Formal Charges Brought Against Lance Armstrong

Look some of you guys are setting yourselves up for a BIG fall here.

Google Erich Kaiter and Greg Strock.

Or better yet google CBS News Dope and Glory.

Note who the stud horse on that US Juniors team was; note who the coach was and how quickly that coach settled the lawsuit when he got the chance to.

Yes Boys and Girls it turns out that Lance was probably doped to the gills and lying about it from 1991 onwards. Just like 20-30 guys from Belgium who never made it out of High School themselves would have been back then.

But you ignorant clowns still think that he should get a complete pass on 21 years worth of blatant fraud?

Uhh, WHY?

Because YOU don't know any better?? Beacuse you just want to believe in American heroes?

Winning Grand Tours is a Man's Game, it was a Man's Game in the 1970s when Thevenet did it with steroids, it was a Man's Game in the 1920s when they did it with cocaine and strychnine. What on earth makes you think that the first guy to do it seven times in a row (when the competition and money were both at the highest levels ever,) was going to be any different?

There's a substantial body of evidence that would suggest that Lance GOT the cancer as a direct result of doping. I heard that before he started winning Tours too. If the mainstream media takes that ball and runs with it then Lance Inc is OVER. OTOH if this gets settled and goes away, that's because neither side wants that particular cause and effect statement out in the public mind.

Looking at the big picture, it stands to reason that Lance flourished under the same doping regimen that made his two former teammates near cripples and from that point onwards it was all about not getting caught.

Which is where the worldwide expert on "not getting caught" comes into the equation....

You see I finally stopped giving Lance the benefit of the doubt when he stuck with "Doctor" Ferrari three years after he should have detached himself and his Government sponsored team. Even if it meant coming in second to Ullrich.

When this all comes out into the bright light of day, the staggering level of deceit and sophistication going on for decades, the motorcycles with refrigerated panniers delivering the blood resupply at three in the morning before the rest day, Landis transfusing himself because he was better at it than the team medical staff, the (convicted) "Doctor" who maintained that EPO is as safe as orange juice,,,,,,,,,then you rubes are going to feel about the same way that you did when the vaunted "weapons of mass destruction" never showed up in Iraq.

Any you'll blame the messenger once again at that point too.

PS. I still revel in his victories every bit as much as any of you do. This is because I had a glimpse of what it took to just survive at that level a long time ago. There's an old saw about how nobody would watch ballet if they knew how much pain the performers were in- well Tyler Hamilton ground his teeth right down to the roots finishing second in the Giro one year.

J.R. wrote: Bingo! It's not about getting rid of drugs, but promoting them. By constantly shoving their drugs, drug tests, and other bogus drug propaganda into the public vision, they are trying to raise up their nasty business on a pedestal.

It more about money than a pedestal.

Needing to do more "work" is the way a business working on a grant claims they need more grant money in the following years. If the business (USADA) was efficient and expenses dropped year-to-year then the entity giving the business the grant would give them less money in following years.

If your are a CEO of business --yes, the USADA is a business-- losing income means losing power. Losing power means losing income/profits for a CEO.

Well said. Thank you. Unfortunately, dweebs like J.R. and Sloppy Lawyer will continue to blame the messenger(s). For some silly reason they continue to hold on to some conspiracy theory by the USADA to bring Lance down.

ding ding ding wrote:

Dong, Dong, Dong. Your insistence the the USADA is above reproach is laughable. You assume they are 100% pure. They are not. The did their testing and nothing was found. Move forward. Invent new tests and catch a cheater in the future, and then bring them down.

Answer this ding, ding. Why is the USADA not letting Armstrong compete at Kona where it can get a new blood sample from him, right after a competition? Test the hell out of the sample and crush him after?

Where have I ever stated the USADA was above reproach? No one is pure. Lance surely isn't. The UCI isn't. Marion Jones never tested positive either, so quit with the useless "nothing has been found." In fact, if you believe the witnesses, Lance indeed tested positive at the Tour de Switzlerland, but was able to get it covered up. The USADA's case is based on at least 10 eyewitness accounts - do you really think they are all just making sh*t up?

Answer this... how many athletes have ever made $200,000 donations to the governing body of their sport? Any conflict of interest? What would you think if Tyson Gay donated $200k to USATF? Any chance of a cover up down the road?

Read more: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4626659&page=8#ixzz1xsuNjZKG

Dropped by Lance Once wrote:

There's a substantial body of evidence that would suggest that Lance GOT the cancer as a direct result of doping. I heard that before he started winning Tours too. If the mainstream media takes that ball and runs with it then Lance Inc is OVER.

Sports Illustrated says that Ferrari himself was concerned about this.

After Armstrong's cancer diagnosis, former teammates say, even Ferrari questioned his methods. "I remember when we were on a training ride in 2002, Lance told me that Ferrari had been paranoid that he had helped cause the cancer and became more conservative after that," says Landis. (Ferrari, again, declined to talk to SI for this story.)

Read the next three paragraphs about Armstrong's filrtation with an oxygen vector drug that never made it to market because it was killing people if you still have any doubt about "the staggering level of deceit and sophistication going on for decades."

A few years earlier, according to a source familiar with the government's investigation of Armstrong, the Texan became interested in Baxter Healthcare Corp., a company based in Deerfield, Ill., that focuses in part on developing drugs to treat hemophilia. According to that source, the FDA has information that Armstrong gained access to a Baxter-made drug in clinical trial in the U.S. and Europe in the late 1990s. According to public records, a study on a drug called Diaspirin Cross-Linked Hemoglobin (DCLHb) began in early 1997 and ended in 1998. Baxter developed the drug, whose trade name is HemAssist, for use in cases of extreme blood loss, such as by shock and trauma victims; in animal studies it was shown to boost the blood's oxygen-carrying capacity without the thickening caused by EPO. The human trials were ended, however, after a number of patients died—though not necessarily from the drug's effects; some of the trauma victims were likely to have died anyway.

Armstrong's lawyers say that he denies ever having taken HemAssist, and they claim it was impossible for him to have had access to the drug after the clinical trials ended and Baxter abandoned development in September 1998. Still, stockpiles of the drug may have remained, says Dr. Robert Przybelski, an associate professor at Wisconsin who was the director of hemoglobin therapeutics at Baxter in the late '90s, although he adds that he doesn't know of any missing quantities. What would a cyclist want with the drug? "If somebody was going to design something better than EPO, this would be the ideal product," says Przybelski. DCLHb would certainly give the endurance-starved cyclist a push in the Pyrenees. "[Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers] do everything they want EPO to do without the potential side effects of increased blood viscosity and strokes," says Przybelski. "And it doesn't last long [in the body], 12 to 24 hours, which is ideal for an event."

@ ding, ding ...

Yes, they are making it up as they go along. There is a statute of limitations that is a legal protection provided by the U.S. legal system. The USADA has decided that they don't have to abide by the limitations. They are trying to reinvent the law.

You still haven't answered the question. Why would the USADA not allow Armstrong "the cheater" to compete at Kona so they can test a new blood sample.

That is the absolutely best way to prove you caught a cheater. A positive test witnessed and scrutinized like no blood sample ever has. Add, the "hearsay" testimony and you can now make a good case for going backwards in time to strip titles and whatnot.

Only an attorney (the USADA CEO is an attorney) who knows they do not have a rock solid case would try to prevent the competition from occurring. The CEO knows he has no chance to catch Armstrong with a new blood sample. He must try another way.

And, while you are defending the USADA and it's attorney CEO watch this video of him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAzZA1JtIy8

@ 00:15: We've gotten to this place because of the poor federal regulation...that allows unscrupulous manufacturers to exploit the current loopholes in the regulations to put these dangerous designer steroids on to the market."

@00:40: "...but then you've got evidence where even children's multivitamins have been contaminated with things that could be harmful for children."

He is attacking not only athletes, but also those who write Federal Regulations, and about every pharmaceutical company there is, even legitimate ones.

Children are taking PEDs through multivitamins? This guy is doing nothing more than trying to grow his business, the USADA. Everything has to be tested and approved by him. Nothing is safe to take, or eat that is not approved first by the USADA.

sloppy lawyers wrote:

@ ding, ding ...

Yes, they are making it up as they go along. There is a statute of limitations that is a legal protection provided by the U.S. legal system. The USADA has decided that they don't have to abide by the limitations. They are trying to reinvent the law.

You still haven't answered the question. Why would the USADA not allow Armstrong "the cheater" to compete at Kona so they can test a new blood sample.

Congratulations for getting fanboy BIG LIES Number Two and Three into the beginning of your post like that. Impressive! I'm sure that you must have managed to convince a few gullible 75 IQ cretins just like yourself out there somewhere?

For starters there is no "statute of limitations" issue and anybody who can read at a third grade level or above can see that too. The USADA thinks that they have the goods on Lance from 2009 and 2010, their letter clearly says so. Lance's previous 18 years of doping fraud go merely to support the overall pattern of longstanding criminal activity. Except for stuff like caffiene just taking these drugs is against the rules, you don't have to fail a test first. (And guys have indeed been kicked out of professional bike races for ridiculous caffiene levels too-they even took the stuff in suppository form.)

When an athlete signs the WADA code either for cycling or triathalon, he agrees to be suspended before being proven guilty. That's what happened to everybody else so far, you fail to make a case as to why LA should be any different in this regard?

So here's where the rubber meets the road you lying dirtbag! How did your false-front hero ever test at these T/E levels if he was clean way back then?

(Again from Sports Illustrated.)

In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn't recover a total of five of the cyclist's test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, "The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low." 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.

Floyd Landis lost the Tour for testing just below 8-1 as I recall.

I happen to believe that expertise with the recovery drugs like HGH and testosterone is what seperated US Postal from everyone else, especially back there before there was an EPO test.

I also think Floyd would have tested positive if he had won the "so run like you stole something" Stage 17 where he rode the 40 best climbers in the world right off his wheel on THE critical climb in the 2004 tour as well. (Lance pipped Kloden at the line instead and sanctioned doper Kloden has still never won a grand tour stage as of today.) Of course, jusced to the same levels Floyd DID test positive in 2006.

The idea that any of these guys is even remotely "clean" is beyond ludicrous. You insult the intelligence of anyone who has to read through your posts here.

[quote] 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.

You just might want to look into how well LA was racing in June, 1993 too. There was a Million Dollar Prize from Thrift Drug for someone who could win three races in a row, these being three races laid out so that no single individual should have been able to win them in succession.

I think you know the rest of the story...

If it was just about guilt by association then Lance had all of that he needed by the end of 1994.

ding ding ding wrote:

Where have I ever stated the USADA was above reproach? No one is pure. Lance surely isn't. The UCI isn't. Marion Jones never tested positive either, so quit with the useless "nothing has been found."

So you would agree with me then, that the drug tests are totally worthless and useless.

Therefore, since they are useless, they should be done away with completely. Likewise, since innuendo and supposition are even more completely useless, let's get rid of them too, get rid of big pharma's alphabet agencies, and turn our attention back to RUNNING and athletics.

If you seriously want to get the emphasis on drugs out of sport, then be more supportive of getting rid of those who are promoting and pushing it, WADA, the USADA, and the other bogus alphabet agencies and their mickey mouse tests.

J.R. wrote:

If you seriously want to get the emphasis on drugs out of sport, then be more supportive of getting rid of those who are promoting and pushing it, WADA, the USADA, and the other bogus alphabet agencies and their mickey mouse tests.

Yes, because of course nobody used drugs before WADA and USADA started promoting and pushing them, and if WADA and USADA went away surely no athletes ever would.

Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote: For starters there is no "statute of limitations" issue.

You should try reading the USADA letter before claiming someone needs to learn no to read.

"It also the law that evidence of conspiratorial acts outside the applicable limitations can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period."

Applicable limitations means Statute of Limitations. The USADA is trying to claim that statue of limitations are not applicable because of new evidence. The problem is that the new evidence is all based on hearsay. Any new testing on ancient samples will get tossed out because the chain-of-custody was not properly maintained.

Answer the question: "Why not let Armstrong compete again and restest him?"

Dropped by Lance Once wrote:

...you rubes are going to feel about the same way that you did when the vaunted "weapons of mass destruction" never showed up in Iraq.

Ignoring of course the 520 tons of yellowcake uranium they found, was bought by Canadian company Cameco and shipped down the St. Lawrence in the summer of 2008. They had to go in to find out for sure, that and the fact Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire.

As for Lance, for him to be guilty there would have to be some massive collusion at many levels; that is as big as the acusations themselves.

sloppy lawyers wrote:

Wasn't Born Yesterday wrote: For starters there is no "statute of limitations" issue.

You should try reading the USADA letter before claiming someone needs to learn no to read.

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0613/armstrongcharges.pdf

"It also the law that evidence of conspiratorial acts outside the applicable limitations can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period."

Applicable limitations means Statute of Limitations. The USADA is trying to claim that statue of limitations are not applicable because of new evidence. The problem is that the new evidence is all based on hearsay. Any new testing on ancient samples will get tossed out because the chain-of-custody was not properly maintained.

Answer the question: "Why not let Armstrong compete again and restest him?"

You really should not be spouting off on topics you have no understanding of. "Wasn't Born" is correct, there is no statute of limitations issue. Just because the word "limitations" is used, does not mean that there is an issue about it. Also, you have no idea what "hearsay" is. When someone testifies about what they saw happen, it is not hearsay.

It is not I that do not understand. It is the USADA laywers you are saying do not understand. Why make a statement in their letter about to Armstrong that limitations not being applicable? They must be sloppy lawyers make a statement that is not an issue.

If you do not understand what hearsay is, your comments regarding it are or no value. Claiming you saw something is insufficient evidence in a legal case. You must have more than that.

Dropped by Lance Once wrote:

You just might want to look into how well LA was racing in June, 1993 too. There was a Million Dollar Prize from Thrift Drug for someone who could win three races in a row, these being three races laid out so that no single individual should have been able to win them in succession.

If you get paid by the post to defend Lance on evey Message Board in Chrisendom, (otherwise explain how "but he's been tested 500 times" had never been posted anywhere on earth before Tuesday,) you'll start to look like the proverbial Tar Baby after a while.

In the case of these three races in 1993, it's long been rumored that LA outright bought one of them. This in addition to having a higher T/E ration than the one that cost Floyd Landis the Tour De France in 2006.

So spin THIS, fanboys?

When it comes to CHEATING your boy Lance likes to do it in stereo!

*******************************************

Stephen Swart was Coors' top placed rider and the one Armstrong saw as the biggest threat. Understandable as not only was he strong but Coors was the strongest team in the race as most of the best Motorola guys were in Europe for the Giro. Lance was afraid they could blow apart the race as it was 5 days. Swart was approached to discuss a deal with the riders. The DS was never there. They were offered $50,000 if they did not ride against Lance. After the triple Crown the money was paid to one rider who split it with the team who were at WV. Roy Knickman confirmed Swart's account and confirmed the riders were paid. To be fair the guy who drove the deal was not Lance but a "Seasoned Pro", Likely Yates.

Armstrong did not split the Triple crown purse with his teammates in the normal way. He took care of the teammates who rode super hard to protect his lead at WV as that was the race that he was in the most trouble, the rest saw a much smaller amount. The Coors guys likely made more.

*******************************************************

Buying a stage race like that isn't really cheating at that level, IMO. Moreover the winners are said to be pre-determined for the entire post TDF criterium season and these days the whole crowd knows it too.

In this case if those numbers are accurate, it was a spectacular investment too.

Check out Fignon's story about how he "lost" the Vuelta sometime.

"Accusations" is a better word than "charges". "Charges" has legal implications, and the DoJ already dropped the case because there is insufficient evidence to justify even attempting a criminal trial. In high profile cases that can serve as deterrents, like Barry Bonds, Wesley Snipes, and Marion Jones, cases can successfully be prosecuted even off of scraps of evidence, like audio recordings or suspicious overpayments. No such evidence exists in this case.

Heresay is inadmissible in court, and is the basis of USADA's accusations. As always, Armstrong is relying on the established facts. He has never tested positive in an official test. Since childhood, he has always tested in the highest tiers of performance potential, like V02 max. He has improved gradually and consistently over years with no telltale performance spikes.

If Lance Armstrong was a wrongly accused, gifted, disciplined athlete, how would this case look any different?

legallyliterate wrote:

Heresay is inadmissible in court, and is the basis of USADA's accusations. As always, Armstrong is relying on the established facts. He has never tested positive in an official test. Since childhood, he has always tested in the highest tiers of performance potential, like V02 max. He has improved gradually and consistently over years with no telltale performance spikes.

Testimony is the basis of the USADA accusations against Armstrong and his co-conspirators. Testimony hearsay. (Note: heresy is something else entirely).