USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

Ghost234
Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:21 am

by Ghost234

HammerTime2 wrote:You left out some juicy stuff. Public hearing of Bruyneel USADA case - that could be interesting. And if Armstrong testifies ...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tygart- ... estigation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; wrote:Tygart also revealed that Armstrong could be called to testify in the case against Johan Bruyneel, his former team manager still in charge of the RadioShack-Nissan squad. Facing important doping allegations, the Belgian has chosen to turn to USADA's Anti-Doping Review Board and be heard before the panel in the next couple of months.

"I don't know what Bruyneel is hoping for, he has everything to lose," Tygart continued. "He will be heard before the end of the year, and the hearing will be public. Lance Armstrong could be heard as a witness in this case, by the way. He would have to testify under oath, like the others. If there's perjury, it's serious..."



Actually, could they charge him with perjury? He is guilty in the eyes of the USADA, but not the US law. A good lawyer could make that distinction and make the charges dropped.

artray
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm

by artray

If Bruyneel decides to answer the charges there is no way he will hurt Armstrong. If Bruyneel does fight he will go in with some kind ammo to fire back.

by Weenie


User avatar
J-Nice
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:35 am

by J-Nice

The USADA has pushed back the initial date of the handing over of their reasoned decision to the UCI from this week to "no later than October 15th".

Afterwards the UCI will have 21 days to respond, and you better bet they'll take every second to do so. Such is life in a bureaucracy.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/ ... ile_240019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by J-Nice on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Check out the latest controversies in sport-

http://berzin.blogspot.com/

User avatar
swinter
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

by swinter

Ghost234 wrote:
HammerTime2 wrote:Tygart continued. "He will be heard before the end of the year, and the hearing will be public. Lance Armstrong could be heard as a witness in this case, by the way. He would have to testify under oath, like the others. If there's perjury, it's serious..."

Actually, could they charge him with perjury? He is guilty in the eyes of the USADA, but not the US law. A good lawyer could make that distinction and make the charges dropped.

:noidea:
I think Tygart was saying that Armstrong would be called to testify under oath at a Bruyneel hearing and that, if Armstrong lied in that context, he could be charged with perjury.

All of which has nothing to do with "innocent until proven guilty."

USADA has evidence which shows these people directly involved in doping. If a witness gets on the stand and testifies under oath that he never used or saw any drugs and the prosecution can directly implicate them in drug use or direct involvement in trafficking, then the witness can be prosecuted for deliberately lying under oath. Of course, in the perjury trial, the presumption of innocence would apply. But that just means that the prosecution would have to prove its case.

Think about it: No prosecutor should bring a charge against someone unless he or she has a good faith belief in their culpability -- and the evidence to back it up.
Last edited by swinter on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

J-Nice wrote:The USADA has pushed back the initial date of the handing over of their reasoned decision to the UCI from this week to "no later than October 15th"-



Guns'n'Roses started to work on their "Chinese Democracy" album circa 1994…
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
swinter
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI

by swinter

tymon_tm wrote:Guns'n'Roses started to work on their "Chinese Democracy" album circa 1994…

. . . and we're still waiting for Chinese democracy! :unbelievable:
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2001
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

tymon_tm wrote:
Guns'n'Roses started to work on their "Chinese Democracy" album circa 1994…

The first 4 tracks have all been disqualified because they were played while on PEDs.

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5423
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

J-Nice wrote:The USADA has pushed back the initial date of the handing over of their reasoned decision to the UCI from this week to "no later than October 15th".
...
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/ ... ile_240019
USADA has provided themselves some wiggle room.
In http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/ ... ile_240019 , Annie Skinner wrote:We expect it to be sent no later than October 15.
It could turn put to be later than they "expect".

artray
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm

by artray

The first 4 tracks have all been disqualified because they were played while on PEDs
There is no way Buckethead doped on any of his guitar solos . He's a KFC man .

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

i eat a lot of chicken too... with all this hormones and stuff in their fodder i guess i might find it difficult to pass a doping test. the more i think about it the more i see how Bertie indeed might had been exposed to a meat from a cow on PEDs..
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
djconnel
Posts: 7926
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

by djconnel

More relevant lesson from Bertie is don't piss off LANCE.

worstshotever
Posts: 573
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:07 pm

by worstshotever

bikewithnoname wrote:Did the USADA get to see/use the DOJ evidence that was collated before some random senator/govenor closed the case unilaterally?

Quite why a politician should have any power over a criminal investigation is beyond me. Although I guess it's worked for Berlusconi for a long time now!


Just to be clear, the DOJ matter was being supervised by the US Attorney's Office in the Central District of California. The head of that office, who serves at the pleasure of the President, is the US Attorney for that judicial District. It was he who decided to decline to prosecute, not a Member of Congress or the state's governor. Nor does he answer to anyone other than the Attorney General or the President.

Doesn't make his decision to shut the book defensible, but there is no evidence that he was compelled to do so by political pressures. (As an aside, it isn't hard to imagine a plausible motive unrelated to political pressures -- consider how well the recent prosecution of Clemens went for the government, the difficulty of selecting a jury, and the need to shoehorn a PED case to fit a mail/wire fraud conspiracy or RICO criminal theory.)

As to the other question -- information sharing -- it is possible that the FDA and the FBI provided their witness interview summaries to the USADA or information obtained from non-compulsory sources, although the FBI, at least, is rarely willing to provide that sort of information to non-law enforcement agencies like USADA. That said, the grand jury secrecy rule prevents them from sharing grand jury materials, either transcripts or subpoenaed records, to a body like the USADA there is no exception to the rule that would apply to arbitration proceedings such as this.

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the FDA and FBI agents who participated in the DOJ investigation will monitor the arbitration, and if indeed a sworn statement is taken that directly contradicts a material aspect of the grand jury testimony of that same witness, I would not doubt that the agents will ask the US Attorney's Office to take a further look. But if the US Attorney lacked the will to bring the substantive case, then a derivative case based on perjury, obstruction, or false statements charges designed to vindicate the uncharged substantive case would be even less appealing to that US Attorney, I would imagine. Regardless, the witnesses will know what they said to the GJ, and consequently will be careful not to stray too far from that prior testimony.

Who knows. This is all total hypothetical nothing until the USADA produces its report and events begin to unfold.

artray
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm

by artray

tymon_tm "I eat a lot of chicken too... with all this hormones and stuff in their fodder I guess i might find it difficult to pass a doping test. the more I think about it the more I see how Bertie indeed might had been exposed to a meat from a cow on PEDs.."

Do you think they will start testing for KFC :lol:

User avatar
elviento
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry
Contact:

by elviento

A little off-topic, but many Chinese national team members (for various events) can't eat meat for fear of tripping doping tests, but they just can't properly function purely on vegetables. So in some parts of the world the risk is way more than real that food engineering may have far greater impact on human life than some spandex clad skinny dudes pedaling uphill having more of his own blood or something intended for the mother-in-law slipped in...
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2246
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

i'd even go that far to claim this food engineering thing has greater impact on human health than taking PEDs or other forms of doping.
allmost everything we eat is somewhat artificial. maybe some of you are familiar with a French film L'Aile ou la Cuisse with Louise de Funes. it's a comedy about a gastronomy expert that faces the company producing 'plastic' food. turns out, some 30 years after the movie was made, we're not that far from said company's production methods. as i've read and heard, in some cases, especially involving high temperatures, the food structure turns into an uneatable form of plastic, that our body doesn't digest. think of french fries for example. we eat that stuff every single day, while athletes take doping for like a decade? we talk about negative impact of doping over a plate of fake meat and laboratory- grown potatos...
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

by Weenie


Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post