collapse


just some guy

  • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
  • Hall of Fame'r
  • Country: 00
  • Posts: 37763
  • Liked: 11460
  • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
« Reply #720 on: August 26, 2012, 13:28 »
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-justice-has-come-a-bit-late-in-armstrong-case

While the Omerta is falling hats off to Simeoni for speaking up when the Omerta was strong
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    krabkakes

    • Artes, Scientia, Veritas.
    • Multiple World Champion
    • Country: mx
    • Posts: 19560
    • Liked: 2624
    • Donald J Krabkakes
    • Awards: Dish of the Year 2017KeithJamesMC Memorial award for Extremely Outstanding ContentBest member of staff in live broadcast 2012Best Youtube clip 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #721 on: August 26, 2012, 15:57 »
    I've been reading all the news item comments and keep reading the same talking points, most tested, 500 tests, hearsay, etc. I am looking for some short counter points to copy and paste in reply. My little puppy is very ill :'( And my brain is not focusing well. So a little help is needed.
    Just off the top my head I used these this morning

    You have much to learn, Grasshopper

    Eyewitness testimony is not hearsey.

    Allegedly was tested more than 500 times. Maximum documented 236.



  • ReplyReply
  • I wish I was in Tijuana
    eating barbequed iguana

    Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

    • Road Captain
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 1077
    • Liked: 62
    BMC and Cadel Evans fan
    I have chosen not to be able to receive private messages except from administrators.

    froome19

    • Monument Winner
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 5689
    • Liked: 2049
    • Awards: 2015 National Championships Prediction Game Champion
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #723 on: August 26, 2012, 21:05 »
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19386308
     
    Quote
    Donations to Armstrong's foundation have increased to 20 times their daily average since his ban was implemented, and Armstrong said he was appreciative of the support shown in Colorado.

     :fp  :fp :fp :fp :police: :police: :police:
    Sometimes you just wonder  ::)
  • ReplyReply
  • RIP Keith


    flicker2.0

    • 2nd Year Pro
    • Posts: 398
    • Liked: 21
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #725 on: August 26, 2012, 23:02 »
    Hi everyone.
    Just want to thank you for keeping the discussion going. I have every reason to believe that what has happened behind the scenes in places like this have had an effect on the outcome of the long LA saga.
    There are a lot of people of sound mind on this forum which I have found very re-assuring. It restores my faith in the human race. I only wish that I'd felt the same assurance way back when I was buried beneath the weight of legal battle.

    All the best,
    Mike Anderson

    P.S. I told you so!

    Good work Mike. VandeVelde 1st in Colorado, Dad John ex pro 6day rider, wink wink nod nod.
    BMC 2nd(Ris), yay! 3rd Levi,(big no comment here), Astana in the USA,+ Kloeden, master of darkness 4th feel the power. Don't forget the kiwi(George Bennett) 4th U23 best rider, riding mighty fine for Bontranger LIVESTRONg,.(GASP!). Yep!!
    Even a KOM at 41, an East German, Voight, a friend of Darth Vader.

    Yep as Ali G. woulda said, it be all good in da house. Thanks Tygart, olympic sport and all that.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #726 on: August 27, 2012, 06:21 »

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19386308
     
     :fp  :fp :fp :fp :police: :police: :police:
    Sometimes you just wonder  ::)

    Same thing happened when Festina got busted, watch sales went through the roof. There no such thing as false advertising
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: August 27, 2012, 07:49 by just some guy »

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #727 on: August 27, 2012, 07:52 »
    Tygart has played everything so well so far now this.

    Quote
    If Armstrong had "come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply," Tygart says, adding that "would have been fine by us." Tygart confirmed that would have meant USADA stripping Armstrong of only two of his seven titles, in 2004 and '05.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

    At 1st I was like what the flip sort of statement is that ...................... then a though came to me - this is a carrot to the UCI and or Lance .

    This is not over  :D
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9585
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #728 on: August 27, 2012, 08:37 »
    I've been reading all the news item comments and keep reading the same talking points, most tested, 500 tests, hearsay, etc. I am looking for some short counter points to copy and paste in reply. My little puppy is very ill :'( And my brain is not focusing well. So a little help is needed.
    Just off the top my head I used these this morning

    You have much to learn, Grasshopper

    Eyewitness testimony is not hearsey.

    Allegedly was tested more than 500 times. Maximum documented 236.

    OK, here are a few more examples:

    Quote
    If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA's process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and - once and for all - put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance.

    Judge Sparks does not agree.

    Quote
    As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.

    Judge Sparks does not agree.

    Quote
    The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine.

    When you get tipped off 20 minutes before testing? When you race throughout a period before the bio-passport forces you to manage your blood numbers "around the clock"? When you "gift" money to the sport's governing body?

    Quote
    I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced

    UCI: evidence points to complicity
    WADA: only established in 1999; rules only adopted from 2004
    USADA: if so, why the charges?

    Quote
    At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers' expense.

    Swap out "USADA" for "Lance Armstrong" and you get the picture. What about those people (including a contributor to this thread) who received a similar sort of attention from Armstrong? And as for "U.S. taxpayers' expense", the USADA is federally funded to "Preserve the Integrity of Competition, Inspire True Sport, Protect the Rights of U.S. Athletes" so investigating a US-based doping conspiracy is absolutely relevant.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon / Larry Sarni

    L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9585
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #729 on: August 27, 2012, 08:51 »
    There's also this. The style of it is a little hard to read  ;) but it's very good:

    http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/30184403698/1-a-the-integrated-pattern-of-human-behavior
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9585
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #730 on: August 27, 2012, 09:29 »
    Interview with Gérard Bulens, Manager at Landbouwkrediet-Euphony and frequent RTBF co-commentator.

    http://www.rtbf.be/video/v_retour-sur-l-affaire-lance-armstrong?id=1753976&category=sport



    Quote
    Without a doubt what angers me most is the attitude of certain of Armstrong's team who were sipping the hot soup with him when the money was rolling in and now they're spitting in it today. These people are not men, they should be pulled out of the peloton if they're still there today. If there are still managers among them, then they should be removed too. If there are collaborators - at the UCI or from the AFLD side - all of these people need to disappear from cycling.

    They did the tests. Armstrong did about 500 of them [!] and he never tested positive, now only after a dozen years, a national agency declares that he was positive all along ... how am I supposed to find sponsors with this sort of stuff going on?

    Bulens is a good guy generally, but he has had his share of problems at Landbouwkrediet and in his frustration he may have missed the point here.
  • ReplyReply

  • benotti69

    • Road Captain
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 1930
    • Liked: 213
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #731 on: August 27, 2012, 13:49 »
    http://theconversation.edu.au/is-the-lance-armstrong-affair-a-race-to-the-bottom-for-cycling-9073

    Pretty good and simple to understand for those not to au fait with cycling.

  • ReplyReply
  • "ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78

    ocrltd

    • Coach Potato
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 2
    • Liked: 0
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #732 on: August 27, 2012, 14:35 »
    Hi :wave

    This is my first post and I'd like some information please.

    How were the USADA able to sanction Armstrong outside the SOL,was it because the trafficking and administration of drug's?Thank's.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9585
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #733 on: August 27, 2012, 15:11 »
    Hi :wave

    This is my first post and I'd like some information please.

    How were the USADA able to sanction Armstrong outside the SOL,was it because the trafficking and administration of drug's?Thank's.

    Welcome to Velorooms, ocrltd.

    My experience is in English Law rather than US Law but I understand that the issue centres around the concept of "tolling": where a delay to the limitation occurs which is deemed to validly extend the period of the Statute.

    The delay in Armstrong's case is constituted by the concealment of the doping acts with which he and the others in the case were charged. The Statute therefore runs from the date of discovery of the fraudulent acts rather than the date they were committed.

    As we know, without reference to the numerous (non-legal and therefore inapplicable) allegations made throughout Armstrong's lengthy purple patch, evidence generated by witness testimony and the Federal investigation on Armstrong and US Postal led to the belated discovery of a doping conspiracy and only then did the Statute of Limitations begin its run.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

    • Road Captain
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 1077
    • Liked: 62
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #734 on: August 27, 2012, 15:13 »
    Hi :wave

    This is my first post and I'd like some information please.

    How were the USADA able to sanction Armstrong outside the SOL,was it because the trafficking and administration of drug's?Thank's.


    There was a conspiracy to avoid detection of the cheating that was going on. I believe this conspiracy allowed charges to be made about events that were outside the SOL.

    Also welcome to the forum. There is much to enjoy include out race shout boxes where you can discuss races with other cycling enthusiasts.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #735 on: August 27, 2012, 15:15 »
    Hi :wave

    This is my first post and I'd like some information please.

    How were the USADA able to sanction Armstrong outside the SOL,was it because the trafficking and administration of drug's?Thank's.

    1st welcome to the show  :win

    Anyways.

    I am not sure they can but I am thinking there is another reason for the ban from August 98.

    1. They want Lance to change his mind come in spill his beans re the UCI fat and Hein.

    2. Lance says meh, fat and the UCI take an appeal to CAS, on admin type issues

    What this does is keep the WADA ball rolling in cleaning house at the UCI due to damming evidence that would come out
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #736 on: August 27, 2012, 15:18 »
    Well there you go 3 different answers
    Larri is probably the correct legal one
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #737 on: August 27, 2012, 15:22 »
    But is saying that WADA and the IOC have an 8 year window to retest, why would witness evidence be allowed to the same orgainsation outside of 8 years.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9585
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #738 on: August 27, 2012, 15:50 »
    But is saying that WADA and the IOC have an 8 year window to retest, why would witness evidence be allowed to the same orgainsation outside of 8 years.

    Can you ask that again? I didn't understand.  8)
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #739 on: August 27, 2012, 16:32 »
    Can you ask that again? I didn't understand.  8)

    ok

    blood is stored up to 8 years and I think that is the maximum set by WADA and the IOC - so retroactive testing has a window of 8 years.

    USADA as WADA us Representative is using witness testimony outside of the 8 year ( ie given now but the event occured more than 8 years ago ) window to remove results outside of the SOL.

    seems a bit strange to me   
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2805
    • Liked: 842
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #740 on: August 27, 2012, 17:17 »
    wait, wasnt the sol put aside simply because he declined the arbitration hearing meaning they can do what they want.

    Had he actually gone to arbitration then he would have been able to argue the sol and only then would the prosecution need to argue why they think the sol could be waved, but if Lance doesnt go to arbitration, doesnt present any challenge whatsoever, then the ball is in USADAs court and they can go 7 if they want.


    Well thats how i understood it.
  • ReplyReply
  • Despite the self-serving data benders and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within 'new age' cycling teams. Personally, I don't accept that the 'dark era' has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

    The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Classics Winner
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2805
    • Liked: 842
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013

    Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

    • Road Captain
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 1077
    • Liked: 62
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #742 on: August 28, 2012, 00:10 »
    Well there you go 3 different answers
    Larri is probably the correct legal one

    Not really. I was trying to say the same thing as Larri, I think, if I have understood what he wrote just used different less precise words.
  • ReplyReply

  • Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

    • Road Captain
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 1077
    • Liked: 62
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #743 on: August 28, 2012, 00:16 »
    wait, wasnt the sol put aside simply because he declined the arbitration hearing meaning they can do what they want.

    Had he actually gone to arbitration then he would have been able to argue the sol and only then would the prosecution need to argue why they think the sol could be waved, but if Lance doesnt go to arbitration, doesnt present any challenge whatsoever, then the ball is in USADAs court and they can go 7 if they want.


    Well thats how i understood it.

    Well yes, that is the case, by not arguing he has accepted the charges and the punishment.

    But surely the USADA had arguments they were going to present at arbitration so that they could defend the charges they were bring forward that extended outside the SOL.

    If not and it was all a big bluff, we cannot really do this but because we don't think you will fight we will try and get away with, it sounds dodgy.
  • ReplyReply

  • AG

    • Monument Winner
    • *
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 7467
    • Liked: 4156
    • Awards: Winner, 2013 National Championships prediction gameFan of the Year 2013
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #744 on: August 28, 2012, 00:53 »
    yep the good Doc has it there.

    Pretty much USADA were arguing that they could set aside the Statute of Limitations because Lance and the other 5 all acted to conspire to fraudulently cover up the banned substances and methods.

    If they dont test you, of if they test you but the tests dont pick up a posative result ... then after 8 years you are free and clear.

    On the other hand, if you DO something fraudulent, or lie to investigators (eg pay someone to cover up a +ve, pay testers not to test, put something in your sample to destroy any +ve, substitute samples etc) to make it so that they do not discover what they otherwise would have ... then they can go beyond the SOL.

    IMO that means that they had evidence that Lance did something in August or September 1998 for them to choose that date.

    Under normal circumstances, that argument (going beyond the SOL) would have been argued before the arbitration hearing. And it wasnt a slam dunk.  There were substantial hurdles for USADA to get through - and they might not have won.

    Because Lance chose not to arbitrate, he is essentially admitting to all charges, and accepting the sanctions that were set out.   So USADA do not have to argue their case.

    The risk to Lance of course was that in the court of public opinion, once George Hincappie took the stand (and he was not limited by the SOL, so win or lose that part, GH still would give evidence) then Lance lost all .... so he couldnt afford to go to arbitration
  • ReplyReply

  • Dr. Horrible the Mad Elephant Man

    • Road Captain
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 1077
    • Liked: 62
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #745 on: August 28, 2012, 03:18 »
    I also seem to remember on one of the many long threads on cn they were talking about a case as being precedent for ignoring the the SOL. This means it has been done before, but I am not going to go and search through the threads over there to try and look for the needle in the hay stack.
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012

    just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37763
    • Liked: 11460
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #748 on: August 28, 2012, 11:20 »
    Some of you may want to read this

    The Lance Armstrong fallout - questions, denials and doping reactions science of sport

    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

    I have some issues with some of their other stuff but thats for another day
  • ReplyReply

  • python

    • Domestic Rider
    • Posts: 60
    • Liked: 17
    • still to be born
    Re: The official Lance Armstrong thread
    « Reply #749 on: August 28, 2012, 11:31 »
    i am going to attempt to summarize the all-important question asked above:

    - what is the legal basis for usada stripping Armstrong of his 7 tour de france titles.

    before i proceed, i must note that i don’t have any legal training nor experience. however, i do love digging when i struggle with some questions.

    the short answer was provided - wada code allows extending the 8-year statute of limitations in cases involving a cover-up. and since USADA determined that Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping dating to the 1990s, he received the maximum hammer  :police:

    i think it was justified and many of us hoped this should have happened earlier, but if stated with full honestly, the severe usada sanction is not conclusive yet. moreover, it is likely to be exposed to a vigorous legal challenge. that’s where a longer answer to the question needs to be examined.

    Many sources referred to hellebuyck's case as the validated precedent allowing usada to extend the statute of limitations. indeed it was the precedent but the parallel is not a perfect one. mainly because hellebuyck perjured himself under oath and then admitted his earlier doping offense. this allowed usada to add-up his sanctions and argue for tolling sol. this Not the case with armstrong who continues to deny and never faced an anti-doping panel. Another difference is the non-analytical nature of Armstrong’s evidence vs. a failed test/admission in hellebuyck’s case.

    Here is the AAA ruling.
    http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

    Indeed it is a very interesting document. Not everything went smoothly for usada at the hearing. in fact, usada was sharply criticized by the panel on several accounts including…their charging letter.  the panel had to delve into various conflicting statues and the applicability of IAAF's 6-year sol.  the panel explicitly noted that if hellebuyck exercised his right NOT to testify, he would not perjure himself…guess what, Armstrong declined to testify. the panel expressed its opinion wrt extending the sol on page 28. it basically amounts to the fact that a false testimony is a fraudulent concealment and under the us law allows tolling the sol.. again, if armstrong perjured himself, it was a different hearing (SCA), and it would very interesting it it's applicable here.

    overall, I think the uci will have their hands full if they try to appeal to cas exploiting the controversial sol issues from the hellebuyck’s case. they may even succeed in overturning usada’s verdict but while doing so they WILL HAVE TO EXPOSE their own role in the key issue of armstrong’s case - fraudulent concealment.

    that’s why i don’t believe the uci would want shooting itself in the foot.  either way it is a double bad news for armstrong. he will not be able to keep the evidence from seeing the day of light and he is almost guaranteed to be an officially sanctioned doper and  a cheat.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    * Dark Side Chatbox

    Sorry, this shoutbox does not exist.


    Top
    Back to top