login
Lance and USADA (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-10-22 2:39 PM in reply to: #4463439 |
Expert  630    Frisco TX (DFW area) |  Subject: RE: Lance and USADAAarondb4 - 2012-10-22 11:17 AM Brock, In your opinion as a prosecutor, if the evidence is "overwhelming" why did the justice department not pursue their case against Lance? I have not had the time to read the whole report, I trust your judgment that there is probably plenty of evidence, so why did they drop the case just to have the USADA pick the case back up? Any theories?
I believe the Justice Dept. was looking at criminal activity - not if he was doping or not - but the criminal part |
| 2012-10-22 2:49 PM in reply to: #4463800 |
Veteran 219 College Station, Texas | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. |
| 2012-10-22 2:52 PM in reply to: #4463947 |
Champion 18680   Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 3:49 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. Maybe it's that he was the second shooter on the grassy knoll... sorry I just couldn't resist. |
| 2012-10-22 3:18 PM in reply to: #4463947 |
Master 1967 | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 2:49 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. You're just making sh*t up here. |
| 2012-10-22 3:37 PM in reply to: #4464016 |
Veteran 219 College Station, Texas | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA MUL98 - 2012-10-22 3:18 PM Lots of that going on in this whole thing. PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 2:49 PM You're just making sh*t up here.Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George.  |
| 2012-10-22 3:53 PM in reply to: #4463429 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 10:13 AM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Good Lord... hundreds of people have been put to death on less evidence than this. |
| 2012-10-22 4:06 PM in reply to: #4463947 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. This would go a lot easier if you actually read what you are discussing. Hincapie testified under penalty of perjury to the Feds. Period, end of story.... felony conviction and prison time. He then testified to USADA and stuck by what he said to the Feds under penalty of perjury. That "ace in the hole" you are talking about is a felony... and prison time. GH was allowed to finish this season, and will now do a suspension under retirement. He also said he has not doped since 2006...something else LA can't say. Witnesses are given deals to testify all the time. It is a common practice. Sad thing is LA last was given the same deal. If he would have come clean, chances are he would have kept his titles...he refused. What is even more absurd is LA knew GH testified. He knew what he said. And yet he even threw his little temper tantrum and sent the email blaming USADA and everyone else except the one guy that started it all... himself. Go to any prison and listen to all the convicts blaming the cops they are sitting there. |
| 2012-10-23 8:00 AM in reply to: #4464109 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA powerman - 2012-10-22 5:06 PM PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. This would go a lot easier if you actually read what you are discussing. Hincapie testified under penalty of perjury to the Feds. Period, end of story.... felony conviction and prison time. He then testified to USADA and stuck by what he said to the Feds under penalty of perjury. That "ace in the hole" you are talking about is a felony... and prison time. GH was allowed to finish this season, and will now do a suspension under retirement. He also said he has not doped since 2006...something else LA can't say. Witnesses are given deals to testify all the time. It is a common practice. Sad thing is LA last was given the same deal. If he would have come clean, chances are he would have kept his titles...he refused. What is even more absurd is LA knew GH testified. He knew what he said. And yet he even threw his little temper tantrum and sent the email blaming USADA and everyone else except the one guy that started it all... himself. Go to any prison and listen to all the convicts blaming the cops they are sitting there. Yup, why would someone actually want to read the report and the affidavits, when it is far easier to simply burry your head in the sand and keep alleging that there is no evidence and everyone but Lance is lying. I was a HUGE L.A. supporter. I would use the "he never tested positive" defense too, then I spent a day and read the report and the affidavits...I have no question now....the evidence in my view is overwhelming...he doped. And to Philipray: Hincapie actually did explain his testimony, and there's no big conspiracy like you fear. He simply said, that previously he had never come clean with the truth because he was never subpoened to give testimony under oath before. Once he was subpoened by the DOJ to give a sworn statement under oath, facing the penalty of perjury, he wasn't going to lie, and he simply told the truth to the questions asked by the DOJ investigators. Thus, having given a prior sworn statement to the Fed's he repeated that testimony to USADA. The L.A. supporters blow off the testimony of the other riders by doing just what you've done, lumping them all together and characterizing them as drug cheats that are trying to revitalize a career. They are lumped in with Hamilton, and Landis. But the reality is that L.A. and his people have a hard time explaining Hincapie, Danielson, Vande Velde, and Leipheimer. Just read the report and the affidavits and then see what you think. I find it hard that you think that the report is flawed and a lie when you've never read it. |
| 2012-10-23 8:05 AM in reply to: #4463616 |
Champion 5312 Calgary | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA rayd - 2012-10-22 11:36 AM ChrisM - 2012-10-22 11:33 AM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 7:29 AM PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 10:04 AM Two things for me, the USADA has an 8yr statute of limitations, which it ignored in this case, making them what they are IMHO just after Lance. Second, the STANDARD to determine doping is the test!! You can not just decide that the test is no longer the standard, its your rules!! Therefore NO FAILED TESTS means exactly that! If you wont abide by your own standards and rules while accusing someone else of not abiding by the rules that makes you out to be the hypocrit you are accusing them of being! Im not saying if he did or didnt, the FACT is the Test is the STANDARD by which it is judged, without standing by that you have the lawlessness of the USADA!! EVERYONE of those guys who testfied they did it now deserve to also be banned for life, many of them FAILED the test, those who didnt now have their own words that convict them so they should be banned by that!
So if he "passed" the test because of bribing the testing official then that's OK? A "passed" test is a "passed" test, regardless of how it was "passed"? Look, I was a L.A. supporter, and I screamed the he never failed a test montra over and over. Take the time to read the report, and especially the affidavit of his team mates. He may have "passed" the tests, but it is clear, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by clear and convincing evidence, that the tests that were "passed", were "passed" as a result of a very sophisticated doping protocal that included regular blood monitoring by a team physician in order to know when to dope, and how long certain PED's would stay in the system, and also how to avoid testing(Like dropping out of a race in order to avoid the anti-doping protocals at the end of a race), how to beat testing (delaying post race tests, avoiding testers, taking EPO intervenously instead of subcutaniously, urinating just prior to tests and yes, bribery) I was a HUGE L.A. fan and supporter. But the USADA report and their evidence at least for me is overwhelming. I was also used to rely upon the statute of limitations of USADA, and scream how unfair it was. But when you read the report, and more importantly the affidavits of the riders on his team and others, there is no doubt that this was an ongoing enterprise that extended well after L.A.'s retirment, with continued efforts to hide, discredit, and intimidate those that sought to speak the truth. Including the wives of riders that were going to come forward. Read the report and form your own opinion after at least getting all the information. Read both sides, the USADA report and L.A.'s attorney's letters about the reports, and decide for yourself. But at the very least get all the information. Just jumping in here...... A test is a relevant but not necessary piece of evidence. Just as you can still be arrested for driving under the influence even wihout a positive "test". Eyewitness testimony is a valid form of evidence as well. You may or may not believe it, but some people don't believe test results either yes, you ccan be arrested...but what if your blood was tested at the police station and it came back negative? I don't think that would convict someone of a DUI. whoa, lets just keep the rationality out of it. |
| 2012-10-23 9:31 AM in reply to: #4464883 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA BigDH - 2012-10-23 9:05 AM rayd - 2012-10-22 11:36 AM whoa, lets just keep the rationality out of it.ChrisM - 2012-10-22 11:33 AM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 7:29 AM PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 10:04 AM Two things for me, the USADA has an 8yr statute of limitations, which it ignored in this case, making them what they are IMHO just after Lance. Second, the STANDARD to determine doping is the test!! You can not just decide that the test is no longer the standard, its your rules!! Therefore NO FAILED TESTS means exactly that! If you wont abide by your own standards and rules while accusing someone else of not abiding by the rules that makes you out to be the hypocrit you are accusing them of being! Im not saying if he did or didnt, the FACT is the Test is the STANDARD by which it is judged, without standing by that you have the lawlessness of the USADA!! EVERYONE of those guys who testfied they did it now deserve to also be banned for life, many of them FAILED the test, those who didnt now have their own words that convict them so they should be banned by that!
So if he "passed" the test because of bribing the testing official then that's OK? A "passed" test is a "passed" test, regardless of how it was "passed"? Look, I was a L.A. supporter, and I screamed the he never failed a test montra over and over. Take the time to read the report, and especially the affidavit of his team mates. He may have "passed" the tests, but it is clear, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by clear and convincing evidence, that the tests that were "passed", were "passed" as a result of a very sophisticated doping protocal that included regular blood monitoring by a team physician in order to know when to dope, and how long certain PED's would stay in the system, and also how to avoid testing(Like dropping out of a race in order to avoid the anti-doping protocals at the end of a race), how to beat testing (delaying post race tests, avoiding testers, taking EPO intervenously instead of subcutaniously, urinating just prior to tests and yes, bribery) I was a HUGE L.A. fan and supporter. But the USADA report and their evidence at least for me is overwhelming. I was also used to rely upon the statute of limitations of USADA, and scream how unfair it was. But when you read the report, and more importantly the affidavits of the riders on his team and others, there is no doubt that this was an ongoing enterprise that extended well after L.A.'s retirment, with continued efforts to hide, discredit, and intimidate those that sought to speak the truth. Including the wives of riders that were going to come forward. Read the report and form your own opinion after at least getting all the information. Read both sides, the USADA report and L.A.'s attorney's letters about the reports, and decide for yourself. But at the very least get all the information. Just jumping in here...... A test is a relevant but not necessary piece of evidence. Just as you can still be arrested for driving under the influence even wihout a positive "test". Eyewitness testimony is a valid form of evidence as well. You may or may not believe it, but some people don't believe test results either yes, you ccan be arrested...but what if your blood was tested at the police station and it came back negative? I don't think that would convict someone of a DUI. What if I could prove that you knew about the test beforehand and took steps to dilute your blood so that the test would be less effective? What if I could prove that you bribed the phlebotomist to alter the blood sample? What if I could prove that you used a controlled substance that was illegal but undetectable by current testing methods? I bet I could get a conviction then. |
| 2012-10-23 1:30 PM in reply to: #4463947 |
Member 81 | Subject: RE: Lance and USADA PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 9:49 AM Brock Samson - 2012-10-22 1:49 PM My thought about George is they have something BIG on him they are withholding to get his testimony, I stipulate thats just my theory, but yes GH is tough to get past if indeed no backroom deals have been made, what benefit did GH get to testify, it only brings him down, thats why it makes no sense to do it, unless they were holding an ace in the hole to force him.PhilipRay - 2012-10-22 12:13 PM My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me. Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof. Hincapie never failed a test and was never sanctioned by USADA or UCI. He was L.A.'s stalwart leutenant for all 7 TdF wins, and is widely viewed as one of the most credible guys in the pro peloton. So, how does Hincapie's testimony weigh in your mind? Not even L.A., has said anything negative about George. Article appearing in NY Times by Juliet Macur: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sports/how-armstrongs-wall-fell-one-rider-at-a-time.html?ref=cycling Go to page 2 and scroll down to where George Hincapie is referenced. He appeared voluntarily in front of federal prosecutors in August 2010 to tell them he doped. USADA is not withholding anything against the riders that testified. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK