Formal Charges Brought Against Lance Armstrong

1976 Gold for Frank wrote:

Hard evidence was found after East Germany fell that said Cierpinski cheated. If the US Anti doping Agency can use hearsay evidence to bring charges against Lance Armstrong how about the International Olympic Committee freakin man-up and take the hard evidence that was found in the GDR and award the Gold medal to the rightful winner, Frank Shorter.

1976 Montreal Olympic Marathon

1 Waldemar Cierpinski 25 East Germany

2 Frank Shorter 28 United States

There was no hard evidence, only Shorter's suppositions. How do you think he got to see inside of East Germany's private documents, and do you really think such things existed.

The brojos posted a quote of the day from a letter published by the USADA, which they say is supposedly "evidence" against Armstrong. Right, in the brojos minds they can conjure up any suppositions they want, and then publish them as being "evidence", even though they were made out of thin air, wayyy out in the blue yonder somewhere, under a rock.

Why not post the "evidence" from the letters written by Armstrong and Armstrong's attorneys?

Surely that is outstanding "evidence" too.

Hidden Coward wrote:

It is hearsay, as ten years the court does not accept "memories" as a viable form of evidence. The USADA accepting these "confessions" are accepting them on the basis that the USADA heard from so-and-so that so-and-so did this or that. If they take away his eligibility, Lance Armstrong will have the chance to sue for his elgibility in the US Court System. The USADA has to abide by rules and statutes set forward by the US Courts.

You are either completely ignorant or you are trolling. USADA does not have to abide by the rules of the US court. Lance cannot use the US court system to sue for his eligibility. The US Court system has already recognized CAS as the appropriate appeals body.

Old Balls Webb wrote: This is retarded.... Can we just let this go already

No, you cannot have your way of seeing the world by ignoring the other side.

Personally, I think Lance has poor moral standards for a guy: an addiction to skinny, younger blondes, except for Sheryl Crow who was older.

Still, there is a legal system in the U.S. and the USADA must abide by it. The USADA is not a government agency. That shouldn't be too hard to understand/

Mr. Obvious wrote: This is absolutely incorrect. USADA is not a government agency (even though they receive funding from the US government. They do not have to operate under the same rules as the US legal system.

What? No one is exempt from the laws of the U.S. legal system.

Magic 8 Ball wrote:

We all need to step back, take a deep breath, and absorb the difference between evidence and proof. One million riders can come out and say they saw Lance Armstrong inject himself with EPO or that Lance Armstrong told them he injected himself with EPO. That's evidence.

A blood test that both A and B samples test positive for EPO is proof.

The USADA doesn't have proof of doping violations, only evidence. They are powerless to do anything without proof.

10 witnesses who say they saw you do something is more than enough for a murder conviction, even in the absence of a video, a body, or DNA "proof."

Sloppy Lawyers wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote: This is absolutely incorrect. USADA is not a government agency (even though they receive funding from the US government. They do not have to operate under the same rules as the US legal system.

What? No one is exempt from the laws of the U.S. legal system.

Sure they are. The only place the rules of the US legal system apply (in terms of admissible evidence, hearsay, right to cross-examine witnesses, etc) are in the US courts. The USADA isn't a court of law, so they basically get to make up their own rules about procedures etc., which is one of the concerns even strong anti-doping advocates have about the USADA. It's the same for businesses - they can fire you for misconduct based entirely on hearsay without you getting to cross-examine anyone.

The question of what rules *should* the USADA play by in terms of hearings, evidence, and the like is an interesting and important one. For example, should refusal to testify be construed as indicative of guilt? Is hearsay admissible? Etc etc. As I posted earlier, I think the real importance of the Armstrong USADA case might lay largely in its impact on how future hearings are run (given the light that will be shown on the process due to media interest and Armstrong's formidable legal team).

Saw you do what? Put a needle in your arm? A needle filled with what? Do you see the problem the USADA has?

No, Armstrong can challenge the USADA in a court.

The new allegations have nothing to do with WADA rules or enforcement. Testing was done. No results were found. WADA was followed.

Sloppy Lawyers wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote: This is absolutely incorrect. USADA is not a government agency (even though they receive funding from the US government. They do not have to operate under the same rules as the US legal system.

What? No one is exempt from the laws of the U.S. legal system.

You are simply trolling and I am done replying to you.

simply orange wrote:

10 witnesses who say they saw you do something is more than enough for a murder conviction, even in the absence of a video, a body, or DNA "proof."

Don't forget not only is there no body, but no victim. No missing person, no nothing. This is like saying I saw you steal ten dollars from me even though I still have my ten dollars. You can't say you saw a crime committed when no other evidence that a crime was committed, and in fact all evidence says no crime was committed, exists.

simply orange wrote:

10 witnesses who say they saw you do something is more than enough for a murder conviction, even in the absence of a video, a body, or DNA "proof."

Witnesses are tricky in both organized doping and organized crime cases ... those in a position to witness events directly tend to be those who were also participating, to some degree, in those events. Which means there is an inherent credibility problem. Anyone who had firsthand knowledge of Armstrong doping almost has to have previously lied about doping, otherwise this would have come out right at the time. Therefore any witness who might today testify that Armstrong did dope can be attacked as a proven liar about doping. Just like anyone who can give firsthand testimony about the inner workings of organized crime is almost certainly a criminal, and so probably initially lied about their involvement.

So it really comes down to what your standard of evidence is, in terms of whether you will consider the testimony of people who have previously lied about doping.

I mean, unless there is a nun who on a one night's leave from her isolated convent years ago helped Lance inject himself one night during the Tour with a bottle clearly labelled EPO because she had no idea it was banned. Then she returned to her convent, where she stayed until last month, when she left the order, learned that EPO was banned, and said, "Oh my goodness, I must report this to the authorities immediately." Short of something like that, you're pretty much limited to the testimony of drug cheats (= liars) if you want firsthand accounts of people doping. Whether they're telling the truth or not is a different question.

Some great science reading on his previous tests...probably been posted in the past, but nonetheless it is pretty accurate...I am sure USADA has the actual results...

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

The real question here is why doesn't the USADA let Armstrong compete at Kona?

Why not let him and get yourself a new blood sample to test?

Is the USADA really so dumb to not realize the gift horse in front of them? Or, is the USADA up to something else, knowing they cannot, and never will catch Armstrong, even if a new blood sample is provided?

What is the USADA up to?

Here's a funny scenario

You have two graduate students studying Biochemistry at a top school and one gets A's and the other get's solid B's...the A student gets job offers topping 100K/yr from top pharmaceutical companies, signing bonus, loans paid off, house, limo, etc...similar to a top lawyer graduating from Harvard. The other goes to work at a gov't drug testing agency...for 40K/yr.

The B student's job is to detect all of the drugs being used that were designed by the A student (one he/she could not even compete with in grad school...)

Who wins???

Here's my question:

If they strip Lance of his victories (and it appears that is the objective of his detractors) then who gets the titles for those Tour victories? Ullrich? Pantani? Good luck finding somebody clean!

Sloppy Lawyers wrote:

Old Balls Webb wrote: This is retarded.... Can we just let this go already

No, you cannot have your way of seeing the world by ignoring the other side.

Personally, I think Lance has poor moral standards for a guy: an addiction to skinny, younger blondes, except for Sheryl Crow who was older.

/

"Personally", you're just bitter because your wife is fat and old.

Jeff Gordon wrote: "Personally", you're just bitter because your wife is fat and old.

Oh my goodness! What are you 12-years old?

I think you can do better with your insults. Try harder, please.

If the USADA succeeds in its silly hunt, the titles should be vacated. No winners. Second place remains second place.

The USADA could well kill the Tour de France and competitive cycling. Let's see how that works for them.