Armstrong charged and banned

[albion]

For Bassons it was his own team/s who destroyed him.

What we just don't really know is if Armstrong felt Basson's comments about 'almost everyone is doping' were wrong in fact.

 

[mangaman]

Banned since the early 90s, well before LA's retrospective positive. Oddly enough, Phil Liggett made the same 'mistake' in a recent interview. Funny that...

Sorry Cuffy - can't find an Armstrong EPO link your link.

There was a steroid contoversy I recall, but if Armstrong was found guity in the 1990s why was he allowed to compete in 1999?

 

[mangaman]

For Bassons it was his own team/s who destroyed him.

What we just don't really know is if Armstrong felt Basson's comments about 'almost everyone is doping' were wrong in fact.

What, the Festina team??

They were the only people who said he was the only one who refused to take EPO - and they said it under oath in a court of law.

Armstrong destroyed his cycling career and that should never be forgotten.

 

[Red Light]

Presumably you include Travis Tygart in the 'local lynch mob'?

I don't think I've ever seen him post on here but then with all the pseudonyms you never know.

 

[Red Light]

Which bit of 'before 1999' do you not understand?

The bit where WADA don't seem to know in which year it was banned.

 

[Red Light]

Hmmmm, it was 'dropped' at the behest of one man, Andre Birotte Jr. Apparently even the investigators (Novitsky and co) were taken aback. And, as the case never went the distance, it can be reactivated at any point and if USADA get their man (and they will) it would be slightly odd if the Fed case wasn't reopened. Also, and I appreciate that this is a subtlety that many have missed, the federal case was specifically into money laundering and drug trafficking. The Feds don't have a primary interest in doping as that alone is not a criminal offence.

As I said guilty until proven innocent and even then guilty. What did LA do to you that you are so eager to assert his absolute guilt before the evidence has even been heard? Are you angling to be a USADA arbitrator on the case?

 

[yello]

I love this....

this Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims.

As they say in the US 'busted!'

Expect more delaying tactics. Armstrong really does not want the USADA hearing to go ahead. Whether it sanctions him or not, the testimonies are going to damage him. As someone in CN's 'The Clinic' said, Armstrong doesn't want the USADA hearing because he cannot corrupt it.

And that's not just a smart arse remark. There's a lovely subtext. USADA is not a court, not a federal agency. It's more akin to a club punishing a member than to a court of law. And so, in contract to a court of law, its punishment is but a scratch... but a scratch that'll do for Armstrong (to hijack the bard).

That's the beauty of it all.... Armstrong cannot get at it! Precisely because USADA has legally recognised and limited scope, and cannot imprison or otherwise restrict freedoms; it operates within its own agreed processes and procedures. The courts will not interfere. Athletes have tried in the past to disrupt it with court actions, and they have failed. They've signed up to USADA, they've agreed to the rules in being licensed athletes.

What did LA do to you that you are so eager to assert his absolute guilt before the evidence has even been heard

Let me turn that question around; why is Armstrong so keen for the evidence not to be heard?

 

[Crackle]

We should really take a moment to admire the names involved here.

Judge Sam Sparks
Chief Executive Travis Tygart
and of course Lance

All good solid American names.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

As I said guilty until proven innocent and even then guilty.

You didn't pay any attention to what Chuffy actually wrote, did you? What he said was simply factually correct. What you are saying is just overheated rhetoric.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I found this footnote in the Judge's ruling particularly telling:

"Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not."

For all the Lance fanboys here who have been whittering on (usually in relative ignorance) about the law and legal process, what the judge is saying is that there is certainly one party involved here who does have contempt for the legal process, and it's not USADA, it's Armstrong.

 

[Chuffy]

Sorry Cuffy - can't find an Armstrong EPO link your link.

There was a steroid contoversy I recall, but if Armstrong was found guity in the 1990s why was he allowed to compete in 1999?

The steroid (cortisone) thing was a positive test during the '99 Tour. His team presented a backdated TUE (basically a doctors note) allowing him therapeutic use for saddle sores. cortisone, of couse, is a well known and very powerful PED.

The retrospective EPO positive is, again, from the 1999 Tour. The lab did some retrospective testing of the '99 Tour samples and a L'Equipe journalist managed to find out that the positive samples were Armstrongs. There's more on this from Michael Ashenden - http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden/

 

[Chuffy]

I don't think I've ever seen him post on here but then with all the pseudonyms you never know.

If you don't know who Travis Tygart is, you really should just quit now.

Michael Ashenden doesn't post on here either btw.

 

[Chuffy]

The bit where WADA don't seem to know in which year it was banned.

<sigh> Clearly well before 1999, which is when Lance's positive samples date from. Are you just being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Chuffy]

That's the beauty of it all.... Armstrong cannot get at it! Precisely because USADA has legally recognised and limited scope, and cannot imprison or otherwise restrict freedoms; it operates within its own agreed processes and procedures. The courts will not interfere. Athletes have tried in the past to disrupt it with court actions, and they have failed. They've signed up to USADA, they've agreed to the rules in being licensed athletes.

And what is even neater is that Bill Stapleton helped draw up those guidelines! Talk about being hoist by your own petard.

 

[smutchin]

Funny that the World Anti Doping Agency cannot say when it was banned other than sometime in the early '90's. You would have thought they would have known which year it was.

It does seem a bit strange that they should post such vague information on their website, but you're clutching at straws if you think that damages their credibility.

d.