Armstrong charged and banned

[yello]

I would be surprised if USADA could slide anything in without breaching their procedures.

USADA made a statement to the effect that they only disclosed in the charges document allegations that were already in the public domain (or the SSDD evidence to use the Armstrong parlance!) They did this to protect new witnesses from possible intimidation.

That's a clever statement as it indicates the possibility of new evidence. Whether there is new evidence or not remains to be seen. Certainly the blood test anomalies that USADA mentioned could be the source of new evidence, and that could take the form of expert analysis of the blood passport figures.

 

[Alun]

USADA made a statement to the effect that they only disclosed in the charges document allegations that were already in the public domain (or the SSDD evidence to use the Armstrong parlance!) They did this to protect new witnesses from possible intimidation.

That's a clever statement as it indicates the possibility of new evidence. Whether there is new evidence or not remains to be seen. Certainly the blood test anomalies that USADA mentioned could be the source of new evidence, and that could take the form of expert analysis of the blood passport figures.

USADA have stated in formal charges that the blood is from 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't think that they could pull some 2012 blood from a hat and use it in evidence. The blood from 2010/2011 has surely been tested already and presumably found "clean". I will be interested to see how they present that evidence.

 

[Andrew_P]

USADA have stated in formal charges that the blood is from 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't think that they could pull some 2012 blood from a hat and use it in evidence. The blood from 2010/2011 has surely been tested already and presumably found "clean". I will be interested to see how they present that evidence.

The reason I thought it may have something to do with current blood is that they were testing him straight off the bat when he turned pro to compete in Tri and Ironmans. If he was clean now and not then I would think it would show signifcant changes in bloodwork.

Taken form Facebook

"I refuse to be distracted by USADA's antics. It's 2012, I'm gonna continue to lead LIVESTRONG, raise my 5 kids, and stay fit!"

I do wonder if he will defend it or not

 

[yello]

Alun, we might be at cross purposes. I want to avoid that so, to be clear, I wasn't picking fault only adding to what you said.

Obviously, I've no idea what USADA have nor how they intend to use it. They do however leave open to interpretation the possibility that they do have undisclosed evidence, and I've read no objection to that, but I guess that has to be disclosed to the accused at some stage prior to the hearing.

I personally have never read any mention of 2012 blood figures, no idea where that idea even came from in truth. I suspect Loco was just asking the question. Armstrong would have been tested in 2012 at some stage because of his involvement in triathlon so it is a possibility. I personally don't see it though.

As I said upstream, I think the blood evidence will be analytical rather than a 'positive test' per se. Without getting too complex (though I can point people to info if they want more detail), testing for EPO doping doesn't always give a clear 'yes/no' (though it can do). There are markers that indicate possibilities and analysts interpret that along with the presence or absence of other indicators etc.

 

[Alun]

I would think USADA would have to put all their cards on the table now they have formally charged Armstrong (and others). I would expect a lengthy wait whilst Armstrong's lawyers pick over every minute detail.
I realize that dope testing isn't black and white, but what can be done now, that couldn't be done in 2010/2011?

 

[Andrew_P]

but what can be done now, that couldn't be done in 2010/2011?

Thats why I thought it might be comaparing two sets of Blood one 2010/11 and one from the recent tests. I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as that failed. TBH if it is just hearsay then even if found guilty for me it would be still not be clear cut. They really need to have something different up their sleeve and as Yello states it is open ended as to what the new evidence is, maybe they are quite happy that everyone is speculating that it is a new personal statement as opposed to scientific evidence.

 

[yello]

I would expect a lengthy wait whilst Armstrong's lawyers pick over every minute detail.

Yes, it's the next stage of the process and I do find it intriguing. I must reread stuff and answer my own questions here. They (i.e. Armstrong et al) have until the 9th to advise their intention to contest or no. I'm presuming they have the full evidence in front of them though but, I have to admit, I keep falling foul here. I keep thinking court procedure and the USADA hearing is not a court of law and has it's own procedures.

I don't even know if it's a joint action. That is, are Armstrong, Bruyneel, etc all to be treated as one or whether they can each elect separately to contest, and/or go for a public hearing. I can't imagine the good Dr Ferrari cares too much what USADA may decide but it could have huge ramifications for Armstrong - so it'd not surprise if the 2 of them might want a different approach.

 

[Crackle]

Thats why I thought it might be comaparing two sets of Blood one 2010/11 and one from the recent tests. I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as that failed. TBH if it is just hearsay then even if found guilty for me it would be still not be clear cut. They really need to have something different up their sleeve and as Yello states it is open ended as to what the new evidence is, maybe they are quite happy that everyone is speculating that it is a new personal statement as opposed to scientific evidence.

Well, it didn't fail, it was dropped, why depends on which conspiracy theory you believe but they were also coming at it from a different angle, they weren't interested in proving doping per se.

 

[yello]

I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as that failed.

Sorry to be picky but the federal case didn't "fail". It just wasn't continued. It's not closed, it's still there and can be restarted at any point. In fact, dependant on the outcome of the USADA action, I could see it reopened.

Also, you have to remember the federal case and the USADA action are entirely different beasts and there has apparently been no information passed from the feds to USADA (I suspect what that means in reality is that USADA conducted interviews etc in the first place and the feds sat in on them!). The 2 also had entirely different objectives. Doping is not a crime and the federal case didn't concern itself with that. Given all of that, its likely that it's substantially different evidence with different burdens of proof.

 

[Alun]

I'm pretty sure that Armstrong's team is entitled to have ALL the evidence against him before proceeding, otherwise they would not be able to mount a full defence.
Armstrong's side is already calling it a kangeroo court, so USADA would be unwise to fuel that fire.
I am convinced that this matter is headed to CAS at the end of the day, so all USADA actions will be under scrutiny.

 

[Alun]

Sorry to be picky but the federal case didn't "fail". It just wasn't continued. It's not closed, it's still there and can be restarted at any point. In fact, dependant on the outcome of the USADA action, I could see it reopened.

This was reported by Cycling News in February
A press release from United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. stated his office "is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong."

 

[yello]

I agree Alun, I too think USADA will be ever so careful with how they handle this. Tripled checked and advice sought before taking a step. They know lawyers will be brandishing fine tooth combs looking for procedural slip ups.

 

[totallyfixed]

How's this for irony, it's an extract "from Lance to Landis" by David Walsh [do read it if you can] and is from a conversation between Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong:
GLM - "So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know a lot about physiology, no amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 Max of 82 into one of 95, and you have ridden faster than me"
LA - I could find at least ten people who will say you did EPO, ten people who would come forward"

Priceless.

 

[yello]

This was reported by Cycling News in February
A press release from United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. stated his office "is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong."

That's right - "his office" ceased their actions, yes. That is, the procedural actions of the central California attorneys office. Note that they didn't conduct the investigation, that was done by the USFDA and remains on file. It's my understanding that it's never closed, can be re-started, re-submitted* or even filed at a different office.

*edit - should have added 'with new evidence' perhaps

 

[smutchin]

This was reported by Cycling News in February

...and has been explained several times already in this thread.

d.