Thanks. I'll take a read of the ones I missed tonight

just a quick Zabriskie read and it's like I stated above
Nowhere in Zabriskies affidavit do I see where Lance took a clean rider and turned him onto PEDS

Looks like Z talks about riding with Lance....
Then by #26 Zabriskie mentions he took the "recovery" injection on his own because "he convinced himself it was really only vitamins"...again from the team Doctors - no mention of Lance yet.

by #52 finally mentions Lance....but's it's only hearsay about Floyd and Lance.

I don't read a single thing in Z's affidavit where he even slightly indicates Lance pushed him into taking PEDS..... It was all Johan and the team doctors,

Again - I know Lance doped......just not buying into the ring leader/god father thing usada is making him out to be. Johan and the team dr's - sure. and I'm sure Lance was one of their primary subjects, but I just think usada is focusing on Lance because he is high profile....I mean who would really care if they were investigating Johan and Dr F. That would be last page news.

+1000

Regarding USADA and possibly IOC, is there any guidelines/rules that would allow USADA to revoke the 8 year statute of limitations? I know the reason Travis Tygart/USADA has given for their reasoning, however just because they gave a reason doesn't necessarily mean they can revoke and ignore the 8 year limit unless there is a rule in place right? Are they trying to set a precedent by this. If so, do they have any legal authority to do so within WADA/CAS guidelines?

Was Armstrong part owner of the team?

That is not correct. USADA began their investigation back in 2010 and picked up steam after FLandis' confession. However, once the Feds began their investigation, USADA put theirs on the back burner in deference to the criminal investigation. Once the Feds dropped their case, USADA resumed theirs.

I have mentioned this many times and it is detailed in the USADA Reasoned Decision.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

Ahillock wrote:

Regarding USADA and possibly IOC, is there any guidelines/rules that would allow USADA to revoke the 8 year statute of limitations? I know the reason Travis Tygart/USADA has given for their reasoning, however just because they gave a reason doesn't necessarily mean they can revoke and ignore the 8 year limit unless there is a rule in place right? Are they trying to set a precedent by this. If so, do they have any legal authority to do so within WADA/CAS guidelines?

They set the precedence in a prior case.


Further, the thing about the WADA rules that Ive stated multiple times, is that where there isnt a clear cut rule in place, the commonly accepted judicial processes can be applied. In this case, they applied what is essentially a RICO statute that allowed them to override the SOL. WADA has backed them not once but twice on this already, and USAC accepting the sanctions of the folks testifying is the gateway to them accepting lances suspension when UCI review period ends.

So then why even have a statute of limitations?

Thank you for the clarification.

The Reasoned Decison report states they didn't use any Fed evidence. I still have the impression USADA scrambled to gather evidence. Note, you state USADA started their investigation in 2010. The Fed investigation was 2 years long and ended in 2012 -- Professor Power 13.

"it is detailed in the USADA Reasoned Decision. "

Show me more of the detail you mention from the report.

Page 147 explains why USADA waives the statue of limitations.

Don't the reasons for the waiver need to be proven in a court of law?

maybe it's just me but looks like only the north American riders doped at US Postal. and in other news, Levi sacked by Omega Pharma-Quickstep, does that have any impact in his upcoming movie premiere?

it applies to cases without these kinds of special circumstances.

Actually the previous case was about the defendant admitting to doping after his initial cases cleared him, which is why they clean the SOL. I have already told you this and presented the exact words from the case but you chose ignore those facts and now you are purposely using false information.

Finally he (edit Allen Lim) makes a statement.
http://velonews.competitor.com/...landis-doping_261680

again......I don't read a single thing in Z's affidavit where he even slightly indicates Lance pushed him into taking PEDS..... It was all Johan and the team doctors,

You can start at the Reasoned Decision report, page 59. It's titled "Armstrong's enforcement of the team doping program".

No. None of this needs to be proven in a court of law. USADA arbitration is our "court of law" for doping in sports. Lance didn't want to face the charges and have the evidence displayed via live testimony, so he took the punishment without the trial.

What do you call Armstrong telling Van de Velde " get fully on Frearri's doping program or be fired" ?

What Im saying very clearly is that it establishes precedent that they can set aside the SOL in specific situations, this is not the first time. It's for different reasons, but they were clearly able to do so under the standard judicial processes for a case like this that the WADA code does not prohibit them from doing. You can be a strict constructionist about WADA code if you want, but the code was designed specifically to cover the fact that it gets applied in different countries; some of which doping is illegal, some it is not and handled as a sporting issue, like we do here. In either case, they are allowed to follow standard judicial practices in the country the NADA resides in if the code doesn't specify otherwise. When you have a conspiracy a RICO type case is warranted to get the full depth of the conspiracy.

On many issues related to this, I'm willing to listen to the other point of view, but not on this one; WADA has confirmed USADA followed the rules, at least twice on this case. You need to let it go.

 
>I don't read a single thing in Z's affidavit where he even slightly indicates Lance pushed him into taking PEDS..... It was all Johan >and the team doctors,

You're right about there being no direct mention of Armstrong by DZ. But you can't then conclude that "it was all Johan and the team doctors." There were other riders who fingered Armstrong. And the reason DZ is in there, is DZ's testimony corroborates the testimony of the other riders in other important details. The power of eyewitness testimony lies in this mutual re-enforcement. It would be nearly impossible to fabricate.

Well since VdV was already working with Dr F on his own accord for a few years already.........I still don's see here that Lance pushed a clean rider into doping.
He just like I've been saying....assisted a doping rider rider into doing it better.

Still waiting for the example that people are saying that Lance is the root of all this evil. The evil was already there.

Michael

I don't disagree that Lance was probably the best doper on the team. What I am looking for is an answer that people and the media are saying that he was the ring leader that created this cycling doping problem. I'm saying that all the doping was already there and that EVERY SINGLE rider that provided testimony are just as much at fault or to blame as Lance. They were all doping either prior to Lance or started doping when on Lances team....but on their own with the assistance of Johan or Dr.F........ and without Lance "forcing" them to dope. I'm just looking for one example where Lance took a non-doping rider and either directly introduced them to taking PEDS or forced them.
Yes, Lance doped.....but all that is flying around is that he created the problem when the problem was already there.

Michael

Here ya go....right in the "Background" section of the Reasoned Decision.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

For starters I think there is less competition for the ironman distance, especially with the females, but I don't mean to be sexist. Come to think of it the benefits of PEDs could be equal for both long and short tri's. I think there are more skills used in triathlon than in cycling so that cycling alone lends it self better to PED benefits.

Anyway the above is just yabba yabba, because all PED users are just cheats/bad sportmanship in my view.

G.

---

http://www.TriathlonShots.com
Full event coverage of triathlon/ironman in photos.

ned, I am curious to hear your opinion if you don't mind sharing?

Two things that bother me are the disregard for SOL and the reasoning behind it as well as the punishments USADA gave, especially to LL who should have lifetime and the others who should have had 2 years. Not 6 months over the offseason. That smells like a scam to me.