Tumbleweed Posted October 10, 2012 Share "Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman has sent a letter to USADA complaining that they should send their entire file of evidence gathered in a probe of Armstrong to the global cycling governing body rather than simply a limited report." Is that really too much to ask? Why even write a letter? I thought his client doesn't care about what Usada has to say… eddy and petatodd 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petatodd Posted October 10, 2012 Share "Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman has sent a letter to USADA complaining that they should send their entire file of evidence gathered in a probe of Armstrong to the global cycling governing body rather than simply a limited report." Is that really too much to ask?Did Big Tex not have the opportunity to partake in the whole process and see "the entire file" in hearings? Or was that just us all dreaming? Why would Tim Henman and the cheating scum have any right to dictate what USADA can or can't do after deciding to tell them to piss off and do their best? Is this maybe the first sign that this ban is going to sit and maybe, just maybe, the realisation is hitting that USADA are not going to be bullied in doing their duty to clean athletes. Bring on the Johan Bruyneel hearings. 9X winning Tour de France - ex Sports director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 10, 2012 Share Bring on the Johan Bruyneel hearings. 9X winning Tour de France - ex Sports director. I was wondering about this last night. When is this arbitration kicking off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted October 10, 2012 Share Why even write a letter? I thought his client doesn't care about what Usada has to say…Does not address the question. Why not send the whole report across and not selected, this could perhaps arm LA fanatics with conspiracy theories that USADA has got something to hide. Odd that LA lawyer, who i assume speaks for LA will want the WHOLE report to be sent which if USADA is correct will be more damaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 10, 2012 Share I thought Henman was a tennis player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 10, 2012 Share Does not address the question. Why not send the whole report across and not selected, this could perhaps arm LA fanatics with conspiracy theories that USADA has got something to hide. Odd that LA lawyer, who i assume speaks for LA will want the WHOLE report to be sent which if USADA is correct will be more damaging. I am actually getting confused about what is being sent to who. I thought the whole report was being sent to the UCI, and other details were being relased to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGR Posted October 10, 2012 Share I thought Henman was a tennis player?He had to start a new career - British tennis players dont win grand slams ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted October 10, 2012 Share I am actually getting confused about what is being sent to who. I thought the whole report was being sent to the UCI, and other details were being relased to the public. Are they sending it with SAPO or still writing it up (the report)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 10, 2012 Share He had to start a new career - British tennis players dont win grand slams ... So he loses on court, now he's losing in court? carbon29er 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Biological passport entries suggest blood re-infusion during the race, scientist claims http://www.cyclingne...-tour-de-france or http://www.velonatio...ood-values.aspx From the cycling news article:"Ashenden, who previously worked on the UCI's biological passport programme, told California Watch, an investigative journalism group, that “an analysis of blood samples drawn in 2009, contained in an earlier court filing, suggests that Armstrong was recklessly using banned doping methods,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported" I thought he was an expert at hiding illegal activities, hence the "I've never tested positive" and now this "old news" article suggests he was recklessly using banned doping methods.... PPPfffftttt...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 10, 2012 Share He had to start a new career - British tennis players dont win grand slams ... Only Scots do… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 10, 2012 Share I am actually getting confused about what is being sent to who. I thought the whole report was being sent to the UCI, and other details were being relased to the public. That is how I understand it as well, but it seems LA wants more. "Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman has sent a letter to USADA complaining that they should send their entire file of evidence gathered in a probe of Armstrong to the global cycling governing body rather than simply a limited report." That is a very different request. they are demanding all data they gathered, whether it relates to the charges it was bringing or not. What the USADA is required to send is a detailed report of the evidence on which they brought the charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 10, 2012 Share From the cycling news article:"Ashenden, who previously worked on the UCI's biological passport programme, told California Watch, an investigative journalism group, that “an analysis of blood samples drawn in 2009, contained in an earlier court filing, suggests that Armstrong was recklessly using banned doping methods,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported" I thought he was an expert at hiding illegal activities, hence the "I've never tested positive" and now this "old news" article suggests he was recklessly using banned doping methods.... PPPfffftttt...... These values have been questioned before. Remember the results he took of his site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dracs Posted October 10, 2012 Share I am actually getting confused about what is being sent to who. I thought the whole report was being sent to the UCI, and other details were being relased to the public.this is what smells a bit... Usada are preparing their "reasoned" report for UCI - and have refused all along to date (and it seems going forward) to simply open up their files to the UCI. Yes yes I know the cries of why this was done in the past (supposedly UCI being in cahoots with LA) but a very valid question to ask, why not now? Why do they need to wordsmith a report? Edited October 10, 2012 by dracs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 10, 2012 Share I thought he was an expert at hiding illegal activities, hence the "I've never tested positive" and now this "old news" article suggests he was recklessly using banned doping methods.... Because of his access to research labs and experimental drugs - something he proudly claims in "It's not about the bike" - he was always one step ahead of the testers and could "recklessly us(e) banned doping methods" without risk of getting caught by the tests at the time. The development of new tests and more sophisticated methods of detection appear to have tripped him up. I don't see a contradiction and look forward to the USADA evidence so we can have the definitive answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGR Posted October 10, 2012 Share Only Scots do… true ... but we know how the scots like being called British. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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