Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    WADA Urges Feds To Turn Over All Evidence On Armstrong

    Looks like he might not be completely out of hot water yet. WADA is urging the feds to turn over "significant evidence (proof)" about Armstrong doping. I cant post the link/article, as Im posting from my phone. However, it is posted on the front page of yahoo, so someone can post it here, if they wouldnt mind?

  2. #2
    Junior Member Bucko Mi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks alot, Interesting read.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Giacomo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Queens NYC
    Posts
    1,711
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve View Post
    WADA is urging the feds to turn over "significant evidence (proof)" about Armstrong doping.
    The word "proof" doesn't show-up anywhere in the article after "significant evidence".

    If there were proof, the criminal case would not have been dropped.

    Not very objective of you to add that word...
    Colnago Super
    Basso Gap
    Fabio Barecci
    Miyata 1400A

    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
    ~
    John F. Kennedy, Former U.S. President

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Significant Evidence=proof

    Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?
    Last edited by LemondFanForeve; 02-07-12 at 11:12 AM.

  6. #6
    Coffee Stud
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    My Bikes
    Fuji ALOHA TT, Diamondback Response MTB, Nashbar Road Bike, Marin MTB,
    Posts
    99
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    How I read it......

    "Significant Evidence" A large amount of material about doping in the cycling community. NOT necessarily about Armstrong.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    610
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Guaranteed this goes nowhere.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Giacomo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Queens NYC
    Posts
    1,711
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve View Post
    Significant Evidence=proof

    Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?
    It matters very much that the charges were dropped. The "significant evidence" didn't lead to "proof" of guilt, or "prove" him guilty. If the evidence were that conclusive, the criminal charges would not have been dropped. DA's are suckers for publicity and any DA would love to have a Lance Armstrong conviction on their resumes.
    Colnago Super
    Basso Gap
    Fabio Barecci
    Miyata 1400A

    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
    ~
    John F. Kennedy, Former U.S. President

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Haunchyville
    Posts
    5,862
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

    It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    138
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This whole thing needs to just end, no sense in tarnishing a man with circumstancial evidence aquired by known dopers and cheats. Has there ever been a single person actually clean making these claims?

    I think theres enough proof out there that age 37 he could still finish on the podium against a "known" doper, that hes clean and always has been.

    What I'm fearful for is that this crap is going to be still going on 5 years from now trying to prove or disprove things from 15 years ago. With that being said, if they didn't strip Riis of the 1996 Tour de France in which HE OPENLY ADMITTED to doping, then you shouldnt strip anyone else without real evidence, not just the opinions of known liars. Really if you can't find that evidence within a year or two then the whole thing needs to closed and final, because if you can't find enough evidence within that amount of time then it's probably not legit in the first place.

  11. #11
    Senior Member kleinboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,602
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm going to laugh up my lunch if the WADA charges the people who testified.

  12. #12
    Senior Member telebianchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    My Bikes
    2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 2003 Fuji Cross, 2010 Giant Trance, 2006 K2 Mod 4.0, 2010 Schwinn Madison
    Posts
    1,225
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My two thoughts:

    (1) Aren't there rules & laws restricting what information can be released out of a grand jury investigation if an indictment is not made?

    (2) While I don't doubt that there are people in WADA who would be interested in evidence against Lance Armstrong, based on statements in the linked article I think they are also hoping that there would be evidence concerning other riders including those that may still be active in the sport.
    May your tires or beer never be flat.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomo 1 View Post
    It matters very much that the charges were dropped. The "significant evidence" didn't lead to "proof" of guilt, or "prove" him guilty. If the evidence were that conclusive, the criminal charges would not have been dropped. DA's are suckers for publicity and any DA would love to have a Lance Armstrong conviction on their resumes.
    Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?

  14. #14
    Senior Member kleinboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,602
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by telebianchi View Post
    (1) Aren't there rules & laws restricting what information can be released out of a grand jury investigation if an indictment is not made?
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm
    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...le9/11mcrm.htm


    Good question. There is. I'm not an attorney but the DOJ website has the legal jargon on it (link above). From what I can tell, the WADA would make a Freedom Of Information Act request. A determination by a judge would be made to decide what can and cannot be released to protect the innocence of all parties. GL getting that.

  15. #15
    Senior Member Giacomo 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Queens NYC
    Posts
    1,711
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve View Post
    Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?
    There might be useful information and there might not be. I think WADA could be grasping for anything at this point in the hope they find something useful.

    In any case, it's time for this thing to be dropped. I have little faith that WADA, upon recieving this information, would bring there "trial" to a speedy or conclusive conclusion. So as Americans, one has to ask, how long can you drag somebody through the mud before it becomes harrasement? Isn't this a form of double jeopardy, or even unending jeopardy? Don't we have the right to a speedy trial and judgement? Our judicial system has become a mockery of our Founding Fathers intent...
    Colnago Super
    Basso Gap
    Fabio Barecci
    Miyata 1400A

    "Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride."
    ~
    John F. Kennedy, Former U.S. President

  16. #16
    Senior Member Commodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Posts
    4,144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by kleinboogie View Post
    http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm
    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...le9/11mcrm.htm


    Good question. There is. I'm not an attorney but the DOJ website has the legal jargon on it (link above). From what I can tell, the WADA would make a Freedom Of Information Act request. A determination by a judge would be made to decide what can and cannot be released to protect the innocence of all parties. GL getting that.
    Maybe, maybe not. There's some indication that cooperation could be possible:

    There are, however, obligations under the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the 2005 treaty to which the U.S. is a signator. The treaty encourages officials to share relevant evidence with anti-doping authorities. Furthermore there is considerable evidence in this case that had not yet been presented to the grand jury. Some of that could be shared as part of the government’s duty under the treaty or under any cooperative agreements various agencies have with USADA.
    Source: http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=7669

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    224
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve View Post
    Significant Evidence=proof

    Nothing to be objective about really. Having read between the lines, thats essentially what they said. Doesnt matter if the charges were dropped, there was still significant evidence to allow it to get to where it did. WADA must feel there is, or they wouldnt be asking for it?
    Interesting how you are all about reading between the lines when it comes to Armstrong...but anything like that about other riders you are quick to dismiss.

  18. #18
    Senior Member kleinboogie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,602
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. There's some indication that cooperation could be possible:
    Source: http://redkiteprayer.com/?p=7669
    Yup, I agree it's possible. Anything's possible. Probable? That's another story.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This whole thing needs to just end, no sense in tarnishing a man with circumstancial evidence aquired by known dopers and cheats. Has there ever been a single person actually clean making these claims?

    In regards to what, just doping? Then there's a bunch of guys who've been clean and not doped: Hinault/Lemond/Hampsten/Indurain/Bauer/Heiden/Phinney etc. People here keep claiming lemond doped, but when i asked them to actually post any proof of any sort(from a credible source), guess what happened? it never showed up, in the numerous attempts to get it.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomo 1 View Post
    There might be useful information and there might not be. I think WADA could be grasping for anything at this point in the hope they find something useful.

    In any case, it's time for this thing to be dropped. I have little faith that WADA, upon recieving this information, would bring there "trial" to a speedy or conclusive conclusion. So as Americans, one has to ask, how long can you drag somebody through the mud before it becomes harrasement? Isn't this a form of double jeopardy, or even unending jeopardy? Don't we have the right to a speedy trial and judgement? Our judicial system has become a mockery of our Founding Fathers intent...
    I agree that it needs to be dropped. One of my points from the very beginning, has been that Armstrong has allowed this whiole thing to draw out till a few days ago. he's partly to blame for the whole fiasco, as he just couldnt "admit" one way or another to anything. When you do that, it gets dragged out to the point we're @ now. Sad it's had to come to this. But, when you're dishonest, and/or withhold information, thats what happens.

  21. #21
    Senior Member xfimpg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,092
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by canam73 View Post
    The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

    It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.
    +1
    ______________________________________________

    I just wanna ride my bike.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S.E. Iowa
    My Bikes
    all diamond frames
    Posts
    1,163
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Who funds WADA? USADA? More tax dollars at work?

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by LemondFanForeve View Post
    Youve missed the point: WADA must have a difference of opinion on everything, or else they wouldnt be asking for the info. Theyre probably looking to bust someone, be it: Contador/Armstrong/whoever, or else they wouldnt be asking for something that supposedly doesnt exist?
    I believe you missed the point. WADA has probably seen little to none of the "significant evidence." US Federal Investigators generally share very little information. And, WADA wouldn't be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. WADA doesn't have enough information to have an opinion. They want to obtain the information so they can form one.

  24. #24
    Senior Member Keith99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,728
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by canam73 View Post
    The federal investigation that was dropped was investigating fraud and misuse of funds. It is possible they obtained evidence of LA doping but if he didn't use Postal money for it or influence the rest of the team to partake then it would not support the criminal case.

    It could be used by the USADA to disqualify his results as they still have on going non-criminal investigation.
    Which contrasted to many of the posts here shows that Lance has the best PR team of any cyclist in history. The way this gets spun is brilliant.
    Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pasadena, CA(for now)
    Posts
    1,102
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by daveF View Post
    I believe you missed the point. WADA has probably seen little to none of the "significant evidence." US Federal Investigators generally share very little information. And, WADA wouldn't be privy to the Grand Jury testimony. WADA doesn't have enough information to have an opinion. They want to obtain the information so they can form one.
    Ive missed no point... if WADA "wasnt privy to GJ testimony/evidence" as you claim, then why would they be asking for it, and expect to get it? But if they cant "obtain it" as you claim, then how could they form an opinion of their own? Youve contradicted yourself.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •