This ^^, absolutely…

Has to be a very, very good day for cycling – in the long term.

Painful in the short term, for sure, but a good time to say “out with the old”

ETA, Froome has said nothing specific about LA. Deliberately vague, IMO. Bad day for cycling, because of the bad press; or bad day for cycling because of the way LA treated ? He just doesn’t say ( in that quote)

hora: What do you take away from LA’s decision not to go to arbitration? Do you take this at “face value”, ie fed up with the sniping and hassle / witch hunt?

Bear in mind that this decision would have been poured over from every angle by a very senior legal team… Each option would have been examined minutely for the various legal and reputational / PR ramifications.

Totally agree. Totally. However there will be another accuser next year, libel comment year after..
Saying this he stopped knowing he’d lose everything. What was the worsecase scenario that he was facing if he had gone to arbitration?

Progressively worse worst cases…
Disgrace, loss of titles
Bankruptcy, handing back winnings, claims from sponsors
Jail – he owns up and the FBI step in again re US Postal and public money.

To me, this is why his legal team CANNOT sanction any public admission, and Lance does not want evidence made public.

You mention future libel claims – I thought he had stopped threatening libel a few years ago, again suggesting a less than strong position…

Cheers – prob do Derwen with the kids tomz

Except that, anyone who didn’t either failed or was run out of town 👿

FFS, go read some of the statements…. LA’s, USADA, WADA, UCI etc.

Then judge LA’s assertion of a witch hunt on the basis of a wider set of perspectives! The spin machine has obviously been effective

He’s been desperately trying to suppress the evidence, with the injunction case. Going to arbitration would have exposed the evidence to public scrutiny. Owning up would bring the roof down around him ( Feds, public money etc). This choice was carefully calculated – why wouldnt it have been.

Edric, nothing to do with UCI? USADA have ruled him inellegible to compete, as of Aug 1998

trail rat – he has been stripped, simple. That is what the jurisdiction lawsuit was about. USADA has the authority in the US. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t award the titles / jerseys, because USADA have removed his elegibility to compete after Aug 1998.

Edric 64 – Member
The UCI have not stripped him of anything yet the US drug agency have no right to strip titles outside of their jurisdiction
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST

You appear to be a little behind the news???

He HAS been stripped…

If you are correct, then please tell USADA, WADA, Congress and the federal judge…

baggsy Lance’s stripped victories

Anyone claimed Sheryl Crow yet???

😉
.
.
..
yes, I know, she’s an ex… 🙄

Have been thinking about selling the AnthemX

making poorly supported accusations

So, do we really think, that in the most litiginous country in the world…

…that an organisation would start proceedings against a famous, well connected, vociferous individual, known for immediately resorting to legal action…

… without making sure that their case stacked up first…

USADA now have a full statement

]USADA Statement[/url]

It is unfamilar for us Brits, but I thought plea bargaining was common in the US?

(in criminal cases anyway)

wow, this is going to get very messy…

Whilst UCI remain silent, WADA has waded in
WADA boss man

Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France titles should be “obliterated” following his decision not to contest the doping charges against him.

World Anti-Doping Agency chief John Fahey says Armstrong’s refusal to fight on means the allegations have “substance”.

Fahey said: “He had the right to rip up those charges but elected not to.

“Therefore the only interpretation in these circumstances is that there was substance in those charges.”

Fahey added: “My understanding is that when the evidence is based upon a career that included seven Tour de France wins, then all of that becomes obliterated.”

ETA – I wonder if he had rehearsed the “substance” pun

One of the earlier posts linked to the Gaurdian blog…

This bit applies to all, whether they be rider from the LA era, or Wiggins / Evans / Frome / Nibali etc…

The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world’s top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.

The moral of the story is that if a cyclist looks too good to be true, then he probably is. But if a cyclist looks too good to be true and has an entourage of lawyers, press flaks, doctors and bodyguards, then he definitely is.

At the moment, Wiggo for example, still shows the sort of humility that suggests his words and actions are consistent…

So…. Wiggins gets a TdF 2009 podium ?

Worst job in the world today…finding a winner for all of Lances TDF victories

UCI has to put it’s head above the parapet at some stage?

USADA might be able to strip LA – he’s one of “their” althletes, but only UCI would be able to award to another?

Oh dear, the Yanks do like to get wound up…

I wonder if they realize that, by the way this all went down with Armstrong finally just giving up knowing he couldn’t win a fight this rigged, that they just made him a martyr. Better yet, he’s a present-day Robin Hood. If the USADA is the “Sheriff of Nottingham,” then Armstrong is certainly the hero of the masses.

Interview on R4 this am – woman from the UK doping body and a Gaurdian or Telegraph (?) journo.

They were saying that the USADA jurisdiction was beyond doubt, as the US judge, er, judged. It is to do with him coming out of retirement.

In the time after he retired, most countries signed up to WADA, vesting jurisdiction to the National Govt, then delegated through their own ADA. That’s why Judge Sparks mentioned that USADA had jurisdiction via US Congress.

So, by re-entering competitive sport, LA, signed up to these new arrangements

Pigface, re the banker analogy – I get your rejection of my analogy, and it was deliberatly tenuous…

… but a leading sports star these days makes a huge amount of money out of their success. Look at the fuss over Bolt and his sponsorhip vs UK tax liability.

If that success was based on a fraud, then the whole thing comes in to doubt. The commercial sponsors have had their showing, paid their money, but probably going to be reluctant to be associated with cycling in future – witness T-Mobile, that even had a knock on to Mountain Mayhem). But what about public money? US Postal – the basis of the FBI investigation?

druidh – can’t speak for medical testing, but there will always be some variance in the results obtained from a lab analysis. If A and B are both positive, then its a reasonable assumption that concentrations were above any limit. If A = positive and B = negative, you probably want to look at sample handling, lab protocols, or just accept that the result is very close to the limit – maybe, too close to call

deviant – contamination is one issue, but that might have happened at the time of collection: A / B split wont shed any light on that, but would show up any subsequient tampering

Deviant – I agree with that. He hasn’t “tested positive” – those tests were not part of any doping control. He hasn’t been caught. The results have no standing in sport.

BUT, they do show syn EPO in his samples. They retrospectively show that he evaded detection, avoided being caught – but they are a strong indicator that he was using EPO.

Considered with any testimony, that provides a very strong case to be answered. He has chosen not to answer that in public.

JY – he has to maintain that line though, doesn’t he.

As soon as he lets a chink appear, he will be in the clink.

If he owns up / doesn’t maintain his non-doping stance, then the Feds will be under pressure to re-open the misuse of public money investigations again…

… which of course, may happen anyway.

Pigface, as I posted yesterday… you wouldn’t say to a banker who had skimmed off millions through a fiddle – ahh well, it was 10 years ago

ETA

Lance is still a far more awesome cyclist than anyone on this thread.

You haven’t seen me go, on a good dose of EPO.

and that is the whole point…

Solo – that is right.

hora wont say whether he has read the Ashenden interview…

My read of it was that Ashenden was working with UCI and the testing laboratory to develop and approve a test for synthetic EPO.

The test was ready for “live”, but they wanted to validate it by looking at previous samples where EPO could have been used (ie was suspected to be in use) and therefore might be present in samples – in order to “test the test”.

’99 Tour was chosen, and a bunch of samples showed synthetic EPO. Neither the lab nor Ashenden knew who the samples came from.

It is a sad day for the sport, not because LA has been accused / found out, but because he was part of it in the first place

ETA – too tall / crazy legs – kind of see your point if LA had retired into obscurity. His aggressive legal pursuit of anyone tarnishing his rep is aprt of this debate, like it or not.

The way this has p[layed out over the last month??? Challenge in the US courts? Question of jurisdiction?

I fully believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, but that does depends on:
a) No case to hear, or
b) test the evidence in court / public arena

If LA was always clean, surely his response would be to say come on then, try your best. He has used his very considerable influence to suppress evidence at every stage over this sorry saga

Flippin’ eck

He really did not want the shaming of evidence heard in court

Link

I can’t think of any forum, anywhere that removes all of a users posts if their account is closed, for whatever reason?

IIRC that’s what happened on mtb-wales???

There was a spate of bannings – accounts were deleted and all posts by a banned user disappeared. There were a lot of very, very odd threads

One jet sadly left out was the awesome Blackburn Buccaneer. I was trying to find some incredible BBC tv footage of the Buccs weeing in the Yanks shoes at the Red Flag challenges at Nellis AFB, Nevada in the late 70’s. I remember it vividly, with the Americans astonished voices over the intercom.

I remember that coverage on the BBC news…!

Oh- so they have guilty samples now ready to go?

Eehhh???

My question was a follow up to your comment. You used the term “cheats testimony”.

I was asking whether you regarded an accredited analytical laboratory as being within that category – ie “cheats testimony”.

The sample results they have produced are just that, sample results. A series of chemical concentrations against a sample number. To me, those lab results are “facts”…

(I’m going to go on the other thread and ask for a [TROLL] Button)

You mean French Journalists, homebrew website conspirasists and cheating cyclists who had been caught who wanted to say ‘hey its just not me-please blame everyone else as well’?

Why would you trust a cheats testimony? Its tainted.

I’m not sure that I follow this line – presumably we are back on the “evidence” relating to LA?

Where does the testing laboratory sit amongst your “cheats testimony”. Presumably you do accept the results of their analyses?

The past is the past. If you’re not caught red handed then tough

Utter nonsense, sorry.

Consider the parallels…

Following the event, a regulatory authority sets up an investigation into “cheating” by a small group of people in a position to use their influence and cover their tracks…

So, looking back from 2012, do we think it is OK, “in the past”, that selected staff in certain banks were manipulating data used for rate setting?

Or do we believe that they should be thoroughly investigated and any criminal wrong doing should be prosecuted?

ETA –

There will be no winners. The biggest loser will be the sport itself.

And does the sport not lose if this inconvenient problem is “disappeared”

Ashenden urges UCI to assist USADA

You mean it fitted your view

Was that aimed at me???

If so, not really, not regarding LA specifically.

It certainly fitted my view of how different lines of scientific evidence should be drawn together and professionally interpreted. The approach and language is both familiar and effective.

I don’t think hora is “wrong”, he is as entitled to his opinions as anyone else.

I would like to know his views on the ashenden interview – as posted above ^, not to rub his nose in it, but because I found it to be a very balanced and well reasoned piece. Those materials that were factual were identified as such, those parts that were speculation / deduction / professional opinion (and therefore open to interpretation) were also identifed as such.

No wild claims were made by Ashenden one way or the other, no hyperbole, rhetoric or hang ’em high type approach (he was actually VERY sympathetic towards the peloton in general and the pressures they would all be under).

The piece was exactly what I would expect from a practising scientific expert witness, and that to me, adds to it’s credibility.

hora – have you read the interview?

I am a scientist. My day job involves managing a team that collects samples for laboratory analysis. We then interpret the results, using our scientific knowledge and professional opinion.

If you want FACT, as in a completely unequivocal, black and white, yes he did / no he didn’t, then you will be disappointed. No scientific data / expert witness evidence works that way.

Laboratory data will provide concentrations of various chemicals – in this case we are talking about synthetic EPO, but it could be anything. On one level, that concentration is a “fact”, but what it means is reliant on the interpretation provided by an expert witness.

You will see the same in any criminal trial where forensic evidence is used.

JY – It’s a long article, took me best part of a day to go through it all.

I’m sure that hora is working his way through it 😉

hora – I’m not in any way mocking here – I really would like to know whether you think Ashenden is out of line or whether you think he makes a level headed argument. From a fan’s perspective, do you think he is being reasonable? I can accept that you may want to qualify comments with words such as “unsubstantiated” etc.

but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky.

No different, really.
If Wiggins gets exposed as a doper then he will deserve to have his reputation and achievements tarnished – and like LA / USPS doubly so for talking the talk on racing clean.

Interesting that Ashenden’s comments suggest that the 99 TdF peloton might have been largely “clean”

I’m glad you lot don’t work as judges, JP’s or Magistrates…

Why is that? Presumably you are commenting on the strength of the evidence?

For a (UK) criminal prosecution the “beyond reasonable doubt” test may not be likely to be satisfied by what is in the public domain. Scientific evidence rarely meets this test (IMO), as it generally comprises some “facts” that then require expert witness “interpretation”.

On the other hand, where do you think that same evidence stands regarding a civil case – a “balance of probabilities” test of 51:49??

“two men think they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong, now they’re both gone”

I posted up a day or two ago that he has an abrasive character.

His character/ability to make friends and alienate people has nothing to do with ‘has he failed a drugs test in the past decade does it.

Agreed. Very interested in your views on how Ashenden presents his views though? Does Ashenden come across to you as a “stirrer” / trouble maker, or does his article seem thoughtful and considered?