Armstrong charged and banned

[Chuffy]

Cheers SJ, I meant to link it earlier but got caught up responding to other stuff.

The article does unintentionally give rise to a false impression. At the time of the Swiss lab test (2001), UCI weren't signed up to WADA so any test result would not have gone to them - only UCI. So somewhat easier for them to orchestrate a cover up. Note also this....
...
So USADA only had notice (officially) of a possible cover up comparatively recently.

The bit that struck me was where he explains that it might be possible for the sample to be indicative rather than a straight positive. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the 'I had a positive taken care of' line has a touch of self-aggrandising simplification about it. Any meeting between LA, the lab + UCI is completely and utterly out of order though.

 

[Crackle]

So, anyway, come back Yello, there's a good chap.
Can you predict the future for me? Today is deadline day for Team LA to accept the punishment or go to arbitration.
If, the former, then LA will have his titles stripped, have to pay back the winnings(?), and owe SCA Promotions the £5m he copped for the seven wins. The evidence will remain, in theory at least, unheard and he can play the "I'm innocent but I'm tired of fighting this witchunt....ad nauseam). Many will accept that argument and continue to believe.
If he contests it, then all the stuff will come out and he surely must expect to be found guilty. Same punishments, morally bankrupt and financial implications of a high order too.
What's your call on this one or have I summed up wrongly?

Just that bit. I'm not sure it's true anymore, of course you'll never carry everyone but there's been quite a bit of self-examination in the press, especially the American press and doubts expressed. Armstrong is not where he was when this begun and probably won't ever be.

 

[yello]

The bit that struck me was where he explains that it might be possible for the sample to be indicative rather than a straight positive.

I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.

 

[Smokin Joe]

I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.

Similar to a drink drive test. Someone can have 34mg in their blood and walk free because they are below the threshold for a prosecution but they cannot dispute they have been drinking.

 

[Crackle]

This is the basis of the biological passport is it not.

 

[Chuffy]

I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.

Yup. And given that the TdS sample has been loudly touted as a covered up +tive (thanks to Lance's description) if it turns out to be 'merely' indicative then so far as perception goes, the waters just get more heavily muddied than ever before. Haterz will simply go with the 'WADA limits are too strict and it's as good as a positive' line. Fanboys will go with the 'see, he passed another test and Floyd is a fat liar' line and anyone with sense will focus on the fact that a meeting between athlete, laboratory and governing body in charge of sanctions is completely and utterly out of order, no matter what the status of the sample.

Something for everyone...<sigh>

 

[marinyork]

Just that bit. I'm not sure it's true anymore, of course you'll never carry everyone but there's been quite a bit of self-examination in the press, especially the American press and doubts expressed. Armstrong is not where he was when this begun and probably won't ever be.

I think the American media are less hostile because fairly similar things have happened in Athletics for even further back in time that came to light not so long ago e.g. Antonio Pettigrew, Graham trial and co that's put it back in their minds.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I deliberately didn't mention that because I genuinely don't have an opinion how that'll pan out. I'm simply not sure. And, in truth, not concerned.

And on another subject (and it is another subject ), I know you're a big fan of Lemond etc but is there really a need to mention him quite so often? No one here has ever doubted his being clean - no one here with any degree of credibility at least.

Fair enough.......I think he gets his titles stripped, and the record books show as much, thats just my opinion.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Standard issue in the Armstrong Fan Club kit (along with the secret decoder ring that tells you when the testers are coming round) is a set of key phrases and stock responses. One of the commonest is to portray anyone critical of LA as being 'bitter' or 'jealous'. Also gets used to describe vehement anti-dopers like Kimmage and Walsh. In the case of Kimmage it's probably correct, but that doesn't make him wrong.

And please, enough of the Lemond stuff already. We get it. Use the Ignore list if you have to, it would be better for all of us.

LOL, I knew that(about Pharmstrong)......I'll chill out on Lemond.....

 

[Chuffy]

Good man.

 

[beastie]

I

I'm talking about the specifics of the LA case, not USADA cases in general. And its not based on speculation about what evidence the Grand Jury turne up and whether its available to USADA. Its based on what USADA said in front of Sparks as recorded in his judgements. and that is its going to be based primarily on hearsay evidence.

You obviously don't understand what hearsay is. Hearsay in testimony is reporting what some body else said about the defendant/incident etc. If a witness says " I saw LA take EPO" or " he sold me some smack" for example; that is NOT hearsay but direct evidence. Simples

 

[rich p]

For those who want to know some of the background to all this...
... http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

 

[thom]

Betsy Andreu 5 questions

 

[Chuffy]

Something coming out at 10 o'clock EST (3am GMT) according to @theraceradio.

 

[Andy84]

Something coming out at 10 o'clock EST (3am GMT) according to @theraceradio.

US cyclist Lance Armstrong has announced he will no longer fight drug charges from the US anti-doping agency, ahead of a Friday deadline.

In a statement sent to Associated Press, Armstrong, 40, says he is innocent but weary of the accusations.

His decision could lead to sanctions from the doping agency, including a lifetime ban from cycling and the loss of his tour titles.

The seven-time Tour de France winner retired from cycling in 2011.

The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) alleges he used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO, steroid and blood transfusions.

Armstrong sued in federal court to block the charges but lost.

'Nonsense'

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in the statement.

"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999.

"Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's [USADA's chief executive] unconstitutional witch hunt.

"The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense."

Armstrong had until 06:00 GMT Friday to decide whether to continue fighting the USADA charges.

The cyclist earlier accused the agency of offering "corrupt inducements" to other riders to testify against him.

The agency can impose a lifetime ban and recommend Armstrong be stripped of his titles.

Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer prior to his record-breaking Tour wins, retired after the 2005 Tour de France but made a comeback in 2009.

He retired for a second time in February 2011.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384#TWEET204705