But, he didn't fail the test because he was looked after by the UCI.

Serious question, though. Didn't he legitimately fail a test when he refused the entry of the out-of-competition tester? Isn't the rule that the tester is not to allow the subject out of sight until sample is given? But Lance didn't allow him in until he had showered and done who knows what else in the bathroom for like 30 minutes? I may have the details wrong, but I don't think so. Even though the sample finally given didn't fail anything, isn't the violation of process a failed test?

The story going around the net (so it ahs to be true) Is that LA was just getting home for a ride and asked if he could shower first. The colector said yes. So a stupid breach of protocal but not LAs fault.

---

Styrrell

Looks like WADA never pursued action - probably rightly so - but it certainly appears that Johann kept the tester at bay while LA showered. Relatively minor, but just another incident for skepticism. Alone, meaningless. As part of a large body of evidence, not so much.

http://www.bikeradar.com/...ban-in-france-21182/

They (WADA) either should have pursued action or fired the collector. The stories are completely opposite. My gut reaction is that the tester was right, mainly because I have a hard time believing you don't have some paperwork or identification.

Hell if you could just knock on LAs door and get a urine sample from him I'm certain JRenfro and JMott would have already done so, but for far different reasons.

---

Styrrell

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/..._%26_Conklin_Mfg._Co.

Can any of the other lawyers out there explain whether this case is relevant?

---

AndyF
bike geek

I've seen a lot of things in life, but never in my life have I seen such hatred, contempt and determination to prove one man cheated in all my life. We will likely never ever know the truth, because the haters are so determined they would be more than willing to manufacture evidence to support their cause. I would say that no matter what happens, it is simply impossible for there to be a fair judgement. There are just too many people that are willing to put guilt before proof in this particular case.

Honestly, I don't care one way or another at this point, and would just like to see the guy given a chance to race if he wants to.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

x2

WADA is now weighing in on this... Velo Nation Article

Proposal for all to agree to CAS
http://www.cyclingnews.com/...tion-landis-evidence
but as a poster said above "it is all people ready to fake evidence" so to a great many if evidence comes out it will not matter

That was the beginning of the trail, but note that the reply filed by the USADA yesterday mentioned Snap-On tools, and Snap-On (like MANY cases involving the validity of arbitration agreements) cite Prima Paint. Here is the text of the reply: http://www.scribd.com/...-Reply-for-Dismissal

I was flamed as being some stupid law student with no idea of what I was talking about, and maybe that is the case. But it sounds to me that the USADA has made the argument that I was making, that being that the arbitration agreement is solid based on standard, well worn case law, and that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction. Sparks may rule otherwise tomorrow, but I am betting that he dismisses for lack of SMJ. Also note that attorneys here who flamed me for suggesting that the FAA was applicable...again, the USADA disagrees, and they quote Moses H. Cone and Snap-on as precedent that says otherwise. Also note that BOTH of those cases quote Prima Paint.

As I said then and now, the body of arbitration law suggests that this is not a matter appropriate for Federal court. I think the play now is that the UCI will flie suit to have the matter undertaken by its arbitration process (though it never uses it for anyone else). There are strong arguments for that to take place unfortunately, but lets take this one battle at a time. I think tomorrow, Sparks colorfully throws Lance and his attorneys out on their asses. Then again, you never know.

And what evidence do you have that these nefarious liars (10+ of them) all signed a deal with Satan to put Mr. Clean on trial for things he never did? Oh wait, you just have supposition and a grudge against anyone who questions your fraud of a hero to fuel your pronouncements...damn we need a rolling eyes emoticon here...

What!!! You must greatly misunderstand or do not know the post I am referring to. Mine was meant about the fans who think evidenvce was made up, not me. I think he is guilty and anyone is a fool who thinks otherwise. With his history I want to see the book thrown at him. I do not think the witnesses are lying, just the opposite. .......Its the people with their head in the sand that I meant that the evidence will not matter too. ............You badly misinterprit

don't feel bad about getting flamed by the lancolytes; they r getting desperate and it shows as they lash out against reason, attempting to preserve their l.a. fantasy land.
hoping sparks fly tomorrow.....if only he would just come clean:(

" I certainly will not attempt to pontificate..."

Why stop now?

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

Sorry, I read your post incorrectly then.

Um, because that wasn't written"now." That was written weeks ago, but if you look above, I actually did proffer a guess as to how Sparks will treat Armstrong's motion. It's there plain as day, no glitter obscuring anything. Do you have a reading comprehension problem or something?

Lance won't win in Federal Court, but his chances will be very good in CAS without a positive drug test. So, ultimately, all USADA will have done is waste more taxpayer dollars.

They should simply move on. They are like a spouse who finds out he's been cuckolded. They will go to the ends of the earth to destroy him.... Revenge is always ugly.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

As the USADA said in one of their letters, they would be complicit in covering up a doping violation if they were to ignore the evidence they have. As for CAS, if they see the evidence amassed against Armstrong, I am willing to wager they will find it as convincing as does the USADA. The only person bent on revenge and petty vindictiveness is Armstrong. He has a long history of such things. You should simply move on and find another hero to worship.

Also note that the only person wasting tax payer money is Armstrong. He doped, but refuses to do the honorable thing and just admit what anyone with a basic sense of reality already knows. Sad.

-Trey

What makes you think this? Do you have inside information as to the quantity and quality of NAP evidence that USADA holds?

The line you are referring to is my signature line - from an ancient thread, long before you were even a troll. You are apparently the one with reading comprehension issues.

---

Nor do I use punctuation in the way a child sprinkles glitter over a ribbon of glue on construction paper - Trash Talk

No way. He knows he'll lose in CAS. It is waay easier for USADA to make their case before CAS (the burden of proof is lower, the standards for evidence is lower, etc.) CAS don't need a positive drug test either. I think they have enough bits and pieces of evidence and while there may be no smoking gun, taken together the evidence will will be pretty overwhelming, it will corroborate itself and Lance will lose.

>>but his chances will be very good in CAS without a positive drug test.

Wrong. Ask Valverde, Scarponi, Ullrich and Basso about CAS upholding a ban without a positive test.

You can't counter my points so that makes me a "troll." Funny.

Past that, this is not my first rodeo on the intertubes, so I was aware that was your signature. I just thought it would be funny to mention it in my condescending reply to you as it added to the condescension. Win/win for me.

Toodles!

USADA has no positive drug test, and the only "evidence" I've heard is of a very very low quality "he said, she said" type. Pictures of drugs, or people saying he used drugs is not reliable evidence.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank

I strongly disagree. Their evidence is starting to look like what's floating in the Hudson.

-Robert

---

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~Anne Frank