those are pretty average looking hematocrit values.
those are pretty average looking hematocrit values.
According to the Landis interview with Paul Kimmage, when they blood tested internally at US Postal Lance could be as high as 56.
This whole knowledge base was about diluting to get back down under 50 in the days before the EPO test. FWIW Davis Phinney has said that he never came back from a completed grand tour with his hematocrit still up over 35 or 36.
I think tha USADA's hole card today is either the same plasticine test that took down Contador or else the extensive record that Armstrong's values never diminished during a three week event and everyone else's did.
Bye bye, Lance.
sloppy lawyers wrote:
0/10
No, you are wrong. That huge paycheck attorney Tygart takes from the USADA as fees is proof that the USADA cannot properly conduct itself.
Same with the attempted cover-up of the Armstrong-negative testing files shredded by the USADA.
Corrupted international sports testing agencies sport organizations need better supervision.
The black&white way you spun it against Armostrong shows your agenda.
Why are you such a Lance-lover? This is a guy who threatened to expose that Floyd Landis's uncle had molested him to try and keep him from testifying. Do you really want to be on the same side as someone like that?
Today is a deadline for a formal response. Even if Lance does not respond today he can still contest at the hearing. Interesting to see what he does.
Anyway, here is an interesting little piece detailing some of Lance's business interests:
Review Board unanimously recommends filing charges.
After reviewing the Hellebuyxx decision carefully I just do not believe they are going to be able to get around the statute of limitations (unless there have been some sort of formal USADA proceedings against Lance that have been kept extremely quiet, a concept I consider very dubious).
USADA grants 30 day extension to Armstrong:
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/armstrong-attorney-lance-30-day-extension-16754825
Anybody that believe he was clean probably believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too.
ArloTheHouseCat wrote:
Anybody that believe he was clean probably believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny too.
I do not believe he was clean. I do hope that if USADA has enough evidence to nail him that they do so.
I am concerned about due process rights, not just for Lance Armstrong, but for all athletes. In this respect there are several potential issues that I have with the USADA process.
1. I am not convinced the Hellebuyxx (sp?) decision for going beyond the statute of limitations applies to Armstrong. Hard to see where it does but perhaps there is information about prior interviews/investigations/etc. by USADA that is not public.
2. I am somewhat ambivalent about their possible use of samples from the 2001 TdS and the "fully consistent with manipulation" bio-passport samples from 2009-2010. As I understand it neither of those samples were strong enough by themselves to trigger any sanction. I am withholding judgement until we see what manner they are used in, if we ever do.
That said, I think the lawsuit on jurisdiction grounds and constitutional process grounds are bound to fail. There is way too much precedent against Armstrong on those particular issues.
I hope he fights it all the way and insists on an open hearing.
I don't think he wants an open hearing. I think he's holding onto the notion that it'll all go away without the public hearing the testimony of 10+ witnesses. Regardless of what a jury were to decide, his reputation will forever be ruined if the evidence is made public. Just my 2 cents.
I don't think the arbitration process is unfair either. In reality, the odds have always been in favor of the cheater. Ironically, Armstrong's agent played a major role in writing the USADA code. Armstrong has previously (and publicly) announced his support of USADA and their protocol.
laughing all the way to the bank
teflon lance wrote:
laughing all the way to the bank
He will be bleeding money in lawyer's fees. Whether it will dent his considerable net worth is up for grabs. It will be interesting if livestrong.com and/or livestrong.org show a significant line item for legal expenses over the next few quarters.
Here is some clarification on what the ban means, as well as some of the jurisdiction issues:
Still appears that banning a doctor has pretty limited effect, as far as I can see. They can still work with the athletes, they just could not be accredited at competitions. I still can't see that athletes can be sanctioned for working with a banned physician.