Armstrong charged and banned

Status
Not open for further replies.
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
The allegations may go back 12 years but the investigation was started by, or around the time of, the Landis accusations only 2 years ago. Praps FM's right, Sparks likes an audience!

I think we all knew that there were no (official) positive test results included in the evidence. That doesn't however equate to "no drug test evidence".
 
albion

albion

Guest
12 years of gossip is much of the evidence. Which is obviously more accurate than a thousand plus years of bible gossip.

It just happens that drug takers will back some of this up so they can continue doing what they are doing.
 
C

Crackle

..
lukesdad said:
Watching the olympics I see crax, it was quite interesting listening, didn't realise CJ was that clued up TBH.
Click to expand...
Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.

Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?
 
OP
OP
Y

yello

Guest
Baggy said:
As you were.
Click to expand...

Ok.

I've kind of got my head around Sparks' questions now.

It appears that USADA weren't as forthcoming in their charging letter as they normally are (names and dates etc). That was for reasons of 'witness intimidation' but Sparks is concerned that this does not offer Armstrong the chance to see enough of the evidence against him (even by the lesser standards of a USADA process). He's offering USADA the chance to allay those fears; either by convincing him that there is a good reason for the charges to be minimally conveyed, or by fleshing out those charges.

With regard to Armstrong's claims re jurisdiction, Sparks wants to be convinced that the courts have a question to answer. Team Armstrong have seemingly focused too strongly on USADA not having jurisdiction, rather than trying to convince Sparks that the court has jurisdiction to decide who has jurisdiction (I know I know - I can only suggest you read that a couple of times!) I'll try and rephrase. In the first instance, Sparks isn't concerned whether UCI or USADA has jurisdiction, he wants Armstrong to convince him that jurisdiction is a matter for the court to decide. So far, Armstrong's legal team haven't done that so they are being offered the chance to redress it.
 
lukesdad

lukesdad

Guest
Crackle said:
Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.

Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?
Click to expand...

As I heard it the gene in question was found in all black sprinters, but only in the very best of white sprinters...... nothing seemed to be conclusive and would only benefit second rate white athletes, though whether or not that would make them winners was doubtful.
 
R

Red Light

Guest
yello said:
Ok.

I've kind of got my head around Sparks' questions now.

It appears that USADA weren't as forthcoming in their charging letter as they normally are (names and dates etc). That was for reasons of 'witness intimidation' but Sparks is concerned that this does not offer Armstrong the chance to see enough of the evidence against him (even by the lesser standards of a USADA process). He's offering USADA the chance to allay those fears; either by convincing him that there is a good reason for the charges to be minimally conveyed, or by fleshing out those charges.

With regard to Armstrong's claims re jurisdiction, Sparks wants to be convinced that the courts have a question to answer. Team Armstrong have seemingly focused too strongly on USADA not having jurisdiction, rather than trying to convince Sparks that the court has jurisdiction to decide who has jurisdiction (I know I know - I can only suggest you read that a couple of times!) I'll try and rephrase. In the first instance, Sparks isn't concerned whether UCI or USADA has jurisdiction, he wants Armstrong to convince him that jurisdiction is a matter for the court to decide. So far, Armstrong's legal team haven't done that so they are being offered the chance to redress it.
Click to expand...

You missed out his "are USDA on a fishing expedition" question.
 
U

ufkacbln

Guest
rich p said:
...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?
Click to expand...

I have posted this before, and it was rubbished, but there is no limit to this, within the USADA rules they can charge the same person with the same case and evidence was many times as they wish. There is no "double jeopardy"

However an athlete can only appeal once.
 
marinyork

marinyork

Resting in suspended Animation
Location
Logopolis
Cunobelin said:
I have posted this before, and it was rubbished, but there is no limit to this, within the USADA rules they can charge the same person with the same case and evidence was many times as they wish. There is no "double jeopardy"

However an athlete can only appeal once.
Click to expand...

There seemed to be quite a lot of rubbishing of Ashley Judd on this forum, so maybe you've just found your man for your next film. He might need a film career after this anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

matticus
"Chicane-gate" and rider safety
Replies
29
Cathryn
Tour of Britain (Women and men)
Replies
67
Sunny Portrush
Andre Drege
Replies
5
rich p
Dan Bigham's hour record attempt (and now Ganna)
Replies
55
Top Bottom