will see that whilst NOT being the best climber he did so quicker than confirmed EPO users so how does that balance with you/all?


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> D Pound was seriously reprimanded by IOC for his intervention with French lab forcing them to extract LA samples as part of a supposed group test and also revealed to press about the tests. IOC said if they had jurisdiction over Pound he would have been sacked. His actions contravened WADC rules and basically corrupted the integrity of WADA and their procedures. His actions led to UCI taking Legal action against him.
> He was replaced after calls for his head.
> 
> UCI and WADA have been at war for years and it is shameful. Look at Vrijam report.


first of all - I see what you're saying about Vaughters - I had taken your first reference to him as an accusation of doping.

but........in all honesty I'm not given to trust anything that comes out of Switzerland, and that goes for the IOC as much as it does the UCI. It's a country that rich people go to to escape taxes and justice. That the IOC disapproved of Pound is to his credit.

You say repeatedly that they were all at it. I'm happy to concede that most of them were at it, but that neither excuses Armstrong nor does it negate the evidence that he leant on others. I think of the USADA investigation as a kind of decapitation, albeit not a particularly effective one because Armstrong has, effectively, got away with it. It's a token of intent on behalf of the authorities, and of value for that reason alone. It's not the second coming of Christ, and I grant you that some of the celebrations are more emotional than politically rational, but it's better than nothing, and, at the moment, the best there is.

It's also freed a couple of people from intimidation, and that can't be a bad thing.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@richp Nice comments about Vrijam report much derided.

So how do you account for 6 positive samples from 15 from LA confirmed by WADA Lab BUT there was NO Sanctions. WADA did nothing about 6 positive samples between 2005 and 2012 allowing a confirmed positive testing athlete to compete and allow him to sign up AGAIN to their Code as an Elite athlete.

Rich can you please tell me and everyone else when an athlete has 6 not 1,2,3 etc. but 6 positive test he has NOTHING done to him?

I can agree or disagree with you about the Vrijam report and to say much derided means load of crap SO again richp how did LA get away with it? You need to explain if it was not due to WADA complete incompetence and acts in the whole testing arrangement?

I actually agree with you about the Vrijam report it was BS BUT the tests were positive and LA got off because a Lawyer tore the whole process to shreds because it was carried out with such incompetence.

You say I talk BS on WADA and now the Report that got LA off was BS. Why can’t you actually see you are contradicting yourself so much and the points I am making are NOT what you are thinking.

UCI corrupt YES and for many of the reasons you state but proving it is harder.

WADA corrupt because they found 6 positive samples and allowed an athlete to get away with on a technically due to their involvement and processes. They not only held the door open for LA to get away they made sure it didn't him on the way out as well.

DISAGREE richp tell what it was all about then and show a reasoned argument instead of immature words lined through as that shows you have no argument either way other than what someone has told you! You have 2 comments that contradict so let’s see how you get out of it.

Do tell!


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dellzqq you share my sentiments as well about the Swiss Haven for all corrupt organisation and WADA also share that honour. I know some will be gagging to correct my error that they are in Montreal which is correct HOWEVER their whole Code is based on Swiss Law so any cases are based in that with 2 further options also based in Switzerland being CAS then SSS.

I would not place too much credit on Pound with IOC disapproval as he is still a member and was the driving force to bring all the external revenues and setting up all the financial arrangements that we all know they ALL are involved in benefitting from.

IOC are on a par with FIFA as being the most corrupt organisations around but also remember IOC created and fund WADA and if it doesn’t quite go to plan the funding will be affected!

The one fact that I find is part of the HYPE is Doping in Cycling is nothing new and when we hear about omerta it is alive and well just look at the recent support for LA but also remember how many Euro's are in the admissions?

Omerta is not just riders it also covers all the journos, media, sponsors etc. basically everybody who was aware of doping from years ago right through to now. We ALL knew so in many ways we are all part of the omerta watching it and being involved.

Did we enjoy it, of course we did and we shall keep watching like all other sports and as long as anti-doping is funded by the IOC etc it shall never have the ability to do a better job.

2012 Olympics had 4 positive tests and the DR in charge said we are so far behind doping!

USADA get $10million to cover all sports and Nike, Oakley, Festina, Skoda, Orange can do this in 1 marketing campaign and all support sport and cycling.

Also as long as public consumption is based on media frenzy and not looking into what the whole story is/was it shall feel like inroads are being made and they are not and basically will never be made until change is made.

1 cyclist has been uncovered who is more dear to USA than everywhere else that retired years ago and now banned so he sets up his own Tri events attracting EVERY sponsor who said they dumped him to take part.

Does that tell us if sponsors have morals are just like athletes 'following the money'.

This shall only be a cross roads if it makes changes across the board not just in Cycling.


----------



## mickle (29 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> +1


+ me


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@mickle any thoughts on why USADA allowed confirmed dopers to ride when they had testified as doping for at least 2 years? Doesn't WADC Rules say must confirm to Federation and WADA or receive investigation why it was not reported? 

What about salaries taken, sponsors money, prize money etc. all in that time when in reality should have been banned?

Any whitewash in the Whitehouse with that?


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Oct 2012)

Anyone else think that with all his new found spare time Lance Armstrong could be posting as Orbytal, it makes more sense than the garbage Orbytal is coming out with.


----------



## Russell Allen (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal - your rants are crass in the extreme


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I have 3 choices. I can't decide whether to answer these ludicrous, unsubstantiated claims, let someone else with more time do it or just put Orbytal onto my currently vacant ignore list.


 I'm still on option 2 but veering towards option 3.
The rants and garbage are swerving between 'car crash forum fun' and 'can I be arsed to read this tripe'.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@russell allen Can you explain why you find them to be crass in that way please? I would hope that if nothing else my comments make people start to question not just the LA event but the associated connection and fall out it has with all other sports.

You may also feel like they are rants but they are based on genuine concerns built around facts and reasoned argument. Like all things in life there is always more than 1 perspective to be viewed. 

I have made statements on events and offered comments to balance them regardless if they are popular or not to allow you and anyone else to debate them but leaving a no or rubbish or crass doesn't say why you disagree. Is it a forum or Facebook where you just leave a like or dislike?

Share why you disagree I am genuinely interested.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@richp you were @rsed to condemn my posts quickly and when I challenge your reasoning I get back comments more befitting a nervous kid than an adult!

You think it's tripe fine, but why are my comments not acceptable, what makes them wrong to you?

I am sure you are better than this and hope you will explain in detail your objections in your next post.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal - you have an inability to distinguish between best efforts and total adherence to principles. USADA clearly cut a deal with some offenders - that's a feature of the US justice system and one could argue that their rather more robust response to the financial crisis was made possible by deal-making. I don't concern myself with Hamilton and Landis - they'd turned, they've served a purpose and they're gone. The plain straightforward fact of the matter that they helped to nail the most prominent cheat.

And....yes, we agree that Lance is not going to be cast down in to penury. He will still front up Livestrong. Well, sorry, but life's like that, and I reckon that USADA has done about as much as is humanly possible to see him shamed and to reduce the likelyhood of Lance 2 emerging any time soon.

Life isn't perfect - as the UCI demonstrate every day of the week, but USADA has made cycling a whole lot healthier. So...as the thread title says, let us praise them.


----------



## 007fair (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @007 Do YOU believe doing it now or next year or at least later in the year would change the decision?
> 
> I don’t and I question WHY do at a 1 in 4 year time? Why at that time spend the majority of the budget on it in an Olympic year.
> 
> ...


 
This process is long running - It wasn't planned to climax in the Olympic year unfortunate as it was. That is not a sign of corruption. They had to see it through as the moment arose. LA could have shortened the process considerably. The fact Armstrong is retired is neither here or there .. it will make dopers think again because even if they get away with it now they will have to live the rest of their lives wondering if someone will shop them. 

Anyway - you DO rant. Your posts come across and angry and confrontational. If you want to convince someone that USADA are the bad guys you will need a huge amount of reasoned facts stated factually. At the moment you are more conspiracy theorist with time on your hands looking for a fight!


----------



## Crackle (29 Oct 2012)

I've gone for option 3 now.


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @richp Nice comments about Vrijam report much derided.
> 
> So how do you account for 6 positive samples from 15 from LA confirmed by WADA Lab BUT there was NO Sanctions. WADA did nothing about 6 positive samples between 2005 and 2012 allowing a confirmed positive testing athlete to compete and allow him to sign up AGAIN to their Code as an Elite athlete.
> 
> ...


Because, as you would be aware if you had any real knowledge of the case, the tests of the 1999 samples were done for research purposes and not as a doping test.
Am I being trolled here? Please help!


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I've gone for option 3 now.


 A wise move that I may follow at any moment.
p.s. Is Orbytal actually Red Light Lite? There's definitely something of the (red) Light about him.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @russell allen Can you explain why you find them to be crass in that way please? I would hope that if nothing else my comments make people start to question not just the LA event but the associated connection and fall out it has with all other sports.
> 
> You may also feel like they are rants but they are based on genuine concerns built around facts and reasoned argument.
> Share why you disagree I am genuinely interested.


 
Here's why your posts can be considered rants:

You try and make a point. When challenged you attack the challenger.
You fail to provide references to back-up your points.
You answer questions with questions.
You seem to have an unhealthy dislike for Dick Pound.
You suggest that people should research to answer your questions 'Try look closer', 'if you look up', etc. The way it works is if you make an accusation or have a point, then _*you*_ back it up.
In the 'Reforming the UCI' thread its clear you have little knowledge of the background of the backdated 1999 EPO tests and subsequent court cases.
You use an aggressive tone and refer to comments with profanity.
Your posts are neither reasoned, measured, easy to follow or coherent. But they are long.
To address all of your points and correct them would require a small essay which wouldnt be as beneficial as 20 years of extra maturity. But here are 2 clear points. (You still havent bothered clarifying the previous ones I asked so here are a couple of new ones):

"The sport is cleaner WRT EPO but still being used as micro doping but the new challenge is genetic modified stimulation for enhancement and WADA are playing catch up."

I think you need to come up some details on this. (Oh yeah and explain the genetic modified bit, where the genome lives in all of this. And are you sure you know what a stimulant is or did you mean a PED?)

"So how do you account for 6 positive samples from 15 from LA confirmed by WADA Lab BUT there was NO Sanctions. WADA did nothing about 6 positive samples between 2005 and 2012 allowing a confirmed positive testing athlete to compete and allow him to sign up AGAIN to their Code as an Elite athlete."

This was the basis of an argument between WADA and the UCI and the creation of the Vrijman report. We all know why there were no sanctions. Its well understood and in the open. Clear as day.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> A wise move that I may follow at any moment.
> p.s. Is Orbytal actually Red Light Lite? There's definitely something of the (red) Light about him.


At times like this I look back on RedLight with fondness. At least he could do his job in one paragraph.


----------



## User169 (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> LA is retired all the current athletes are not.


 
Just one point, but it's worth making. Whilst he is more or less retired now, he wasn't prior to the recent sanctions. If it weren't for USADA's actions, he'd be competing at the highest level in triathlon.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired you want substantiation but fewer words. Brilliant contradiction.

WRT to your other comments you appear to have an unhealthy disregard to facts and offering substance to any comments you object to. I have made mine and stated why I have stated them but from you and others I asked PLEASE show why you disagree and not keep repeating the same lame rubbish don’t agree.

You appear to offer a greater level of intelligence and reasoning that me so don’t hide let’s see it instead of you are wrong. I am interested to know why I am wrong WRT your opinion. Have I not stated why I have these comments in my posts but I see no cogent reply from you or the 'it's nonsense' posters.

To answer your comments.
1. I attack a challenger. Have you read what the responses are to me? Lots of words but very little substance including you!
2. I fail to make reference in my back up like all the different historical events, documents etc. What have I seen to read to help me gauge your comments...Nothing? Contradiction or?
3. I have no Q's to answer as I have cogent responses. The ones who have asked Q's I have answered. You obviously have an opinion based on what I don’t know but you have one.
4. I have an unhealthy dislike for DP. I do and I have explained that for IOC and WADA work he has done. You obviously have no idea of his history! If he is that good tell me why and I will respond if I disagree and explain why. 
5. Back up what I say! If I make points and explain why and I get nothing cogent back how can I answer no valid comments, seriously have you read anything posted or just reacting to back your pals up here? 
6. You mention my comments on UCI reform knowing very little about post 1999 EPO cases! Wow big assumptions considering I have laid out many areas of why issues exist and cross relate them and get back that rubbish and no explanation. I will be happy to take any challenge you have to make on the historical events and data on that or any other EPO matter. You talk a big game and bring nothing to the table. I shall even allow you to set the question and criteria for a debate and we shall exactly what you know and how you can deal with some reasoned argument because so far you have offered nothing. Your call big guy roll it out.

RE Genetic issues you mention genome, are you referring to prokaryotes or eukaryotes, and are you referring to repetitive or no repetitive actions? I am unsure if you know what you are talking about now so I feel I should ask! Do you know what I actually meant in my post or not and how it can be used to activate the response stimulation intended? Genome is a great word but it’s like doping what is it and the fact you question if I mean a PED makes me wonder that you have no idea what I am talking about! 

You ask if I actually know what a stimulant is really shows how condescending you like to be. I think it is fair to say that I do and that I am finding your resistance along with many others on here to ridicule comments without substance in reply is testimony to the frustration in achieving stimulation from you and others to gain a credible, coherent and cogent reply. 

6 samples ramblings you have offered are clear as day we all know it. That has to be Contradiction Gold right there.

You question my knowledge on 1999 EPO samples case, dislike to D Pound and WADA that I make no cogent points and you come away with that! WOW absolutely amazing. You have both validated my comments and undermined your own in 1 sweep, thanks.
Now it’s clear as day and you disagree with me. Tell us all why it’s clear as day because I cannot see if I am wrong it’s clear?

You make a lot of noise like an empty barrel because it has nothing in it. I have made 2 requests of you I hope you will take up the challenge and offer a stimulated debate but I don’t expect you have the impetus for any serious inquest to what you actually know.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@richp and dogtired it is not surpring yuor assumptions are completely misplaced!


----------



## asterix (29 Oct 2012)

There's a lot to be said for simple, vulgar personal abuse. For starters it doesn't make my head spin so much.


----------



## Crackle (29 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> A wise move that I may follow at any moment.
> p.s. Is Orbytal actually Red Light Lite? There's definitely something of the (red) Light about him.


It's definitely someone familiar with the forum.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

I'm sorry, Orbytal, but I'm switching you off.......


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@Delftse Post I accept your comment about his participation in sanctioned events and that these are no longer being available to him. I would not see him being competative Elite level however. I do believe he would nonetheless receive invitations to compete due to his status and standing had it been available to them.

I shall watch with interest how the Livestrong Tri events shall evolve and see if this shall impact the sanctioned events in the need to attract the Elite athletes, points for rankings or $ for performance!


----------



## philipbh (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> RE Genetic issues you mention genome, are you referring to prokaryotes or eukaryotes, and are you referring to repetitive or no repetitive actions? I am unsure if you know what you are talking about now so I feel I should ask! Do you know what I actually meant in my post or not and how it can be used to activate the response stimulation intended? Genome is a great word but it’s like doping what is it and the fact you question if I mean a PED makes me wonder that you have no idea what I am talking about!


 
So are you saying that there are cyclists, unicyclists and unicellular cyclists?

I'm no Dr Seuss, but what utlity is prokaryotic genome manipulation to enhancing athletic performance of a eukaryote?


----------



## User169 (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> RE Genetic issues you mention genome, are you referring to prokaryotes or eukaryotes, and are you referring to repetitive or no repetitive actions? I am unsure if you know what you are talking about now so I feel I should ask! Do you know what I actually meant in my post or not and how it can be used to activate the response stimulation intended? Genome is a great word but it’s like doping what is it and the fact you question if I mean a PED makes me wonder that you have no idea what I am talking about!


 
Well why don't you just explain a bit more about what you meant by genetic modification. In any event, given that you were presumably talking about genetic modification of human athletes, I'm not entirely sure why prokaryotes would be relevant.

Edit: I see Dr Seuss has made the same point.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@Delftse Post/philipbh ask away what you want to know.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Oct 2012)

orbytal, you're coming across as the forum equivalent of the swastikas on the opening titles to Dad's Army. You're advancing on so many fronts you leave no one any choice but to retreat from you sharpish.


----------



## User169 (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @Delftse Post/philipbh ask away what you want to know.


 
I rather thought I had! I was hoping you could clarify exactly what you meant by

_"but the new challenge is genetic modified stimulation for enhancement" _in your post #66


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dellzeqq you mentioned in your post about USADA cutting a deal and forming part of US Justice system. WADC Rules have an exclusion clause for all justice systems in the country actions are taken and WADC Rules replaces all athletes rights instead.
I agree that USADA obviously cut deals but the remit to do this was not fully within their jurisdiction for sanctions and these were always with UCI. The ability to carry out the investigation was agreed as USADA despite UCI and LA objections.
I also accept WRT to why praise for USADA in the achievement but like all battles what is the final cost to achieve victory and it is only a battle in the war.
I appreciate the comments about best efforts and total adherence but that is also part of my own message that WADA keep flipping between both and creating more confusion than required until they understand just change the rules and stop breaking them you feel it is justified.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> There's a lot to be said for simple, vulgar personal abuse. For starters it doesn't make my head spin so much.


Heheheheh

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5XnpK5Hzo0


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dellzeqq you mentioned in your post about USADA cutting a deal and forming part of US Justice system. WADC Rules have an exclusion clause for all justice systems in the country actions are taken and WADC Rules replaces all athletes rights instead.
> I agree that USADA obviously cut deals but the remit to do this was not fully within their jurisdiction for sanctions and these were always with UCI. The ability to carry out the investigation was agreed as USADA despite UCI and LA objections.
> I also accept WRT to why praise for USADA in the achievement but like all battles what is the final cost to achieve victory and it is only a battle in the war.
> I appreciate the comments about best efforts and total adherence but that is also part of my own message that WADA keep flipping between both and creating more confusion than required until they understand just change the rules and stop breaking them you feel it is justified.


 Give it a rest mate, please.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> I rather thought I had! I was hoping you could clarify exactly what you meant by
> 
> _"but the new challenge is genetic modified stimulation for enhancement" _in your post #66


 
That's nothing compared to detecting the use of an unauthorised power ring. Well, apart from the green glow, obviously.


----------



## philipbh (29 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Well, apart from the green glow, obviously.


 
This will perhaps make for an interesting night time finish in Paris next year


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@007 I agree it has been long running from 2009 stalled 2010 to 2012 and started again which is the reason I say why not make sure bread and butter business is taken care of then the rest. The outcome was always going to be the same so the planning was controllable is what I am suggesting.

Are USADA bad guys only depends what view you have. Make allowances for operating outwith the rules they are not and make no allowances yes they are for the application of the rules they apply.

I have mentioned previously I have sympathy for them but they take no action to realign conformity to cover the moral challenge they are involved with and that cannot be good.

WRT rants I am in no camp as I condemn doping and those who chase it for doing exactly the same. That appears to both sides as a challenge on their beliefs when in fact it aligns them. I do offer substance why I am making statements that allow anyone to pick holes as they wish but a simple 'rubbish' etc is not advancing either to respondents views or allowing me to advance my own either to align closer to them or comment why I would disagree.

I am programmed to question everything I have placed in front of me and proof test it, occupational hazard! If that means it places me in the middle of opposed views then so be it, all I ask is of anyone is reason out why you object.

I am sure some have been surprised at my responses they thought I was angling 1 position when in fact it is not.

The devils is in the detail as well all know and it is always found more regularly in the grey areas than the black and white so WADA/USADA can be right in the end but not always in the detail and the same inversely applies to anyone else in that or any other case.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@gregcollins Wow showing your age with Dads army! Lol

It only appears like that for the reasons I said before that it give opportunity all sides to get involved or just throw bricks. 

Your comments are however noted and appreciated.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @gregcollins Wow showing your age with Dads army! Lol


The irony of this is that Dads Army was repeated last Saturday.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> You make a lot of noise like an empty barrel because it has nothing in it. I have made 2 requests of you I hope you will take up the challenge and offer a stimulated debate but I don’t expect you have the impetus for any serious inquest to what you actually know.


 
Sorry, what were the two questions again - I counted 6 in your post. If you've used up all of the fingers on your hand, its more than two.



Orbytal said:


> @dogtired you want substantiation but fewer words. Brilliant contradiction.


No. Actually it' s not.


----------



## Russell Allen (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal - you are just a troll fishing for reaction and I for one cant be bothered to reply to your incoherent rants. You may have got a better reception if you hadn't jumped in with both feet SHOUTING your ill thought through opinions and actually added something of interest to the discussion. I am a relative noob on here and I have my own opinions, but I am at the very least courteous and open minded, two qualities that you seem to lack in extremis

Russell


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> The irony of this is that Dads Army was repeated last Saturday.


I was going to say the same thing.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired/gregcollins thanks to both of you for taking more time to explain Dads Army was repeated than the rest, I am unsure however if that can be constituted as an advancement in the debate!


----------



## just jim (29 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> It's definitely someone familiar with the forum.


 
"a fun and friendly online cycling community"? You sure?


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@russellallen you made a comment to my post and I more than politely responded to you asking for clarification.

Your reply above makes accusations that I am devoid of many different qualities as well as name calling and you then extol your own virtues of being Curteous and Open Minded!

It is obvious asking for a coherent cogent reply invokes something inside you to generate your own brand of virtues albeit a brand I am not familiar with under those headings!

I would have to say that you definitely resemble your remarks to me.


----------



## beastie (29 Oct 2012)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................


----------



## just jim (29 Oct 2012)

We've gone back in time, to the C+ forum.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal is who....?


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

spelling


----------



## tigger (29 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Orbytal is who....?



I wondered this earlier. Are you thinking who I'm thinking?


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dogtired/gregcollins thanks to both of you for taking more time to explain Dads Army was repeated than the rest, I am unsure however if that can be constituted as an advancement in the debate!


 
Orbytal me young lad! You still haven't come up with any goods to justify come of your rather excellent comments. The following I like for your bravery in stating so openly

"IOC are on a par with FIFA as being the most corrupt organisations around"

Now, personally, if you're looking for corrupt organisations African Govts (such as Kenya) are usually ranked pretty high. Congo too. And Nigeria. Nothing like Africans to stitch up their own.

So what specifically is your evidence regarding your comments on the IOC?

Also, we're still awaiting your rather splendid introduction of science, namely:
"genetic modified stimulation for enhancement"

Who is doing it, how, what are they modifying with what technology and what is the end result? Where is your evidence or are you just guessing?


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I wondered this earlier. Are you thinking who I'm thinking?


Personally it reminds me of the cartoon version of Saddam Hussain from South Park so I might be not thinking the same.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I wondered this earlier. Are you thinking who I'm thinking?


 

Not posted for a while..?.[albeit he's on ignore so I probably wouldn't notice]


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired In all the replies you have offered mostly criticisms without substance apart from 1 on the 1999 samples where you did mentions the testing regime as the factor on no sanctions. I grant you that it was a statement made however Michael Ashenden clarified that on the clinical procedures being used for the work and confirmed compliance so that unfortunately whilst being obvious was not why the case was never taken forward.
I am unsure how you will take this BUT I do appreciate that you make the comment regardless if I agree or not which is not the point in question, it was not the usual avoidance so Thank You, genuinely.

I am also impressed that you wish to smoke screen over your own requests for responses to back up comments you have made by jumping into other comments to ask more questions. The avoidance strategy unfortunately is not something I am supportive of and have to address you as the writer to my previous comments and ask if you can revisit them and offer a cogent reply.

I will however note that I was unaware we were going Global on Organisations so I kept it to Sports, sorry I missed that memo or should I say that you have misunderstood that one!

If I can point out to you also that you are taking far more time to avoid making any reasonable comments than actually making them. Just an observation.

I would also close with a question how I am able to answer your comments whilst giving it a rest.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired On IOC try google/wiki and just look it up, these websites shall help you a lot I am sure. Salt Lake is a hint to whet your appetite, good luck.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired the genetics is a guess, you caught me! I had a bet at the bookies and hoped that if we spoke about it enough the Scientific community would start to do some reasearch. Busted man and you got me! The shame of being caught by you will never leave me ;-)

http://www.edinburghsciencetriangle.com/science__technology_parks.aspx

A clue to the area where I actually come from. I am unsure who/whom you believe me to be but your radar needs calibrating.

I would say meeeeehhhhhh but I dont think you will get it!


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dogtired the genetics is a guess, you caught me! I had a bet at the bookies and hoped that if we spoke about it enough the Scientific community would start to do some reasearch. Busted man and you got me! The shame of being caught by you will never leave me ;-)
> 
> http://www.edinburghsciencetriangle.com/science__technology_parks.aspx
> 
> ...


Aah Edinburgh. Well I'd guess you have recently come out of a 'Heriot-Watt'.


----------



## Orbytal (29 Oct 2012)

@dogtired Unfortunately not but I do have 1 kid who has graduated from there in past with 1st Hons. Second one is currently pulling up trees with his achievements. Very proud Parents with them and maintaining the family name on a high.

I do however thank you for the flattery and the youthful presence you bestow upon me.


----------



## DogTired (29 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dogtired
> Second one is currently pulling up trees with his achievements.


Did he invent a new kind of spade?


----------



## Orbytal (30 Oct 2012)

@dogtired no he said from an early age that manual work was beneath him!


----------



## Orbytal (30 Oct 2012)

@dogtired something to make you smile


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sxuXt_R6Mw


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Now, personally, if you're looking for corrupt organisations African Govts (such as Kenya) are usually ranked pretty high. Congo too. And Nigeria. Nothing like Africans to stitch up their own.


A teeny bit racist perhaps?


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

Interesting thoughts from Andy Murray about anti-doping actions in tennis in light of the USADA report.


----------



## Orbytal (30 Oct 2012)

@thom it is considering Ferrer is under scrutiny for doping! In addition to Barcelona, Real Madrid and the Spanish National Team. It has also been mentioned that nadal may also be under consideration.


----------



## User169 (30 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> @dogtired the genetics is a guess, you caught me! I had a bet at the bookies and hoped that if we spoke about it enough the Scientific community would start to do some reasearch.


 
Still don't really understand what you mean by all this. What was your bet, Orbytal, and what should the scientific community be researching?


----------



## Orbytal (30 Oct 2012)

@delftse Post It was a joke (irony/tongue in cheek) and there is in fact no bet. Are you now scamming me Delfte! lol?

You have added only half the post and I suggest you open the link and have a look and try and work out why meeeeeeehhhhhhh is significant.

The penny (or cent/guilder) should drop once yoou work it out.


----------



## tigger (30 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Interesting thoughts from Andy Murray about anti-doping actions in tennis in light of the USADA report.



I'm glad there will be increased focus on other sports as a result of the Armstrong affair. I know it's probably sour grapes and cycling undeniably has a problem, but I do feel sometimes cycling is singled out compared to other sports. The amount of testing done by the ITF and the cover ups it has made makes he UCI look whiter than white. I'd like to see FIFA do a lot more too.

Indeed, if you read this below we could argue that the UCI has done a pretty good job compared to all the others. The stats missing for me (so we can really compare anti-doping efforts across different sports) are total number of professional athletes, so we can get an idea of the average number of tests per capita. But the UCI has increased testing by 70% since 2003 and positives have reduced by 25% in the same period. Not a bad effort I think?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/datablog/2012/jul/04/olympics-2012-athletics


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I'm glad there will be increased focus on other sports as a result of the Armstrong affair. I know it's probably sour grapes and cycling undeniably has a problem, but I do feel sometimes cycling is singled out compared to other sports. The amount of testing done by the ITF and the cover ups it has made makes he UCI look whiter than white. I'd like to see FIFA do a lot more too.


Agreed mostly - I don't mind so much cycling being singled out because it's a sport I'm interested in and it should address these issues (because they do exist unfortunately). It has to take the opportunity now to evolve and hopefully something really good will come out the other end, both for cycling and as an example to other sports that forces them to address their own issues.
It is great if the commission that the UCI creates is entirely independent and sets it's own terms of reference in that it establishes a precedent for how these opaque sporting institutions should operate going forward.
WADA could have a stronger hand going forward, which will be great when it comes to other Olympic sports.


----------



## DogTired (30 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> A teeny bit racist perhaps?


No, its hugely racist - the stuff in Kenya is incredible and when one tribe is in power then its no problem to leave non-allied tribes to starve, which is deplorable. In the book "It's our turn to eat" the details and scale of corruption and treatment of another race in Kenya are simply staggering.

You're right though and to maintain balance, other non-african providers of corruption are available.


----------



## DogTired (30 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I'm glad there will be increased focus on other sports as a result of the Armstrong affair. I know it's probably sour grapes and cycling undeniably has a problem, but I do feel sometimes cycling is singled out compared to other sports.


Media-wise it definitely has been. It will be interesting to see where football goes - Tony Cascarino gave an amazing interview on TalkSport (can't find a link maybe in the last 2 weeks?) where he said he was given unspecified injections by a large European club that he said he felt sure were doping products. Hearsay but it was also relayed about a footballer who had played champions league, not played for 2 years and then went back and he couldnt believe the endurance, speed and recovery of players who would play on a weds and then play again on a sat.

Its not evidence by a long chalk but its all reminiscent of cycling and the 2 speed pack.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> No, its hugely racist - the stuff in Kenya is incredible and when one tribe is in power then its no problem to leave non-allied tribes to starve, which is deplorable. In the book "It's our turn to eat" the details and scale of corruption and treatment of another race in Kenya are simply staggering.
> 
> You're right though and to maintain balance, other non-african providers of corruption are available.


Like DFID, the World Bank, Apex Finance (homed in British Territory iirc) etc., you mean? All so eloquently highlighted in Ms Wrong's splendid book, a copy of which is about one arm's length away from my keyboard.


----------



## User169 (30 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Media-wise it definitely has been. It will be interesting to see where football goes - Tony Cascarino gave an amazing interview on TalkSport (can't find a link maybe in the last 2 weeks?) where he said he was given unspecified injections by a large European club that he said he felt sure were doping products. Hearsay but it was also relayed about a footballer who had played champions league, not played for 2 years and then went back and he couldnt believe the endurance, speed and recovery of players who would play on a weds and then play again on a sat.
> 
> Its not evidence by a long chalk but its all reminiscent of cycling and the 2 speed pack.


 
I've heard Cascarino talk about these injections before and there is an interesting link to cycling. The club where he received the injections was Marseille which, at the time, was owned by Bernard Tapie (I seem to remember Cascarino claiming that Tapie himself injected the players, but I could be wrong on that). Tapie was of course manger of La Vie Claire cycling team, presiding over a number of TDF victories.


----------



## tigger (30 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Media-wise it definitely has been. It will be interesting to see where football goes - Tony Cascarino gave an amazing interview on TalkSport (can't find a link maybe in the last 2 weeks?) where he said he was given unspecified injections by a large European club that he said he felt sure were doping products. Hearsay but it was also relayed about a footballer who had played champions league, not played for 2 years and then went back and he couldnt believe the endurance, speed and recovery of players who would play on a weds and then play again on a sat.
> 
> Its not evidence by a long chalk but its all reminiscent of cycling and the 2 speed pack.



Oh no. Not the same Tapie who owned La Claire Vie cycle team! So that means Lemond doped lol!


----------



## thom (31 Oct 2012)

So here's a list of the frequency of in and out of competition doping controls in 2011 for top tennis players.


----------



## tigger (31 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> So here's a list of the frequency of in and out of competition doping controls in 2011 for top tennis players.



I've posted this link before, interesting blog I think. A bit of an about face by Murray recently it seems!
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/andy-murray-and-omerta.html


----------

