another nail in the coffin

[philipbh]

Why does he need these blokes if he's got nothing to hide?
http://www.cyclingne...ters-legal-team

Safety in numbers ?

It seems to be (to the casual observer) the american way of conducting a legal defence (assuming one can afford it)

 

[Flying_Monkey]

And now, the Swiss lab chief has come out and said there were indeed suspicious samples in 2001 and that he met Armstrong and Buyneel.

Of course, they deny it, but this is getting ridiculous now.

 

[Noodley]

No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't
No I didn't

Anyway I am off to write a song entitled "I told you so" and make up a wee dance to go with it.
Yes I am.

 

[Noodley]

Anyway I am off to write a song entitled "I told you so" and make up a wee dance to go with it.
Yes I am.

What d'ya think of this as a dance move?:

 

[GrumpyGregry]

And now, the Swiss lab chief has come out and said there were indeed suspicious samples in 2001 and that he met Armstrong and Buyneel.

Of course, they deny it, but this is getting ridiculous now.

Said lab chief appears to confirm in that piece that there wasn't a positive sample from 2001.

"But the tests were not covered up, and it is also not correct that they could have been interpreted as positive. They were suspect, and you wouldn't stand a chance at all with that sole argument in front of a court."

So the 2001 positive test myth goes out the window no?

Curiouser and curiouser. Especially as we now know the UCI now runs a formal "suspicion index"

It all reeks to high heaven.

FM - as to their denial in that piece; they appear to be in agreement with said lab chief. No positive test. No positive test from LA. No one spoke to LA about a positive or suspicious sample from him at the time or afterwards. So I'm not sure there is anything denial related.

(But odds on he is a doper imo..)

 

[Flying_Monkey]

FM - as to their denial in that piece; they appear to be in agreement with said lab chief. No positive test. No positive test from LA. No one spoke to LA about a positive or suspicious sample from him at the time or afterwards. So I'm not sure there is anything denial related.

Except that they deny meeting him or rather, they use the Ronald Reagan excuse, and I quote from the piece...

"Armstrong's attorney Tim Herman, however, recently said in a statement that "neither Armstrong or Bruyneel have any recollection of meeting [Saugy] for any purpose at any time,""

 

[Noodley]

knock knock knock, that's another nail...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-helped-with-novitzky-investigation

 

[BJH]

Maybe he could get Shaggy to write him a song, replace It wasn't Me with...

I Never Failed....

 

[BJH]

On the Bertie case, I don't think it's correct to say that the "law states he is innocent"

He was found with a banned substance in his body - of that he is undoubtably guilty.

The Spanish Federation has then opted to accept his story of how that happened and not banned him. They have accepted justification for the test, but that does not make him innocent.

The stupidity of the process delays mean that he is allowed to ride at the moment, because there is no ban currently in place.

That is very, very different to being innocent.

 

[yello]

He was found with a banned substance in his body - of that he is undoubtably guilty.

His excuse for the presence of the substance was accepted. You and I may think the excuse stinks but that's a different issue.

They have accepted justification for the test, but that does not make him innocent.

Of doping, quite simply it does. I'm using the legal definition, not a 'was the drug there or not' definition. He is innocent of attempting to gain advantage by intentionally taking a banned substance, i.e doping as it generally accepted to mean.

You can't argue with the situation. It's not weasel words or legal speak, it is as it is. Acceptable to me and thee or no. He was not banned, he is still riding, ergo he is innocent in the eyes of the law. And it's that that counts.

Let's turn it around. If he's guilty then why does he still have his licence?

 

[Smokin Joe]

The Contador case shows how ridiculous it is to allow a rider's own federation to investigate doping allegations against them. It is not in the interests of the Spanish or any other national body to have their top rider convicted of a doping offence and there should be an independent authority to handle all cases.

 

[yello]

knock knock knock, that's another nail...
http://www.cyclingne...y-investigation

As I began to read it, I wasn't so sure it was another nail. It seemed WADAs role was simply as a facilitator or 'introducer' to enable the FDA to speak to other bodies. But I found this interesting, of the FDA, in that context

I think that these guys have been working away for more than a year - the outcomes will be as significant or even more significant that BALCO, in that some of the issues we want to make clarified will be clarified

...that made me wander what WADA knew already or had learned from the FDA.

Where it did become interesting for me was in the comments on the limitations of testing, and the move towards other forms of detection i.e. border controls. Interestingly no mention of the blood passport... but I think there might be a bit of politics there.

Of WADA action, it stated

“We’re not going to do anything until the enquiry is complete and all the issues have been laid out. It would be premature for us to do anything off the basis of a television programme. What we will do is operate on those final findings and we’ll do whatever is necessary.”

So do I take it from that that WADA will see results of the FDA investigation even if the US prosecution people decide not to bring formal charges against anyone?

 

[BJH]

His excuse for the presence of the substance was accepted. You and I may think the excuse stinks but that's a different issue.



Of doping, quite simply it does. I'm using the legal definition, not a 'was the drug there or not' definition. He is innocent of attempting to gain advantage by intentionally taking a banned substance, i.e doping as it generally accepted to mean.

You can't argue with the situation. It's not weasel words or legal speak, it is as it is. Acceptable to me and thee or no. He was not banned, he is still riding, ergo he is innocent in the eyes of the law. And it's that that counts.

Let's turn it around. If he's guilty then why does he still have his licence?

and currently being appealed because the original decision was nonsense. Others have been banned for the same offence, mistakingly taking it isnt normall accepted as a defence.

 

[yello]

and currently being appealed because the original decision was nonsense. Others have been banned for the same offence, mistakingly taking it isnt normall accepted as a defence.

You say it's nonsense. Many others agree. The majority of the planet might think so too BUT the people who decided whether he keeps his licence or not disagree... and they are the ones with the authority, rightly or wrongly.

Whether it's a normally accepted defence is immaterial, the people making that one decision accepted it. It was a judgement call, an interpretation of the rules as they are laid out so they were completely within their rights to do so.

When CAS looks at this, IF they decide to overturn that decision then that's another matter. Their authority will exceed that of the Spanish cycling federation. It's all due legal process and the way things work in any court system.

Look, for what it's worth, I agree with you. But as I have said time and again, what we think does not matter. I differentiate between what I think and what is. I think it's quite an easy differentiation to make in honesty.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Now it's being reported that Saugy did report that the samples were Armstrong's, despite his public claims.