Professional Cycling For the Fans - Lance loses a lawsuit againt USADA. Is he going down?

Wow! His lawyers suggested this move, and made money, and it cost him some money. Should he keep his riches, and capitulate?

I thought lawyers worked for free because they believed in justice for all.

I think its time for an individual mandate so all people have equal access to quality legal representation.

Wow! His lawyers suggested this move, and made money, and it cost him some money. Should he keep his riches, and capitulate?

Lance wasn't expecting to win his lawsuit. He was looking to get some good PR from the effort. He got his money's worth.

He didn't lose the lawsuit. The judge dismissed it because it was badly written, in violation of the rules. They will refile soon. Maybe they will win, probably they will lose, but it's a long way from over.

He didn't lose the lawsuit. The judge dismissed it because it was badly written, in violation of the rules. They will refile soon. Maybe they will win, probably they will lose, but it's a long way from over.

What are you talking about? The suit was thrown out because it had no merit, no re-write is going to fix that. If the case has no merit, it has no merit. The judge sounded pretty PO'd that this attention ***** was using the court system as a publicity stunt.

What are you talking about? The suit was thrown out because it had no merit, no re-write is going to fix that. If the case has no merit, it has no merit. The judge sounded pretty PO'd that this attention ***** was using the court system as a publicity stunt.

wrong. case was dismissed without prejudice. lance has 20 days to amend, otherwise case is closed permanently.

It must be a crushing blow for Armstrong. His weapons are useless -- he can't bribe, bully or intimidate a district court judge.

To add insult to injury, the judge publicly humiliated him with his strongly-worded rebuke:

“This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims”

Ouch.

wrong. case was dismissed without prejudice. lance has 20 days to amend, otherwise case is closed permanently.

Post proof or retract, because the national television media is telling a completely different story, as in ammending so that the case actually has merit?

As the judge said in released statement. This was a publicity stunt.

Post proof or retract, because the national television media is telling a completely different story, as in ammending so that the case actually has merit?

As the judge said in released statement. This was a publicity stunt.

how about you read a news article before walking in here and telling people what is up.

first google result for "lance dismissed":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sports/lance-armstrong-files-suit-to-block-doping-charges.html


The judge added that Armstrong could refile his case within 20 days, but only if he limited his pleadings to information that was legally relevant to his case.

or if you don't take their word for it, read the ****ing order:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20120709armstrongsuit/Armstrong_order.pdf

first paragraph bolded - "WITHOUT PREJUDICE"

final paragraph - IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Armstrong shall file any amended complaint within TWENTY (20) DAYS of entry of this order, or this case shall be closed and dismissed for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with this Court's orders."

He didn't lose the lawsuit. The judge dismissed it because it was badly written, in violation of the rules. They will refile soon. Maybe they will win, probably they will lose, but it's a long way from over.

If I were Lance, I'd think about getting some new lawyers. This has not helped his case at all, if he has one. I fairly sure the USADA will prevail and this will be "resolved" by CAS. It will probably never be resolved -- Lance will never admit to doping but there will always be a cloud of suspicion over his wins.

how about you read a news article before walking in here and telling people what is up.

first google result for "lance dismissed":

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sports/lance-armstrong-files-suit-to-block-doping-charges.html



or if you don't take their word for it, read the ****ing order:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20120709armstrongsuit/Armstrong_order.pdf

first paragraph bolded - "WITHOUT PREJUDICE"

final paragraph - IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Armstrong shall file any amended complaint within TWENTY (20) DAYS of entry of this order, or this case shall be closed and dismissed for failure to prosecute, and for failure to comply with this Court's orders."

Without prejudice doesn't mean he didn't waste the courts time with this case filing a case with no merit.

Maybe he should get Canseco and Bonds to join in with him. Since they have as much of a complaint as Lance.

Without prejudice doesn't mean he didn't waste the courts time with this case filing a case with no merit.

Maybe he should get Canseco and Bonds to join in with him. Since they have as much of a complaint as Lance.

failing again.

1. canseco was never charged by usada
2. bonds was never charged by usada
3. i can actually point out these facts as well as linking the order above without being a lance shill. in fact if you took the time to read my posts in the 217, i think you could easily discern on which side of the line i fall.
4. ironic - you attempting to debate the meaning of "without prejudice" while consistently making erroneous arguments and misstating facts simply to bolster your claim that lance doped/is a "TOOL".

failing again.

1. canseco was never charged by usada
2. bonds was never charged by usada
3. i can actually point out these facts as well as linking the order above without being a lance shill. in fact if you took the time to read my posts in the 217, i think you could easily discern on which side of the line i fall.
4. ironic - you attempting to debate the meaning of "without prejudice" while consistently making erroneous arguments and misstating facts simply to bolster your claim that lance doped/is a "TOOL".

He kind of reminds me of somebody, but I just can't put my finger on who.

Just a reminder that the forum guidelines (http://www.bikeforums.net/faq.php?faq=forum_guidelines) do not allow name-calling or other harassment. This is a volatile subject but it can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks.

CbadRider
Forum Moderator

Rule 8 dismissals are kind of rare. Rule 8 requires that the Complaint contain a short, plain statement of the facts. Most of the time, cases are dismissed for not having enough detail, not for having too much.

I actually plowed my way through the unsightly hairball* of a Complaint. It describes in excruciating detail Armstrong's claim that the WADA is out to get him and his claim that the process is really messed up. Too much detail, in fact. In addition, the formatting is really messed up with a super-wide left margin. IIRC, that was a "feature" of an old version of MS Word in outline mode.

Better practice would have been to make the Complaint more straightforward and put all of Armstrong's allegations about unfairness and the problems with the process in a supporting affidavit for the TRO.

*"Unsightly hairball" is a phrase used in another opinion in my District describing a big ugly overpled Complaint.

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

First, no comment on the legal issues, thankfully I have no experience.

This has been eating at me for quite a while, a common malady I assume. My simple way of looking at the situation:

Hypothesis #1: Lance starts his career as a gifted athlete, is diagnosed with cancer, beats this damn disease and in the process, builds only those attributes necessary for a world class bike rider, wins a bunch of races, is an arrogant SOB and pisses many people off (example, flag of Texas flying over THE hotel in Paris numerous times), "dances on the pedals", retires then comes back (listening Michael?), finishes off the top step, all the while being hounded, accused and always professing his innocence, beats Novitski and the US Govt, is pillared by the USADA and the fine fellows/ladies of BF.....


Hypothesis #2 Lance starts his career as a gifted athlete, is diagnosed with cancer, beats this damn disease and in the process, meets Dr. Ferrari, takes the juice, cons George, Levi, Floyd et.al., wins a bunch of races, is an arrogant SOB and pisses many people off (example, flag of Texas flying over THE hotel in Paris numerous times), "dances on the pedals", retires then comes back (listening Michael?), finishes off the top step all the while being hounded, accused and always professing his innocence, beats Novitski and the US Govt, is pillared by the USADA and the fine fellows/ladies of BF.....

If #2, hang the SOB, and the bully (I cannot recall the nickname given above to Johan, but it was perfect!).

If #1, and he is innocent...what do we do next?

Riding tomorrow.

I have no horse in this race, just love the sport, an old (65 going on 18) slow guy in NH.

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

Without a doubt, the best analysis I've read so far. Lance's guilt or non-guilt looks to be secondary to an out of control organization -- the USADA. If you're intersted in more than being a fan or basher, you need to read this article.

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

Is that the very same Outside Magazine, Mr. Armstrong told he wouldn't fight any more charges if the USADA happened to bring any against him? looks like he's lied again, he's pretty good @ lying. Didn't he claim he was "through fighting"? I believe i read that right?(someone here Im sure can clarify, Ive looked for the link, and cant find it. BUT< the new "VeloNews" even mentions it.)

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

Very interesting article.
Thanks for posting it!

First, no comment on the legal issues, thankfully I have no experience.

This has been eating at me for quite a while, a common malady I assume. My simple way of looking at the situation:

Hypothesis #1: Lance starts his career as a gifted athlete, is diagnosed with cancer, ...


Hypothesis #2 Lance starts his career as a gifted athlete, is diagnosed with cancer, b......

If #2, hang the SOB, and the bully (I cannot recall the nickname given above to Johan, but it was perfect!).The Hog,

If #1, and he is innocent...what do we do next?

Riding tomorrow.

I have no horse in this race, just love the sport, an old (65 going on 18) slow guy in NH.

Personally, I give about a 50% chance that he'll follow Ferrari's lead and not respond to the USADA. It allows those who want to believe still believe without ever admitting to anything, and avoids a lot of negative press, some of it presumably by what Hincapie would be expected to say. Hincapie - would even George be subjected to the "he's just jealous and has a book deal coming" treatment? Let's hope we don't get to find out.

He kind of reminds me of somebody, but I just can't put my finger on who.

Ah, now I remember.

If Lance's lawyers can write a correct complaint it will all move forward and might even make it to the supreme court. I did find it ironic that the judge went to great lengths to scold Lance for being overly wordy and irrelevant.

Is that the very same Outside Magazine, Mr. Armstrong told he wouldn't fight any more charges if the USADA happened to bring any against him? looks like he's lied again, he's pretty good @ lying. Didn't he claim he was "through fighting"? I believe i read that right?(someone here Im sure can clarify, Ive looked for the link, and cant find it. BUT< the new "VeloNews" even mentions it.)
You make Lance sound like a typical politician running for office.

Did you bother to read the article I linked or just post a rant when you saw "Outside Magazine"? Based on your postings, I think you will find some things in there you will happily agree with. Other things you probably won't. But the article presents a clearer view of things than worrying about whether LA "lied" or "changed his mind" about being "through fighting".

and it has been refiled. 25 pages now.

I say: Just drop it... Going after Lance accomplishes nothing: It does not do anybody any good. It hurts the sport rather than improves it.

Instead of persuing an old vendetta, they should be seeking to clean up the sport TODAY.

So, perhaps this attack on Lance is simply a way to make it appear that they are cleaning things up without actually having to do anything worthwhile?

So, perhaps this attack on Lance is simply a way to make it appear that they are cleaning things up without actually having to do anything worthwhile?

Bingo.
Just as the TSA squanders resources in "security theater" to pretend they are making us safer, USADA in engaging in "anti-doping theater" to pretend they are doing something about doping in sports.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater

and it has been refiled. 25 pages now.

Of course it was refiled. It was probably edited and set for distribution days ago. Sending that mess of a complaint was likely done with intent. If you get the right judge then it can work in your favor to have all the fluff and allegation. If not, you have the real complaint ready to go for a refile. It's really not that unusual. It's a bit of fishing trip in a sense if anything.

That was a good article that another poster linked a few posts above. It's definitely a logical angle to go after USADA, if what the author describes is applicable then this could ultimately blow up in USADA's face in a very embarrassing way.

This investigation does not hurt cycling. Why is that always a defense? How does it hurt cycling exactly? I just wish they would let them do what they are doing and let the best man win, but if there were no control it would come down to steroid monsters winning.

This investigation does not hurt cycling. Why is that always a defense? How does it hurt cycling exactly? I just wish they would let them do what they are doing and let the best man win, but if there were no control it would come down to steroid monsters winning.

and your kid taking stuff as a 4 to compete with 3s who want to compete with the 2s who want to compete with the 1s who are trying to compete with the domestic pros who are trying to get to europe to race with the guys we're letting take whatever they want.

the universe, as much as we'd like to close our eyes and pretend it is, isn't binary.

That's why I made the point the investigation is not hurting cycling. There has to be oversight, or some fear of getting caught.

Are they testing cat 4 riders? I doubt the L/A investigation will have much impact on them. I go to a gym to lift weights and half of the guys in there are on test, and or clen during the Summer, and they compete at nothing.


and your kid taking stuff as a 4 to compete with 3s who want to compete with the 2s who want to compete with the 1s who are trying to compete with the domestic pros who are trying to get to europe to race with the guys we're letting take whatever they want.

the universe, as much as we'd like to close our eyes and pretend it is, isn't binary.

I was expanding upon your point, not debating it.

But guys get caught on all levels. And if you remove the upper level guys cheating it reduces the impetus for lower level guys to cheat. Yes, someone will always try and break the rules. But unless some effort is made the whole thing might as well be shut down.

I was expanding upon your point, not debating it.

But guys get caught on all levels. And if you remove the upper level guys cheating it reduces the impetus for lower level guys to cheat. Yes, someone will always try and break the rules. But unless some effort is made the whole thing might as well be shut dow, n.

Yup! If we let all continue the way it is/was, then we might all as well pack it in. It is almost the same argument about legalizing drugs, as some people say. Drug use is victimless, they say, and legalization will remove the profit motive and the violence. Well, I really don't want to live in a society where pregnant mothers-to-be are hooked on drugs, with their unborn babies already hooked. I have seen many times in Europe (Holland in particular) what a mess a permissible drug culture can be. I have never been in that country without seeing somebody strung out on drugs in the train ot trams. And I have seen strung out pregnant women twice.

Well, I really don't want to live in a society where pregnant mothers-to-be are hooked on drugs, with their unborn babies already hooked. I have seen many times in Europe (Holland in particular) what a mess a permissible drug culture can be. I have never been in that country without seeing somebody strung out on drugs in the train ot trams. And I have seen strung out pregnant women twice.
Good thing those drugs are illegal here, and we never have to see pregnant
mothers-to-be hooked on drugs. Now if we could just make alcohol illegal. :thumb:

I say: Just drop it... Going after Lance accomplishes nothing: It does not do anybody any good. It hurts the sport rather than improves it.

Instead of persuing an old vendetta, they should be seeking to clean up the sport TODAY.

So, perhaps this attack on Lance is simply a way to make it appear that they are cleaning things up without actually having to do anything worthwhile?
I bought a 99 tour dvd because I believed it was as represented. If he doped, then it was not as represented and I have beed defrauded.
Me. Personally. It's only a couple of bucks, but that's just a discussion about price.

I don't want my money back, but other people, who may have been defraded out of $5,000,000 or so will doubtless have different opinions.

I want the next doctor, DS, and set of riders to think twice before trying to rip people off.
Chase him down like he's Simeoni, if they have the means to do so. It's why they (ADA) exist. If they reneg on their duty they're the same kind of fraud as the dopers.

I bought a 99 tour dvd because I believed it was as represented. If he doped, then it was not as represented and I have beed defrauded.



When you purchased the DVD, was there a label anywhere that claimed none of the participants were using banned substances ?

When did you purchase this DVD ?

At the time you purchased this DVD were you aware of any doping allegations in pro cycling ?

When you purchased the DVD, was there a label anywhere that claimed none of the participants were using banned substances ?

When did you purchase this DVD ?

At the time you purchased this DVD were you aware of any doping allegations in pro cycling ?

What a really strange post.

Who really cares?
Move on . . .

who really cares?
Move on . . .

^^^this^^^

Good thing those drugs are illegal here, and we never have to see pregnant
mothers-to-be hooked on drugs. Now if we could just make alcohol illegal. :thumb:

I hope you are not been sarcastic. And if you are, that's okay. Seeing a pregnant woman strung out on drugs is one of the most depressing sights ever. That image stays with you for a long time, and whenever you remember that sight, you can't help but think "I wonder what happened to that baby/child".

Sorry about that wasn't paying attention.


I was expanding upon your point, not debating it.

But guys get caught on all levels. And if you remove the upper level guys cheating it reduces the impetus for lower level guys to cheat. Yes, someone will always try and break the rules. But unless some effort is made the whole thing might as well be shut down.

I hope you are not been sarcastic. And if you are, that's okay. Seeing a pregnant woman strung out on drugs is one of the most depressing sights ever. That image stays with you for a long time, and whenever you remember that sight, you can't help but think "I wonder what happened to that baby/child".
Oh, you got me.
I was being sarcastic.

Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting article.

USADA seems to be running amok. USADA believe they have jurisdiction over drug testing in major league baseball, or the NBA? That would come as news to those sports, I'd bet. Let USADA announce an investigation into the most recent NBA title-winner, with the declared possibility of "stripping" them of their title, and they might find not everyone agrees on their self-declared powers.

Armstrong's situation is very interesting to me, but I can't say, even after reading that article and some other materials, that I understand exactly what is going on. I am not going to read the entirety of the international agreements that are implicated by the case. However, one thing I am confident of is that USADA cannot possibly have the de jure authority to take Armstrong's Tour of France titles away. Those titles are from a professional race without Olympic implications in a foreign country. So, the idea must be that UCI, or the TdF Organization, or both, are committed in virtue of various international agreements to disqualify Armstrong if USADA tells them Armstrong doped.

I don't know what to make of Armstrong's case under American law. It occurs to me, though, that UCI and the Tour Organization may not agree with USADA as to their obligations. I think this is not by any means just a theoretical possibility.

If Armstrong were disqualified from Tours 99-05, the Tour would be in the absurd position of having all but three or four of its actual races overturned going back fourteen years to 1998. (I'm counting the year with Rasmussen here as an overturning, which, in effect, it was.) How could UCI or the Tour possibly want this result? I'm sure the Tour feels its reputation has been sullied enough by the suggestion of doping, and it probably sees the race has having finally turned a corner on that public relations problem. I doubt UCI or the Tour would want to do anything like overturn further races, much less overturn nearly every remaining result for the last fourteen years, just because USADA says it believes that is what has to be done. Especially considering that USADA findings would not be based on any failed drug tests, it's hard to see European organizations just agreeing to blow up a substantial period of the Tour's official history.

Just a thought.

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting article.

USADA seems to be running amok. USADA believe they have jurisdiction over drug testing in major league baseball, or the NBA? That would come as news to those sports, I'd bet. Let USADA announce an investigation into the most recent NBA title-winner, with the declared possibility of "stripping" them of their title, and they might find not everyone agrees on their self-declared powers.

Armstrong's situation is very interesting to me, but I can't say, even after reading that article and some other materials, that I understand exactly what is going on. I am not going to read the entirety of the international agreements that are implicated by the case. However, one thing I am confident of is that USADA cannot possibly have the de jure authority to take Armstrong's Tour of France titles away. Those titles are from a professional race without Olympic implications in a foreign country. So, the idea must be that UCI, or the TdF Organization, or both, are committed in virtue of various international agreements to disqualify Armstrong if USADA tells them Armstrong doped.

I don't know what to make of Armstrong's case under American law. It occurs to me, though, that UCI and the Tour Organization may not agree with USADA as to their obligations. I think this is not by any means just a theoretical possibility.

If Armstrong were disqualified from Tours 99-05, the Tour would be in the absurd position of having all but three or four of its actual races overturned going back fourteen years to 1998. (I'm counting the year with Rasmussen here as an overturning, which, in effect, it was.) How could UCI or the Tour possibly want this result? I'm sure the Tour feels its reputation has been sullied enough by the suggestion of doping, and it probably sees the race has having finally turned a corner on that public relations problem. I doubt UCI or the Tour would want to do anything like overturn further races, much less overturn nearly every remaining result for the last fourteen years, just because USADA says it believes that is what has to be done. Especially considering that USADA findings would not be based on any failed drug tests, it's hard to see European organizations just agreeing to blow up a substantial period of the Tour's official history.

Just a thought.
I'm confused, how bout you? Why did the USADA decide now after the GJ cleared L (2 year investigation) to go after him? Maybe the USADA should go after all others especially Eddie M? Even arrest him as he gives an award to some future cyclist? Don't get me wrong. I'm totally against all doping in all sports from high school up, and I love cycling's heros but this has got to end. Why would anyone even tho they are clean want to subject themselves and their families to what has happened and is continually happening to L and his family?
Like it or not, facts is facts. Is he the most tested cyclist ever? YES as he probably should be after 7 consecutive wins. Has he tested clean? YES or the USADA has problems bigger than L. If it doesn't fit you must equit................. Water board him and everyone that ever raced against him and you will get what ever you tell them you want to hear. Break knuckles cut fingers off, batteries with jumper cables... OK to much TV but my point is, facts is facts and we must put a stop to this madness and move on. Test, get results make a call based on results and move on. At this rate we wont know who wins this Tour for another 14 years or so. After all Wiggo has really suddennly improved?????????????? Personally, I think he is clean, just making a point.

Like it or not, facts is facts. Is he the most tested cyclist ever? YES as he probably should be after 7 consecutive wins. Has he tested clean? YES or the USADA has problems bigger than L.

Some are not finding those claims to be verifiable (http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/).

I hope you are not been sarcastic. And if you are, that's okay. Seeing a pregnant woman strung out on drugs is one of the most depressing sights ever. That image stays with you for a long time, and whenever you remember that sight, you can't help but think "I wonder what happened to that baby/child".

He was being sarcastic & he beat me to it. There are plenty of strung out mothers (pregnant & post-pregnancy) in the US where there are laws prohibiting certain drug use. I witnessed on of them take her last breath after being shot in front of her house where she routinely sold crack. There are also plenty of strung out doctors & nurses who are self medicating. The anethesiologist who put Reagan under when he had that little spot removed from his nose, was high on demerol quite often, even when flying on Air Force One. Just because there is a law prohibiting its use, doesn't mean it's not being used. Prohibition didn't stop the use of alcohol. The users just hide their use more often! You obviously stay away from the seedy areas in the US & maybe hospitals:p Now that we are totally off topic........

He was being sarcastic &........
:p Now that we are totally off topic........

Let's get back on it, shall we?

...

I'm not going to get in an argument in this silly thread, and I say this with all due respect to you: virtually everthing in your post is simply factually incorrect, largely because of the way cycling and WADA is organized at an international level.

If you want to read further, check the cyclingnews.com articles on the situation, the lawyer's column at Red Kite Prayer, the WADA website, and the Inner Ring blog for more.

Let's get back on it, shall we?

Walter, I wasn't the one bringing up pregnant mums using illegal drugs for non-cycling purposes:rolleyes:

I'm confused, how bout you? Why did the USADA decide now after the GJ cleared L (2 year investigation) to go after him?

You're not confused, you're ignorant. They're not the same thing. The grand jury did not clear anyone. They did not even refuse to return a true bill. The prosecuter chose to withdraw the charges without explanation. You also seem to be unaware that the the charter for the grand jury and USADA are entirely diffferent. The grand jury was charged with deciding if there was cause to bring charges that any U.S. criminal laws had been violated. USADA's charter has them pursuing violations of the WADA code. As to why USADA decided to pursue this case now, given the volume of evidence and number of witnesses, it's certain this investigation has been going on for some time. They didn't just decide to initiate the action now.

I'd say the rest of the post has about the same level of accuracy, but you should know the most tested athlete canard spouted by the Armstrong camp has been thoroughly debunked. Lance Armstrong isn't even the most tested cyclist named Armstrong.