morana wrote: » (PS noticed the Yes vote in the poll has gone up!!!)
Lusk Doyle wrote: » morana wrote: » (PS noticed the Yes vote in the poll has gone up!!!) I thought that my eyes were playing tricks on me when noticed that earlier too!
On August 24, 2012, USADA issued public notice of its sanctioning Mr. Armstrong and provided the UCI notice of this decision on that same day. In a letter of September 3, 2012 Pat McQuaid’s noted that the UCI was awaiting “USADA’s full reasoned decision” before deciding whether to appeal USADA’s August 24, 2012, announcement of sanctions against Lance Armstrong. The Code provides that providing a reasoned decision in this contest is the duty of “the Anti-Doping Organization with result management responsibility.” By calling upon USADA to issue a reasoned decision, therefore, the UCI has confirmed that USADA is the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility and the UCI may not contest USADA’s reasoned decision on the grounds that USADA allegedly lacks results management responsibility. Had the UCI wished to challenge USADA’s results management responsibility, the UCI was obligated to do so within twenty-one (21) days of USADA asserting its results management authority on June 12, 2012. The UCI cannot challenge USADA’s results management authority at this juncture.
letape wrote: » I am surprised that people needed the detail to be released before they voted yes!
Finally, although additional corroboration is not necessary given the testimony of USADA’s witnesses, as described in Section V.B. below, the retesting of Lance Armstrong’s samples from the 1999 Tour and the clear finding of EPO in six of the samples provides powerful corroborating evidence of Armstrong’s use of EPO. With or without this corroborating evidence, however, the evidence demonstrates beyond any doubt that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. No other conclusion is even plausible.
GT_TDI_150 wrote: » Does M.Barry's naming cast a shadow over the sky team or is the concencus that once on the sky pay-role one is clean, riders clean stays clean? and did his previous doping benefit him/sky once riding for them?
petethedrummer wrote: » Not really, Dr Geert Leinders is a bigger shadow. And Sean Yates parking the Sky car outsider Motoman's shop.
1.30 A lawyer for Armstrong has issued a strongly worded statement following the USADA's report, claiming that their "government funded witch hunt" is really quite rotten ... "Ignoring the 500-600 tests Lance Armstrong passed, ignoring all exculpatory evidence, and trying to justify the millions of dollars USADA has spent pursuing one, single athlete for years, USADA has continued its government funded witch hunt of only Mr. Armstrong, a retired cyclist, in violation of its own rules and due process, in spite of USADA's lack of jurisdiction, in blatant violation of the statute of limitations, and without honoring UCI's demand to produce the entire USADA "file" for an independent review and decision as mandated by national and international rules.".
allybhoy wrote: » The UCI have released a statement saying: "The UCI has been advised by USADA that it’s reasoned decision and supporting material is available to view on its website. "The UCI will examine all information received in order to consider issues of appeal and recognition, jurisdiction and statute of limitation, within the term of appeal of 21 days, as required by the World Anti-Doping Code. "The UCI will endeavour to provide a timely response and not to delay matters any longer than necessary."
Hein Verbruggen on LA in May last year: "Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never." How can this man stay on UCI and IOC?
Flandria wrote: » Seperate transcripts of the emails.http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JR+Exhibit+A.pdf
Cienciano wrote: » Lets post our favorite bits.
Had Mr. Armstrong not refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing, the witnesses in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong would have testified under oath with a legal duty to testify truthfully or face potential civil and/or criminal consequences. Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after witness would have confirmed the following: That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong’s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat. That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor’s hotel room on nights during the Tour de France. That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year. That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.
NIMAN wrote: » So who can come on here now and defend him, after hearing that news today? The worlds biggest ever sporting drugs cheat. Fact. His lawyer called it a 'one sided hacket job'. Well if he had had the balls to contest the chargesm then it wouldn't have been one sided.
The adequacy of unannounced, no notice testing taking place in the sport of cycling remains a concern. For instance, at the 2010 Tour de France on two occasions the WADA independent observer (I.O.) team reported surveillance by cycling teams on the lookout for UCI testers. The WADA I.O. team reported they “could clearly see two persons watching the parking [lot] from their room windows half hidden behind the curtain as well as a team member seated in front of the hotel who immediately used his mobile phone when he saw the UCI [drug testing] team.”749 In the Independent Observer report insufficient efforts to ensure the confidentiality of test planning were also noted.750 Further, the elementary recommendations of suggesting that testers not wear prominent I.D. badges and Tour-branded clothing and not arrive in a Tourbranded car were made because the arrival of testers was at times so conspicuous as to provide advance notice to those about to be tested.751
NIMAN wrote: » So who can come on here now and defend him, after hearing that news today?
