The Italians used wiretaps for an event on 2006 and it took until 2012 to make a connection? They analyzed emails?
Armstrong paid a consultant in 2006 after he retired in 2005. Dumb.
I often get paid three to six months, and once as long as nine months, after I do work for some clients. That is how the real professional consulting world works. Do your work, get paid later, sometimes much later, and occasionally not at all.
You're really getting pathetic now- you better be getting at least $200 a post to make this much of a fool out of yourself.
Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote: You're really getting pathetic now
Childish. You cannot accept that everyone one your iron clad claims leaks like a sieve.
It isn't clear why work done in 2005 was paid in 2006? That is such a stupid statement by the Italian investigators. They are paid on a weekly, biweekly or monthly basis. They get regular paychecks. They have no concept how companies actually get paid. Sad.
So what I heard from Holland last evening is that they think the USADA has the same plasticine detection goods on Lance that Contador just went down for. In 2009 and 2010 of course.
What a "coincidence" that would be?
Clearly for once neither of them saw that test coming.
Apparently there was a pissing contest within the (notoriously corrupt) UCI and what it came down to was they just couldn't let Armstrong skate for what they had taken Contador down for. Even though LA had in fact bought them off at least once before? Not quite sure if I buy this second part; but then again all that Lance Inc. had to do was find Floyd a job back in 09 and none of this would be happening at all right now.
The times they are a-changing........
Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote:
So what I heard from Holland last evening is that they think the USADA has the same plasticine detection goods on Lance that Contador just went down for. In 2009 and 2010 of course.
What a "coincidence" that would be?
Clearly for once neither of them saw that test coming.
BS. I told them both to use medical-grade glass containers by the end of 2007.
Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote:
So what I heard from Holland last evening is that they think the USADA has the same plasticine detection goods on Lance that Contador just went down for. In 2009 and 2010 of course.
What a "coincidence" that would be?
Clearly for once neither of them saw that test coming.
Apparently there was a pissing contest within the (notoriously corrupt) UCI and what it came down to was they just couldn't let Armstrong skate for what they had taken Contador down for. Even though LA had in fact bought them off at least once before? Not quite sure if I buy this second part; but then again all that Lance Inc. had to do was find Floyd a job back in 09 and none of this would be happening at all right now.
The times they are a-changing........
The plasticine test theory sure would explain a lot- it seems to conform with the language of the letter as well.
I have a hard time with the second story too. Lance could certainly allocate $3-5 Million to have the UCI in his back pocket once again. Unless they just plain didn't give him the chance.?
Support Lance. Tell the USADA to stop wasting our tax dollars. Sign this petition. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-investigation-usada-lance-armstrong/FX0pVTLL
What are all you Mega-Chumps going to do when your hero confesses?
Lance thought he could fuel the comeback on old school blood doping plus maybe something else that the rest of the world doesn't even know about yet. That Hemassist stuff was supposed to be completely out of the body in 24 hours.
To be honest I was sure that he was clean as a whistle that time around too.
What I REALLY like about this plasticine test model is that Lance needed a boost to beat Weins at Leadville the second year. The MTB community will loathe him forever now.
1976 Gold for Frank wrote:
Support Lance. Tell the USADA to stop wasting our tax dollars. Sign this petition.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-investigation-usada-lance-armstrong/FX0pVTLL
Halting investigations does not make a cheater any less guilty and it does not preserve your hero.
...Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote:
What are all you Mega-Chumps going to do when your hero confesses?
...What I REALLY like about this plasticine test model is that Lance needed a boost to beat Weins at Leadville the second year. The MTB community will loathe him forever now.
He only had half the Trek Mountain Bike team rabbiting for him the second year anyway.
All of the Lance haters do not want to compete again. They do not want him retested. They are afraid that new testing will show him clean. Deathly, afraid.
I want to see him retested. Not by the fools at USADA but by a truly independent lab. Whether he is found guilty or not is not as important as cleaning house at the USADA is.
I completely support drug testing and clean competition, but I do not support the lawyers running the USADA.
The USADA CEO, an attorney, is a narcissist. One of the worst you can imagine. His claims include:
-- Federal regulators write sloppy laws.
-- Drug manufacturers, even legitimate ones, are putting illicit drugs in children's multivitamins.
This fool thinks only he is capable of cleaning up world. Please send him more money so he can expand the USADA into a powerhouse, test everything, business. That is his goal.
J.R. wrote:
I don't care if people take drugs or not, anymore than I care if they drink coffee or tea. I wish they wouldn't, because those things are harmful, but that's their personal individual choice to make for themselves.
Its All In the Game Yo wrote:
We both take a test for a job. I cheat, and as a result score higher than you. So I get the job and you don't.
You okay with that because cheating was my personal choice to make for myself?
We both take a test for a job. I drink prune juice, you're hyped up on coffee, but you get a higher score than me anyway. You're related to the boss and you get the job.
I get a better job working for myself and am happy with this. I didn't like the boss anyway, and prefer to work for myself. I make a better living than the boss.
You have a heart attack 5 years later and die. I feel sorry for you but am okay with this as it was your choice to get hyped up on coffee. It is sad for you though, and your wife and family.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
I want to see him retested. Not by the fools at USADA but by a truly independent lab. Whether he is found guilty or not is not as important as cleaning house at the USADA is.
I completely support drug testing and clean competition, but I do not support the lawyers running the USADA.
You guys tried that one once before, remember? Do you really think that you can slither out of this mess with the same old smoke and mirrors?
_____________________________________________________________
Philosophy Behind 2009 Lance Armstrong Monitoring Program:
I was approached to help develop a monitoring program for Lance Armstrong’s comeback in 2009. As initially conceived, it would have been the first time that any testing organization would be allowed to sample and test Armstrong every three days or even more often and make the analytical data available online for anyone interested to see. My laboratory would have had unrestricted ability to perform any test we wanted. Under those circumstances, I did not believe that anybody could get away with cheating. I was interested to proceed.
Clarification on the intended Armstrong monitoring program:
We were aiming to collect from Armstrong on average every three days throughout the cycling season. Such a program would be very challenging logistically and would be quite expensive. It would also likely impact the activities of the international doping control process. We did not want to impede or interfere with the sanctioning bodies’ ability to test Armstrong, which we knew they would do frequently.
As negotiations were wrapping up, we did perform one collection prior to abandoning the program. The logistical and cost realities became immediately apparent. In addition, there were difficulties with the publicity surrounding the program.
The article says that “In its months of overseeing Armstrong’s testing program, Catlin’s lab had collected only one urine sample from him, … and it is clean.”
It is correct that only one sample was collected, however we had only overseen the program for one day, not months. The results were free of any blood profile abnormalities, the urine was negative for EPO analogues and had a T/E ratio below 4.
_____________________________________________________________
So get with the program and get on the line to Austin for some fresh talking points too. You desperately need to discredit the plasticine blood bag test now.
Coors Lite 1993 wrote:
The results were free of any blood profile abnormalities, the urine was negative for EPO analogues and had a T/E ratio below 4.
Thanks for posting those results.
[quote]Coors Lite 1993 wrote:
Philosophy Behind 2009 Lance Armstrong Monitoring Program:
...As negotiations were wrapping up, we did perform one collection prior to abandoning the program.....
The article says that “In its months of overseeing Armstrong’s testing program, Catlin’s lab had collected only one urine sample from him, … and it is clean.”
It is correct that only one sample was collected,
Wouldn't have shown anything that much earlier anyway.
Plasticine positives will, by their nature, come from an in-competition test at a grand tour just like Contador's did.
I'm thinking that Lance tanked up on the first rest day in 2009, by the second one Contador had already shown everyone who was the boss. They basically climbed under a truce flag afterward. The conventional wisdom is that the leaders as much as towed Lance up the Ventoux into a pretty stiff headwind and that's how Wiggins got fourth that year. So a plasticine positive would just about have to come from the second two weeks.
??Or else maybe Leadville??
How cool would that be?
The people on this board who really know the sport say that your hero has been juiced ever since he was 19.
The letter went on to detail the cyclist's testosterone-epitestosterone results from 1991 to 1998, with one missing season: 1997, the only year during that span in which Armstrong didn't compete. Three results stand out: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.
What a bitter pill is must be for your whole yellow wristband crime family that Lance gets nailed by a new test during his comeback like this? Floyd probably would have wrenched on some teams' bikes that summer for as little as $30K too?
sloppy lawyers wrote:
I completely support drug testing and clean competition, but I do not support the lawyers running the USADA.
Lance apparently supports the lawyers at the USADA. Don't forget this gem:
After the SI article last year (January?), Lance tweeted the following:
"Great to hear that USADA is investigating some of SI's claims. I look forward to being vindicated."
Seems as though Lance was confident in the USADA doing a thorough and honest investigation. It just sucks when you don't get the outcome you want. Bummer. Be careful what you wish for.
1976 Gold for Frank wrote:
Tell the USADA to stop wasting our tax dollars.
This is asinine. Any tax dollars the USADA receives are to do exactly what they are doing... investigate doping allegations in sport.
Letter from Armstrong's attorney to USADA: http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0614/armstrongbockIIltrfinal.pdf
he was innocent ?WHEN? wrote:
The people on this board who really know the sport say that your hero has been juiced ever since he was 19.
Only insofar as two of Lance's teammates back then ended up suing the Federation and Chris Carmichael individually for having been doped involuntarily under their supervision.
Saying that they had been doped right out of the sport without anything even remotely resembling consent. Joints turned to sandpaper, immune system failures etc. The kind of "results" that we associate with the old East German programs nowadays.
(And Lance was still kicking their asses in spite of it once again.)
Was a clean Lance that much better than the next three best Juniors in the country? Doped so hard that their bodies were falling apart at that age?
Or rather were they all doped at the same aggressive levels and just one of them flourished.
I'd say that with the subsequent series of events, it was the latter. Everybody in Colorado Springs knew that was how the dominant early 1980s eastern bloc teams had done it by then. Oh by the way, Armstrong sure stuck with Carmichael after this little mess was settled in 2000, didn't he?
A twenty one year old with half as many racing miles on his legs that season blows Miguel Indurain right out the back with the rainbow jersey at stake? Anybody know what his hematocrit was that day? Were they even testing for it yet? And how come this hasn't happened in the world championships since then?
As I posted before, Lance's worst case scenario is the general public ends up believing that Lance got the cancer because he had already doped way out there at the ragged edge of doping for five or six years by then. That would be the scorched earth outcome and I'm not sure than anybody wants to see that take place.
The USADA has actually thrown Lance a bone in this respect by not referencing the Kaiter\Strock settlement.
For the time being anyway. All Lance has to do is fess up back to 1996. Maybe even much later than that.
He's going to take that bone and some of you will be looking pretty foolish when he does.