scotty Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 There has been mention here of "hearsay". That's not what USADA is relying on. The testimony of former teammates can be considered anecdotal evidence, which, when set beside any other evidence USADA may have obtained from the federal probe, could be enough to find guilt. Read USADA's letter again. This is not just about proving a athlete doped. It's much wider than that.Lets hope that the evidence that USADA maintain they have got be made available to LA's and other accused to refute or concede. Charges have been made, they need to be tested.
Tumbleweed Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Totally agree, Scotty. The letter sent to JB, LA, et al is vague. They need to know what they must answer to. As I said, it's wide-ranging - and we are left to assume that it is based (well some of it anyway) on the fed investigation. I think the USADA demand is unfair as it stands, and lends some credence to the conspiracy (the conspiracy against, rather than the conspiracy charges). Personally, what interests me is the (alleged) irregular blood results from the comeback.
Velouria Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Totally agree, Scotty. The letter sent to JB, LA, et al is vague. They need to know what they must answer to. As I said, it's wide-ranging - and we are left to assume that it is based (well some of it anyway) on the fed investigation. I think the USADA demand is unfair as it stands, and lends some credence to the conspiracy (the conspiracy against, rather than the conspiracy charges). Personally, what interests me is the (alleged) irregular blood results from the comeback. Doesn't seem that vague: By Lance (Rider):(1) Use and/or attempted of prohibited substances and/or methods includingEPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, bloodtransfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storagecontainers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuringdevices) testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids as described in moredetail above.(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO,testosterone, and cortisone.(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicityinvolving one or more anti--doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-dopingrule violation .(6) Aggravating circumstances justifying a period of ineligibility greater than thestandard sanction. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf Edited June 19, 2012 by Velouria
Tumbleweed Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Velouria, those are still wide-ranging. How does anyone expect LA to respond to that? He's not being asked to respond to the specifics of the accusations.
Wyatt Earp Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Doesn't seem that vague: By Lance (Rider): (1) Use and/or attempted of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents. (2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices) testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents. (3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids as described in more detail above. (4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone. (5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti--doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violation . (6) Aggravating circumstances justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf By the look of all that, someone might be calling for the death sentence next.To be honest, it's all pretty vague and speculative to be honest.............or, they irrefutable proof and are simply just giving him the right to respond. Well best he respond immediately so they can bring the facts to the table, failing that they will look like a bunch of totties, yet again.
Esteni Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 He has been accused so many times, I don't think the issue would die down until something has been found...
TNT1 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Velouria, those are still wide-ranging. How does anyone expect LA to respond to that? He's not being asked to respond to the specifics of the accusations. So then his response is the standard I have never used banned substances. I am the most tested human being ever, I have never tested positive. This a witch hunt, and I don't float, blah blah...
petatodd Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 So then his response is the standard I have never used banned substances. I am the most tested human being ever, I have never tested positive. This a witch hunt, and I don't float, blah blah...What else can he respond other than trying to discredit the process? One of the items mentioned is the intimidation of witnesses. USADA is not going to give these guys access to the names of the witnesses, although 4 have gone public in WSJ, so that the can be intimidated again. Read an article in velonews about how blood taken from both the 2009 and 2010 tours showed absolutely consistent hematocrit levels over the entire 3 week period of the tour. USADA says this is consistent with blood doping. It's now up to LA et al to prove that it is in fact possible for there to be no fluctuations in hematocrit levels after extreme exertion.
TNT1 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 Read an article in velonews about how blood taken from both the 2009 and 2010 tours showed absolutely consistent hematocrit levels over the entire 3 week period of the tour. USADA says this is consistent with blood doping. It's now up to LA et al to prove that it is in fact possible for there to be no fluctuations in hematocrit levels after extreme exertion. Have a read at what Ashenden said about Contador's blood work from all of his Grand Tour wins...
scotty Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 So then his response is the standard I have never used banned substances. I am the most tested human being ever, I have never tested positive. This a witch hunt, and I don't float, blah blah...Well one way to stop it is for USADA to say "Mr Armstrong, here is a lab report indicating why we are charging you with" (1) Use and/or attempted of prohibited substances and/or methods includingEPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents Mr Armstrong on the charge of possession you were found in possession of prohibited on the following dates by the following persons (dates and names supplied), photo's, voice recordings etc. 2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, bloodtransfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storagecontainers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuringdevices) testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents Mr Armstrong etc etc. They are accusing him they must be specific
Tubehunter Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 What else can he respond other than trying to discredit the process? One of the items mentioned is the intimidation of witnesses. USADA is not going to give these guys access to the names of the witnesses, although 4 have gone public in WSJ, so that the can be intimidated again. Read an article in velonews about how blood taken from both the 2009 and 2010 tours showed absolutely consistent hematocrit levels over the entire 3 week period of the tour. USADA says this is consistent with blood doping. It's now up to LA et al to prove that it is in fact possible for there to be no fluctuations in hematocrit levels after extreme exertion. That sounds more like they are trying to force Lance and Co to prove medical and physiological variances related to exertion and anything outside of this will be considered doping?? Does WADA or USADA even have these as guidelines in their testing protocol?? If your body does not show signs of extreme exertion it is considered doping even if you pass the substance tests they administer??
scotty Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 How do you prove attempted use. Is this when you take something and it does not work 1) Use and/or attempted of prohibited substances and/or methods includingEPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.
TNT1 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 How do you prove attempted use. Is this when you take something and it does not work You look for the unused EPO prefill in the hollowed out book on Millar's mantelpiece...
scotty Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 You look for the unused EPO prefill in the hollowed out book on Millar's mantelpiece...
petatodd Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 The drug test pass malarki is exactly that. Festina - no drug teat failed but entire team kicked off the tour 1998 and most bannedBasso - never failed a testUllrich - never failed a test. Oh no, I'm wrong, speed was a positive after a night of clubbing when he crashed his PorscheMarion Jones - never failed a testBjarn Riis - never failed a testEric Zabel - never failed a testFloyd Landis - self confessed doper - failed 1 test, not for EPO but for testosteroneAll confirmed dopers, just not as clever as LA and his team. So I think it's fairly clear that the testing regime AS IT WAS was unable to catch the cheats.
TNT1 Posted June 19, 2012 Posted June 19, 2012 So I think it's fairly clear that the testing regime AS IT WAS was unable to catch the cheats. It's still unable to catch them. The last high profile catch was Contador, and he got nicked for clenbuterol, not for blood doping, which was how the clenbuterol got into him in the first place. I guess it doesn't help that there is no test for autologous blood transfusion. Hence the biological passport, to look for spikes in blood values. Again, read the extensive analysis Ashenden did of Contador's blood values, and see the conclusions he draws.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now