The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[smutchin]

Yes it is an appendix and its purpose seems to be to say "Look what a nasty person he is"

Yeah, because Lance would have come out of this smelling of roses if it weren't for that pesky appendix!

but it illustrates the polemic nature of the document because it completely ignores the key evidence that negates their conclusion that Betsy Andreu was not mistaken.

Perfectly reasonable point. And for that reason, they shouldn't have presented the Betsy hospital story as evidence. Oh wait... they didn't.

But it was part of their investigation, hence they included it. And didn't include the non-existent evidence of doctors who refused to testify. Amazing.

d.

 

[yello]

There was something in Michael Barry's confession that struck me - something very simple, probably shared by many a young cyclist.

As a boy my dream was to become a professional cyclist who raced at the highest level in Europe. I achieved my goal when I first signed a contract with the United States Postal Service Cycling team in 2002. Soon after I realized reality was not what I had dreamed. Doping had become an epidemic problem in professional cycling.

Here was a kid with a dream. He didn't want to dope but felt he had no choice ( or that's how it was presented to him). That's wrong. Whatever one thinks of a 'level playing field', one shouldn't be effectively forced into breaking the rules.

I crossed a line I promised myself and others I would not: I doped. It was a decision I deeply regret. It caused me sleepless nights, took the fun out of cycling and racing, and tainted the success I achieved at the time. This was not how I wanted to live or race.

(My bold) From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/michael-barry-confesses-to-doping

 

[smutchin]

 

[PaulB]

Still not proven guilty in court, nor has he ever been tested positive.

Neither was John Terry but he's still serving a (shamefully short) ban, is he not?

 

[DogTired]

Nope. The whole section at the end about the Indiana hospital room incident is interesting. They rehash lots of old stuff but they completely omit that his primary cancer doctor, Craig Nichols, said in a sworn testimony "I have never seen any evidence, either from myself or any other doctor, that indicates Lance Armstrong admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs."

It seems something of a big omission since they use other extracts from his testimony to try to bolster their case.

They also use McIlvain's testimony to argue that there were two doctors (men) in the room so Betsy must be telling the truth but again they fail to mention that in her sworn deposition she said:

QUESTION: Were you ever at a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr. Armstrong where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?​

MCILVAIN: No.​

QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of any doctor in your presence asking Mr. Armstrong if he used in the past any performance-enhancing drugs or substances?​

MCILVAIN: No.​

Doing the usual literal answer thing, if Craig Nichols had been told verbally then thats correct, he hasn't 'seen' any evidence. None of the Drs had as LA spoke it. Testicular cancer can be caused by steroid use so its pretty naive for a Dr to say LA hasnt indicated when as a performance athlete he is in front of you with testicular cancer.

With regard to McIlvain, after LeMond was pressured by the LA machine he started taping phone conversations. He had an interesting one with McIlvain. I'm not retyping the conversation but the better bits include (the background is that Lemond possibly wanted her to testify in the future):

McIlvain: "Cause I'm not going to lie. You know, I was in that room. I heard it."
McIlvain: "Well, the thing of it is, Greg, there is so many people protecting him that it is just sickening, you know."
McIlvain: "... Chris Carmichael made a call to my friend and said, "Oh, you know, I've been sitting here, thinking, thinking, thinking who was in that room. If I totally remember the incident, yes he did admit to what he was taking."

I think that puts your McIlvain "No" into a proper perspective. Her sworn deposition doesnt match her own recollection

 

[rich p]

Do you really think so?

I suggest you read Tyler hamilton's book if you haven't already.
He shows compelling evidence that it was far from everyone who was on a full doping regime. If you weren't in Armstrong's A team you had to fend for yourself and hamilton himself fell out of favour with LA and had to ride panyagua - their term for rding clean.
In addition most riders were simply unable to afford to pay the likes of Ferrari over a million dollars. Hamilton details his relative struggle compared with Armstrong let alone the humble domestiques.

 

[Red Light]

Court could come yet. Unlikely I accept but is it impossible?
As for, never tested positive, have you read the document?

Depends what you mean by tested positive. LNDD broke the WASA Code in multiple ways by using the 1999 samples without the athlete's consent and allowing the anonymity of the samples to be compromised. (They also clearly also did not "randomly select" the samples from that year but targeted Armstrong as its statistically extremely improbable from all the samples taken that year in the TdeF, so many would turn up in a random selection to be from Armstrong). The results of the 1999 sample retests were therefore rightly thrown out in the past as they were not analysed for testing purposes (but for test development purposes) and had been used in flagrant breach of the WADA Code. USADA ignore all this and claim it as a positive test. With the Swiss tests given they are a WADA accredited test body, curiously they rely heavily on reports published in Cycling Weekly for their evidence rather than interviews with the Head of the Swiss test lab they refer. They then retrospectively partially apply test criteria that were not in operation at the time of the test but much later and then say the refusal of the athlete to hand over the results is evidence of his guilt (which is in direct contravention of his 5th Amendment Rights (the right to remain silent) under the US Constitution). So its while it may indicate EPO use they were not tests that Armstrong failed.

 

[rich p]

I see Nike have continued to pledge their support for LA.
Has anyone heard from Phil Liggett today yet?

 

[DogTired]

Depends what you mean by tested positive. LNDD broke the WASA Code in multiple ways by using the 1999 samples without the athlete's consent and allowing the anonymity of the samples to be compromised. (They also clearly also did not "randomly select" the samples from that year but targeted Armstrong as its statistically extremely improbable from all the samples taken that year in the TdeF, so many would turn up in a random selection to be from Armstrong). The results of the 1999 sample retests were therefore rightly thrown out in the past as they were not analysed for testing purposes (but for test development purposes) and had been used in flagrant breach of the WADA Code. USADA ignore all this and claim it as a positive test. With the Swiss tests given they are a WADA accredited test body, curiously they rely heavily on reports published in Cycling Weekly for their evidence rather than interviews with the Head of the Swiss test lab they refer. They then retrospectively partially apply test criteria that were not in operation at the time of the test but much later and then say the refusal of the athlete to hand over the results is evidence of his guilt (which is in direct contravention of his 5th Amendment Rights (the right to remain silent) under the US Constitution). So its while it may indicate EPO use they were not tests that Armstrong failed.

This is incorrect as detailed in post #342 of this thread.

 

[Red Light]

Yes, I really think the idea that they were all doing it, therefore it was a level playing field is a myth, in a broad sense of the word.

If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):

Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping​

 

[yello]

I see Nike have continued to pledge their support for LA.

Interesting that. I'm sure they have an exit strategy, I wonder what circumstances will trigger it?

 

[Red Light]

This is incorrect as detailed in post #342 of this thread.

Whether you are right or not in 342, (and my view is you are not because they were not being used for the detection of prohibited substances but to develop a test for detecting prohibited substances), the results were thrown out for the reasons I stated.

 

[Red Light]

View attachment 13699

Actually its not evidence for the prosecution. Its supposed to be the judgement in the case. The two are very very different and the latter is supposed to consider all aspects of the evidence not just those favourable to the prosecution. But its one of the problems of combining the role of prosecution and judiciary which is the situation with USADA in a non-contested case.

 

[DogTired]

If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):

Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping​

Because the amount of doping, the substances, the expertise behind the doping plans varied according to what you could pay Ferrari. Take 20 athletes, all the same - the best doped one wins.

 

[Red Light]

There was something in Michael Barry's confession that struck me - something very simple, probably shared by many a young cyclist.


Here was a kid with a dream. He didn't want to dope but felt he had no choice ( or that's how it was presented to him). That's wrong. Whatever one thinks of a 'level playing field', one shouldn't be effectively forced into breaking the rules.



(My bold) From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/michael-barry-confesses-to-doping

What is curious though is the motif running through both the Hincapie and Barry new confessions of "we stopped in 2006 and are now confessing for the sake of the kids to come in cycling" which eerily echo words in Tygart's statement yesterday - "for the young riders who hope to one day reach their dreams without using dangerous drugs or methods. " One could almost think they all shared a common ghost writer.