At last it is heading towards the end

morana

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities

Yes this should put all of us who believed in Armstrong out of our misery!
Finally they will find no HGH or EPO in those samples.:D

stevie_b

great thread title on cyclingnews http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12521&page=3


"The sun is going down in Lanceville, and the sunset will be spectacular" (from page 3)



beautiful.

xz

Surely, no matter what they show up, they have to be tainted after all this time. I'm no expert in this,but haven't these samples been tested on numerous occassions,with varying results.
This matter IMO will always rank up there with Roswell,and the conspiracy theories surrounding it.(Even though most of the theories and evidence point at guilt).
I personally would like to think that no matter what the outcome,that the work done by the Livestrong foundation would not bear the backlash.
Cancer is a bigger problem Globally,that most of us will have some kind of experience of in our lifetimes, than an (alleged;)) doping incident, but in saying that, without being too cliched, doping is the cancer that is destroying the sport.

ednwireland

meh - i'm sure there will be a doctors exemption produced fairly quickly imo dataedd and signed for the appropriate test date

RobFowl

All comes back to the fact that to fail a dope test the A and B samples both have to be positive. In this case the A samples were tested (in 1999) and declared negative then disposed of.
The B tests were tested for research reasons using new technology at a later date.
No matter what happens the A samples were declared negative and are long since gone.
These samples will never be the basis of an anti-doping infraction

Lumen

RobFowl wrote: »

All comes back to the fact that to fail a dope test the A and B samples both have to be positive...These samples will never be the basis of an anti-doping infraction

Well that rather depends on which "US authorities" are asking for the samples, and what you regard as an "anti-doping infraction".

If it's the Feds, he's screwed.

Diarmuid

RobFowl wrote: »

These samples will never be the basis of an anti-doping infraction

I think it's well passed worrying about getting a 2 year ban from the UCI

Chips Lovell

xz wrote: »

Surely, no matter what they show up, they have to be tainted after all this time. I'm no expert in this,but haven't these samples been tested on numerous occassions,with varying results.
This matter IMO will always rank up there with Roswell,and the conspiracy theories surrounding it.(Even though most of the theories and evidence point at guilt).

They were tested twice. There was no EPO test when they were tested originally. When they were tested a second time (for research purposes) they returned a positive.

RobFowl wrote: »

All comes back to the fact that to fail a dope test the A and B samples both have to be positive. In this case the A samples were tested (in 1999) and declared negative then disposed of.
The B tests were tested for research reasons using new technology at a later date.
No matter what happens the A samples were declared negative and are long since gone.
These samples will never be the basis of an anti-doping infraction

For a sporting sanction yes. But this is a federal investigation.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

If it's the Feds, he's screwed.

Would the chain-of-custody not be very open to legal attack?

I'm not sure how well new tests on old samples would stand up in federal court, but they'd be damaging in the court of public opinion is the results came back positive.

The hardcore lancefans won't ever be swayed by anything found in a French freezer - their stance is essentially faith-based and not amenable to evidence - they'll dismiss this without understanding it and continue as before.

My guess is that LA's undoing will be based on paperwork not bloodwork. They'll get him like Capone, on a financial issue. Funnelling millions of federal dollars through companies in the US and Europe is bound to have left something for Novitsky to work with and it only needs to be minor for him to make charges of wrongdoing stick.

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

They were tested twice. There was no EPO test when they were tested originally. When they were tested a second time (for research purposes) they returned a positive.

For a sporting sanction yes. But this is a federal investigation.

The B samples were tested twice the A samples only once.

From a legal point of view the chain of evidence has long since been broken (repeatedly) so won't hold up. And Taking EPO in France is not illegal in the USA. Technically as it was given by a Doctor it was actually prescribed.

All comes down to whether they can prove Tailwind sports and specifically Armstrong spent US tax payers money on drugs.....
That will be very difficult to prove...........

I'm not saying by any means he's innocent but he won't get done on the 1999 samples.

Chips Lovell

No, it wasn't illegal to take EPO in France, but as you pointed out, this would be further evidence of the type of fraud they're going after him for.

When were the B samples tested a second time? I thought the A samples were test in 1999, then binned, and the B samples tested as part of that research experiment?

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

were the B samples tested a second time? I thought the A samples were test in 1999, then binned, and the B samples tested as part of that research experiment?

You're right the B samples were only tested once so far AFAIK. The chain of evidence is gone though as an Equipe reporter has already had proven access to them.......
LA was entitled to have an observer at a formal retest to ensure the seals were not tampered with. That chance has long since gone unfortunately.

xz

This man is going to be the most talked about cyclist for years to come :rolleyes:

Jawgap

The Yanks tend to go quite hard on sporting personalities who are caught out - witness baseball.

If he testifies before Congress or refuses to, the nature of his testimaony could lead to contempt or obstruction charges.

He could end up doing a couple of years easy time in some farm somehwere - time enough for him to find Jesus and redeem himself before he's 50:)

2011abc

Call me naive but I will never believe Armstrong (or Kelly or Roche ) took drugs until the undisputed proof is in the public domain .Come to think of it I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin and reckon the case against her was somewhat murky .Its a sad fact of human nature that we like to build people up to drag them down .While I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage I feel his 'crusade' is driven by a blinding passion ...sure many cyclists took/take drugs but not ALL of them .

niceonetom

2011abc wrote: »

Call me naive but I will never believe Armstrong (or Kelly or Roche ) took drugs until the undisputed proof is in the public domain .Come to think of it I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin and reckon the case against her was somewhat murky .Its a sad fact of human nature that we like to build people up to drag them down .While I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage I feel his 'crusade' is driven by a blinding passion ...sure many cyclists took/take drugs but not ALL of them .

You're naive.

leftism

From the outset, this investigation was always going to hinge on Novitsky et al. being able to produce a smoking gun with which to link Armstrong to doping. If they're digging up B samples from 1999 i think its fairly obvious that they're scraping the barrel... Even if new tests showed there was more EPO in Lance's urine than actual urine, i would say theres way too many loopholes and arguements his attorneys can use to strike the evidence out as inadmissable.

If the French tests didn't stick before, what makes Novitsky think they can stick now???

This news can only be seen as bad for all those who are looking for truth and justice from this case...:(

Raam

2011abc wrote: »

Call me naive but I will never believe Armstrong (or Kelly or Roche ) took drugs until the undisputed proof is in the public domain .Come to think of it I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin and reckon the case against her was somewhat murky .Its a sad fact of human nature that we like to build people up to drag them down .While I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage I feel his 'crusade' is driven by a blinding passion ...sure many cyclists took/take drugs but not ALL of them .

You do know that Kelly tested positive twice?
http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2000/jan/09/sean-kellys-positive-tests/

Lumen

2011abc wrote: »

I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin

Me too.

Not least because she is now qualified to sue anyone who libels her.

RobFowl

2011abc wrote: »

Call me naive but I will never believe Armstrong (or Kelly or Roche ) took drugs until the undisputed proof is in the public domain .Come to think of it I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin and reckon the case against her was somewhat murky .Its a sad fact of human nature that we like to build people up to drag them down .While I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage I feel his 'crusade' is driven by a blinding passion ...sure many cyclists took/take drugs but not ALL of them .

I can honestly say i would be disappointed but not 100% shocked at any pro athlete (in any sport) who was caught.

cormpat

2011abc wrote: »

Call me naive but I will never believe Armstrong (or Kelly or Roche ) took drugs until the undisputed proof is in the public domain .Come to think of it I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin and reckon the case against her was somewhat murky .Its a sad fact of human nature that we like to build people up to drag them down .While I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage I feel his 'crusade' is driven by a blinding passion ...sure many cyclists took/take drugs but not ALL of them .

Is this a wind up? Kelly's indiscretions have already being documented above & there's some fairly murky evidence against Roche.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article1052710.ece

http://www.rte.ie/news/2000/0109/sport.html

xz

I don't race, just the odd club race, but am currently nursing cracked ribs as a result of a crash 3 weeks ago, as part of my pain relief, I have been prescribed, Tradol, Melfen and Solpadol, if I were to race in the next couple of weeks, and be tested, surely I would face a ban. How many athletes, not just cyclists, take this risk throughout their careers, by taking something for genuine reasons, as with Kellys 2nd failure in '88.
A lot of the drugs on the banned list, are for common afflictions, such as colds etc, surely athletes are not expected to go without medication when it is deemed necessary.
How many athletes have been caught out for taking something innocuos, that remained in their system when tested, and suffered fines, or bans.

How, many cold and flu remedies, can be perceived as performance enhancing is beyond me, even the cocktail of tablets I have been prescribed for that matter, when taken exactly as prescribed to me from day 1 of my injury, I'd have been asleep a few km's down the road, not dancing up the climbs like a mountain goat

Raam

I just did a lookup on those and all are permitted.
http://www.eirpharm.com/sports2011/


Must be thresholds?

Jawgap

Steak for dinner tonight - I wonder if I were to take a blood test in the next few days would I fail:)

RobFowl

Jawgap wrote: »

Steak for dinner tonight - I wonder if I were to take a blood test in the next few days would I fail:)

Only for Cholesterol

Raam wrote: »

I just did a lookup on those and all are permitted.
http://www.eirpharm.com/sports2011/


Must be thresholds?

No thresholds all allowed at present. The rules change every year though. Codeine was banned in 1988 but is not today (that's what Kellys 1988 failure was for and is in Solpadol).

leftism

If you were a responsible athlete, who was perscribed these drugs due to an injury or illness, you would insist that the doctor fill out a Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) form in order to comply with WADA rules. In addition, athletes are given ample opportunity to declare any medication that was taken in the last 14 days when undertaking a doping control.

Athletes are humans too and are entitled to the same medical treatment as anyone else. But they are responsible for what goes in their bodies and there is an system in place to make sure that any medication taken has been authorised by a medical doctor for legitimate reasons.

petethedrummer

leftism wrote: »

From the outset, this investigation was always going to hinge on Novitsky et al. being able to produce a smoking gun with which to link Armstrong to doping. If they're digging up B samples from 1999 i think its fairly obvious that they're scraping the barrel... Even if new tests showed there was more EPO in Lance's urine than actual urine, i would say theres way too many loopholes and arguements his attorneys can use to strike the evidence out as inadmissable.

If the French tests didn't stick before, what makes Novitsky think they can stick now???

This news can only be seen as bad for all those who are looking for truth and justice from this case...:(

Novitzky is not WADA, he's not looking to get Armstrong a 2 year sporting ban. There is fraud, drug trafficking and use of non-FDA approved drugs involved. As for smoking guns, he will have the testimony of ex-USPS riders to rely on. Unless of course they all claim under oath to have seen no doping on the team. Armstrong the sportsman may not even be the centre of it all, Armstrong the part owner of Tailwind sports might be.

petethedrummer

2011abc wrote: »

I still admire Michelle Smith de Bruin ........I would have a certain lower level of admiration for Paul Kimmage.

Just needed to see those bits in isolation.

leftism

petethedrummer wrote: »

As for smoking guns, he will have the testimony of ex-USPS riders to rely on.

I don't see that as a smoking gun. Sure Landis is an ex-USPS rider and his testimony will hardly win the case. Testimony from colleagues, friends, former misstresses, drug-dealers etc. no matter how damning, is too easily disregarded as it is basically Lances word vs. theirs. But not only that, it'll be Lance's word + an unlimited number of powerful buddies vs. theirs. For every colleague Novitsky digs up, Lance's legal team will find 10 to contradict it.

And in the end he can always resort to his tried and tested approach; "They're just jealous" "He's a compulsive lier who cannot be trusted" "She's just angry i didn't marry her".

Without hard evidence i don't see them winning this case. Novitsky set a major precedent when he got Marion Jones convicted. But bear in mind that Jones confessed to purjury while on trial. She served 6 months in prison and now plays professional basketball in the WNBA.

The happy ending we all dream of, with Armstrong breaking down in tears in front of a jury and the worlds media, crying "OK I ADMIT IT!" before being led away in handcuffs is not likely to happen. The unfortunate truth which Jeff Novitsky has probably already realised, is that the Jones case was a fluke and Armstrong is going to be a much tougher nut to crack...

morana

RobFowl wrote: »

I can honestly say there are no athletes at all who I would be 100% sure have never taken a performance enhancing or banned drug

even me Rob?????

It may not prove that the guys in USP used tax payers money to buy drugs but I think it will expose him completely with his reputation in tatters. as for the legal end of things I am not really bothered but if he remembers Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery then I reckon he should tread carefully..

niceonetom

leftism wrote: »

I don't see that as a smoking gun. Sure Landis is an ex-USPS rider and his testimony will hardly win the case. Testimony from colleagues, friends, former misstresses, drug-dealers etc. no matter how damning, is too easily disregarded as it is basically Lances word vs. theirs. But not only that, it'll be Lance's word + an unlimited number of powerful buddies vs. theirs. For every colleague Novitsky digs up, Lance's legal team will find 10 to contradict it.

Lance is powerful guy and has great influence but do you really think that when the feds lean on Tyler Hamilton, or Hincapie, or all the other insiders there and say "Look, you lie to us, and you will go to prison." they won't fold?

It's a prisoners' dilemma thing - they know that if they lie and anyone else they've deposed tells the truth, they risk going from witness to accused. Even Lance isn't powerful enough to have everyone tow the line. Someone will crack (or already has) and then everyone else will have no choice but to follow. The only sensible thing for them to do, and what any competent lawyer would advise them to do, is tell the truth.

leftism wrote: »

And in the end he can always resort to his tried and tested approach; "They're just jealous" "He's a compulsive lier who cannot be trusted" "She's just angry i didn't marry her".

That may work in the tabloids but grand-juries don't work like that.

You may think that getting the urine samples from '99 seems like scraping the barrel - the actions of a man with nothing in his arsenal - I see it as the action of a guy or near-robotic thoroughness. If he's got those samples I'm confident that he's also got records of damn near every financial transaction LA has ever been involved in. That's where any smoking gun will be found.