USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread (Page 18): Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [AutomaticJack] [ In reply to ]

Oct 10, 12 17:29

Post #426 of 1580 (20822 views)

Agreed. It doesn't matter whether he did or didn't. They didn't catch him fairly.

A little ironic that you complain about how unfair things are that Lance is caught. This is the same Lance that blatantly lied to cancer survivors and the public for years, intimidated others to keep quiet, threatened legal action at the first sign of trouble, continues to deny and throw mud on other people and organizations etc.

I guess life isn't always fair.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [eganski] [ In reply to ]

Devlin

Oct 10, 12 17:32

Post #427 of 1580 (20800 views)

eganski wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-former-armstrong-usps-teammates-receive-bans-from-usada

Thanks, missed that in the mix today.

John

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Magwister] [ In reply to ]

Maui5150

Oct 10, 12 17:35

Post #428 of 1580 (20781 views)

Could Lance do jail time for fraud?

As I was reading through the Claimant docs, many o the documents were regarding the legal battle between CSA and Lance over the $5M payout bonus for willing the 01 - 04 tours. CSA had lots of questions regarding LA and doping and really wanted the medical records, et al.

I believe the final arbitration awarded LA $7.5 Mil including damages.

But now that the tour titles have been stripped, as well as the refusal of LA to contest the charges, could that be construed as insurance fraud, since CSA was paid something like $420K for the insurance policy on the bonus?

The payout on the CSA policy really is not Insurance Fraud.

I am sure he would just have Livestrong cut a check

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [dwesley] [ In reply to ]

apmoss

Oct 10, 12 17:36

Post #429 of 1580 (20770 views)

You know, lots of people aren't posting lots of things, and I mean that as a compliment. I expected this site and cyclingnews to be blowing up. But (and I know this is a very long thread) the internet seems more civil and restrained than it did when many of us were speculating in the past few weeks. I'm not suggesting that anyone is muzzled (on any side) or embarrassed into silence (on any side). It may be only my prurience -- hoping for thousands of pages of something -- in which case I'm the one who's embarrassed.

It just seems like very few "I told you so's" or "you're a hater's" are in the conversation today. I'm assuming that the documents we now have to debate are so long that everyone is huddled up with a PDF file and coffee or whiskey. I also wonder if there's a kind of catharsis regarding this issue today.

Today reminds me of the day Roe V Wade (in 94?) was not overturned -- so much sound and fury leading up to the day, then a reading of the decision and then everyone sort of got back to being on one side or the other but also back to their regular lives.

Andrew Moss

(I'll probably find out later that around 5 PM 80 people got banned for cursing and libel. . .)

__________
"At the end he was staggering into parked cars and accusing his support-van driver of trying to poison him." A description of John Dunbar in the 1st Hawaii Iron Man

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [eganski] [ In reply to ]

H-

Oct 10, 12 17:39

Post #430 of 1580 (20751 views)

eganski wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-former-armstrong-usps-teammates-receive-bans-from-usada

You beat me.

Note Hincapie gave up his 2005 TDF stage victory, which was a pretty crappy one at that. And people on this board saying that justice not done by USADA.

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [departed] [ In reply to ]

MKirk

Oct 10, 12 17:43

Post #431 of 1580 (20711 views)

Think any of these guys really care about loosing any of these results? They still got paid and in the end that's all that really matters.

departed wrote:

Francois wrote:

The suspensions for his teammates haven't been announced yet.

From Cylingnews :

Leipheimer accepted a suspension from September 1 and was disqualified from results from June 1999 to July 30, 2006, and from July 7 to July 29, 2007.
Hincapie accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from May 31, 2004 to July 31, 2006.
Vande Velde accepted a suspension from September 9 and disqualification from results from June 4, 2004 to April 31, 2006.
Zabriskie accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from May 31, 2003 to July 31, 2006.
Danielson accepted a suspension from September 1 and disqualification from results from March 1, 2005 to September 23, 2006.
Barry accepted a suspension from September 10 and disqualification from results from May 13, 2003 to July 31, 2006.
All declined to participate in the 2012 Olympic Games and were praised by USADA for confessing and accepting their suspensions.

//
So Levi took the worst hit. Gave up his 2007 TDF podium.

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [TriTrev] [ In reply to ]

dontswimdontrun

Oct 10, 12 17:46

Post #432 of 1580 (20683 views)

TriTrev wrote:

So lets see the USADA are ok with riders that apparently confess to doping, letting them ride on, continue to race, continue to hold team places while riders that are clean are forced to watch them perform.......Shame on USADA, you cannot ever let someone compete against other athletes when you know they are dirty.....is that not the one sole job they have, to protect clean athletes from athletes that dope.

And I don't want to hear about this is the way the U.S. justice system works, protecting witnesses, these were dirty riders, they had no place competing anywhere in the world when the USADA knew they were dirty, not US justice, but world justice demands that....Shameful....Makes me wonder what other deals the USADA might have done.....Any athletes that respresented the US anywhere in the world, in a sport governed by the USADA can now be doubted, thanks to this action...Shameful, but true, how can we know that anyone on the 2012 US Olympic team was really clean, they might have done a "deal"....Hopefully WADA will demand that all known dirty athletes be named, or not allow any US athletes to compete anywhere.

Notice I didn't mention him ?.......don't need too, he was banned as soon as they had evidence, so should all the others.....back dated suspensions is pure BS

For their past sins, most of them had more than two years of results eradicated and a ban of six months. The cases are interlinked - going back to the drug dealers analogy, if the minnows are removed from the streets because they have cooperated, the big fish know what is going on.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Maui5150] [ In reply to ]

MKirk

Oct 10, 12 17:46

Post #433 of 1580 (20682 views)

I think was referenced to in an earlier post...if it's the same suit, but I think Lance won that because his contract did not have any clause in it for doping. Not sure they could come back at him since it's still doping related. I'm no lawyer and no nothing about the case to tifwiw.....

Michael

Maui5150 wrote:

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [mattreg3] [ In reply to ]

tgarson

Oct 10, 12 17:46

Post #434 of 1580 (20682 views)

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [departed] [ In reply to ]

Maui5150

Oct 10, 12 17:50

Post #435 of 1580 (20643 views)

The other part of that, while these riders who testified received a 6 month suspension, they also had good portions of their career voided.

I see a distinction here. These were people who were not caught (in general) came clean, provided evidence, support and testimony and worked within the process. While they had a light suspension, I have not seen recent tests, etc regarding current usage. They did lose their results and years for what they admitted and it will be interesting to see if as a result, many need to repay winnings, bonuses, and the like.

On the other side, LA not only fought the process, stonewalled, etc., he also was one of the key players to not only coerce, but to also supply the drugs and protocols

Funny thing is, had Lance worked with the USADA, he probably would have received similar, not sure how active his questionable blood passport comes into play, but chances are he would not have lost all of his tours, which is ironic, because then he probably still would have had the 01- 04 tours which he fought with CSA over the $5M bonus.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [dwesley] [ In reply to ]

LuisDF

Oct 10, 12 17:51

Post #436 of 1580 (20629 views)

dwesley wrote:

No one's yet brought up the email thread between LA, Ferrari's son, and Schumi. Toward the end (starting pg. 59 or 60) they start discussing Ironman and what is required to win. Funny that the tri forum hasn't been all over this.

There's also a name of a triathlete, which I won't repeat here. And in case someone feels the need to "out" him - note they just specify his training volume, nothing else.

For reference: http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf

that exhibit is a killer...

WOW

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [nedbraden] [ In reply to ]

Francois

Oct 10, 12 17:52

Post #437 of 1580 (20621 views)

He was offered a deal commensurate with his involvement in the doping within USPS and disco. Better? Or still disagree?

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [tranzformer] [ In reply to ]

FJB

Oct 10, 12 17:53

Post #438 of 1580 (20605 views)

Anyone check chain of custody of these IM/emails?

The defence of Lance is starting to get embarrassing.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [MKirk] [ In reply to ]

Maui5150

Oct 10, 12 17:58

Post #439 of 1580 (20564 views)

I understand your point.

LAs main claim was the contract only provided that he had to win, and it had no other conditions (like do it clean)

However

Now he no longer has those win.

The argument would likely stem to if you knowingly cheated, as well as had reasonable expectations that if caught you would be stripped of the titles, does that constitute fraud.

Where this REALLY gets interesting is regarding the 2001 payment to the UCI.

That can possibly be shown as a bribe to induce the fraud. i.e. without the payment and if the failed test comes forward, he is not eligible for the $5M bonus.

The role of the $100K in actively pursuing and promoting a fraud could show intent to defraud.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [FJB] [ In reply to ]

Francois

Oct 10, 12 18:03

Post #440 of 1580 (20529 views)

You think?

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [camaleon] [ In reply to ]

cwg_at_opc

Oct 10, 12 18:05

Post #441 of 1580 (20518 views)

No kidding. How can anyone in this day and age think that e-mails would not be traceable or available for future use by any authority?
Arrogance or Naivete(sp)? i don't trust anything that happens over the internet and email for any of my normal financial stuff; this is just pure stupid.

"...I try not to ever ride as slow as 20mph. ;) ... And even more than that, I don't race with a speedometer. My computer is set up to show Power // Cadence // Time. I don't actually ever know how fast I'm going. I only know that if I'm in 53/11, and it takes more than 100rpm to hit my target watts, it's time to coast." - Jordan Rapp on '09 IMC

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [Maui5150] [ In reply to ]

FJB

Oct 10, 12 18:06

Post #442 of 1580 (20503 views)

To be clear, I don't hate people, but I hate cancer. I empathize with anyone who is touched by it. It disgusts me how LA has used his cancer involvement as a shield. I understand that you feel differently, at least re LA, though.
This is EXACTLY why I think LA is one of the most despicable people in sports.

I agree too.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [cwg_at_opc] [ In reply to ]

Maui5150

Oct 10, 12 18:08

Post #443 of 1580 (20486 views)

�Never write if you can speak; never speak if you can nod; never nod if you can wink.�

- Lomasney

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [mattreg3] [ In reply to ]

sdmike

Oct 10, 12 18:11

Post #444 of 1580 (20461 views)

Interesting take:
http://www.cyclismas.com/...what-about-hincapie/

Re: Daniel Coyle tweet [53x12] [ In reply to ]

pick6

Oct 10, 12 18:11

Post #445 of 1580 (20458 views)

53x12 wrote:

TriTrev wrote:

If.....you a proven doper, because you confessed, you should be suspended immediately....but instead of being suspended you are allowed to continue riding as if nothing happened...you are taking a position on a team/or a race start away from someone that is clean....adversely affecting that clean rider. How do you think the rookie rider feels that was denied a start in the Tour because one of these riders took a team spot.....that rookie might never get another chance, he may have been a contender someday, but the USADA took that day away....Its a professional sport, what have you done for us lately mentality for team selection, riders were denied the chance to do something....there were clean, why should the USADA do that to them?...what gave the USADA the right to affect clean riders this way, to have half a season, or more be poisoned by proven dopers ?...they are supposed to keep the sport clean, not assist dopers, and that they did, did G. H. not have "his day", his last race day, to be cheered as a "clean rider" as he crossed the finish, as people celebrated his "great career", which as the USADA knew was based on doping, according to their own documents released today....are you ok with that ?... because I'm not, and I'm sure a lot of people from that day, have a sour taste in their mouth from cheering him home....when he should have been suspended, the evidence was there, from his own mouth, and from others.

Yes there can be redemption, you will always have been "dirty", but only if you accept what you have done, and serve your time......David Millar is an example, 2 years, no soft 6 month "back suspension", 2 real years, with no money coming in, sleeping on couches, owned up to what he did, and lives with that "did drugs" label, worked damn hard to come back clean.....but not these guys, not if they get a 6 month backdated suspension, carry on next year, as suggested......it stinks, its not fair.

Bravo sir. Bravo.

Here's the gist; they're coming out against doping and those on the Garmin team for example have been walking the walk long before they talked the talk. Suspension isn't what matters; that's like saying jail reforms a criminal. The realization happens to criminals in jail not because of the punishment, but because of the time with nothing else to think about. These guys have had that time, tons of it to not just think on what they did but to move forward and do the right thing even if they didnt come clean at the time. Do i believe they all quit when they say? Everyone on Garmin I do, or at least when they started riding there, the others... well... either way, I dont give a damn about the time served. To me it's about what have they done and what are they doing for the anti-doping movement. By testifying, by coming forward, they did the right thing after some period of doing the wrong thing. To the last man they've in some way accepted guilt, even the ones who make excuses, though a couple have flat our said what they did was wrong and didnt blame the situation.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [Slowman] [ In reply to ]

Death by tray

Oct 10, 12 18:13

Post #446 of 1580 (20446 views)

Slowman wrote:

"Hey Dan, where is that canned Op-Ed you talked so much about"

i wrote two OpEds, published a week ago monday. if you go to our search utility on the front page, they're entitled, On Doping, and On Anti-Doping.

I couldn't care less what they say in all honesty. If I want to hear the ruminations of a doping apologist, I will go drag up a Sally Jenkins article, put on some mood music, and drink a Sleepytime Tea...

P.S. Do us a favor and get a rolly-eyed sarcastic emoticon. This place really needs one. You're welcome for the suggestion.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [FJB] [ In reply to ]

ironpsych

Oct 10, 12 18:14

Post #447 of 1580 (20431 views)

This all seems very damning. But it is only one side of the story. If this info was soooo incriminating why did the DOJ drop the case? It "appears" that this case could easily meet "beyond a reasonable doubt". But... it didn't. What's missing in this narrative? Why wouldn't this info hold up under cross examination? Something seems off to me. I'm not a lawyer but obviously lawyers write briefs to lay out a biased view of their case. DOJ lawyers are, I'm sure, very smart. What did they see that we do not?

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [ironpsych] [ In reply to ]

sdmike

Oct 10, 12 18:19

Post #448 of 1580 (20395 views)

They were not out to proved that lance doped or not. They were out to prove that Postal (tax payer) money was used to buy drugs or other illegal activities. They could not prove that. The feds had a different agenda.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [cwg_at_opc] [ In reply to ]

Ahillock

Oct 10, 12 18:21

Post #449 of 1580 (19333 views)

cwg_at_opc wrote:

Since when did USADA have the legal authority and capability to look at the "suspects" emails? Not like they can do a wiretap or electronic surveillance. Then the question is asked, how did they get the emails? Well they got it from Frankie Andreu or some other person (fitting what the material is in regards to). The question is how can you guarantee those records have not been changed, altered or manipulated? I doubt FBI/CIA/NSA...etc. was involved with gathering this data. You really aren't asking that question?

I love how Garmin has had this veil of being a team against doping since its creation. Yet they have been this big fraud the whole time. But no, let's point all our fingers at LA because he is so evil and was a jerk to too many people. Cry me a river.

Re: USADA/Lance Armstrong File Official Thread [apmoss] [ In reply to ]

SpicedRum

Oct 10, 12 18:22

Post #450 of 1580 (19332 views)

similarly what happened the day the supreme court upheld Obamacare.

Poll

Triathlon Forum

Our Partners

Poll

Triathlon Forum

Our Partners

Newsletter