The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Buddfox]

What are the views on possible wriggle room for the UCI not to remove LA's titles? Can they just not do it, fudge it, fight it regardless, stall, deem it irrelevant or ignore it?

My understanding is if they do most of the above (i.e. ignore it, fudge it etc.) the IOC says that cycling (track and road) is no longer an Olympic sport since they haven't adhered to the agreement(s) between the IOC, WADA and national agencies (in this case USADA). My guess is they're waiting to see if the evidence is weak enough to give them an excuse to fight it on 'genuine' grounds. I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense believes that this will be the case, but it remains a case of wait and see, officially at least.

 

[DogTired]

....don't forget the positive for EPO that was hushed up, which was reported in Tyler Hamilton's book

Yeah, just caught up with the TH thread - crazy stuff! Out of interest did you buy the US version and if so where from???

 

[Noodley]

Out of interest did you buy the US version and if so where from???

I did, from US amazon - but having seen the differences posted online I am not sure it is worth the effort tbh.

 

[Noodley]

So who is gonna rush off and press the buy button?

http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/products/defend-lance

 

[ufkacbln]

What are the views on possible wriggle room for the UCI not to remove LA's titles? Can they just not do it, fudge it, fight it regardless, stall, deem it irrelevant or ignore it?.

Just to play Devil's Advocate.... so long as USADA fail to actually provide any evidence, there is no need to respond

 

[Russell Allen]

I think a few more may rush out and buy this one

Russell

 

[albion]

I heard that hardtalk interview.

It did not wet my appetite.

 

[Red Light]

USADA are not making this up as they go along. There is a schedule.
That is all.

I thought their schedule was "within two weeks" about four weeks ago.

 

[Red Light]

I think a few more may rush out and buy this one

Russell

Are they going to over-print it with "This testing was in breach of the WADA Code" ?

 

[Red Light]

I doubt it. That would make it much less snappy and, now it is done, who cares?

Just curious though how samples provided by Armstrong "tested positive for the performance enhancing drug EPO by Sal Ruibal"

 

[Red Light]

Hint: ----> <-----

 

[DogTired]

So who is gonna rush off and press the buy button?

http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/products/defend-lance

To defend him properly it needs longer sleeves to hide the bruises on the upper arms.

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2058414, member: 45"]Would that make him not a doping cheat?[/quote]

Nope, but it alters the "quality" of the evidence, and allows a loophole to have it dismissed.

It also allows the "Witch hunt" defence as USADA are bending their own rules to pursue the matter.

Finally the issue that WADA is on record as saying that B samples should be stopped as they are unreliable due to deterioration

Daavid Howman :

According to Howman, the number of times there is a difference between the two is ‘almost zero’. When that does happen, he said that it was often due to degrading of the sample over time, suggesting any differences in the past are down to false negatives of the B sample rather than false positives of the A test.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8002/WADA-considering-dropping-B-sample-test-by-2015.aspx#ixzz27SQLRyy0​

So they sate that B samples are unreliable yet now breach their own rules of conduct to provide evidence that they are on record as stating is unreliable when it suits their agenda.

 

[Red Light]

So they sate that B samples are unreliable yet now breach their own rules of conduct to provide evidence that they are on record as stating is unreliable when it suits their agenda.

More than that it was a clear breach of the rules as it was said it was as part of research into a new test for EPO. The WADA Code says:

6.3 Research on Samples
No Sample may be used for any purpose other than
as described in Article 6.2 without the Athlete's
written consent. Samples used for purposes other
than Article 6.2 shall have any means of identification
removed such that they cannot be traced
back to a particular Athlete.​

​

I feel pretty sure that Armstrong would not have given his written consent and the samples clearly did not have their identification removed. To say nothing of the fact that L'Equipe is not the official reporting line for results.

 

[Red Light]

And yet he has conceded and given up.

Under circumstances in which he was denied sight of the evidence against him. Whether this is in there or not only USADA know at present.