How incompetent is the USADA?
06-29-12, 06:49 PM
#1
Lanterne Rouge
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 47
Bikes: 2004 Giant Cypress
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
How incompetent is the USADA?
This is not good.
One of the arbitrators is Clark Griffith. Mr. Griffith recently pled guilty (an Alford plea where he admits the state has sufficient evidence to convict him) to a charge of public nudity while trying to "pick up" one of his students. Salacious details here: https://www.twincities.com/localnews/...twincities.com
Now, this just makes him look bad. However, Mr Griffith was also quoted as expressing at least some opinion of the case, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence." https://www.startribune.com/sports/160869725.html
Mr. Griffith, if not biased, is at least an embarrassing choice by the USADA as an arbitrator.
This is a separate issue from whether Mr. Armstrong did or did not use PEDs. The issue is, when the USADA is putting together what may be its most important case, it chose an arbitrator who is an embarrassment and who cannot maintain a judicial demeanor when he is supposed to be fairly arbitrating a case.
One of the arbitrators is Clark Griffith. Mr. Griffith recently pled guilty (an Alford plea where he admits the state has sufficient evidence to convict him) to a charge of public nudity while trying to "pick up" one of his students. Salacious details here: https://www.twincities.com/localnews/...twincities.com
Now, this just makes him look bad. However, Mr Griffith was also quoted as expressing at least some opinion of the case, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence." https://www.startribune.com/sports/160869725.html
Mr. Griffith, if not biased, is at least an embarrassing choice by the USADA as an arbitrator.
This is a separate issue from whether Mr. Armstrong did or did not use PEDs. The issue is, when the USADA is putting together what may be its most important case, it chose an arbitrator who is an embarrassment and who cannot maintain a judicial demeanor when he is supposed to be fairly arbitrating a case.
06-30-12, 04:00 PM
#2
abandoning
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
This is not good.
One of the arbitrators is Clark Griffith. Mr. Griffith recently pled guilty (an Alford plea where he admits the state has sufficient evidence to convict him) to a charge of public nudity while trying to "pick up" one of his students. Salacious details here: https://www.twincities.com/localnews/...twincities.com
Now, this just makes him look bad. However, Mr Griffith was also quoted as expressing at least some opinion of the case, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence." https://www.startribune.com/sports/160869725.html
Mr. Griffith, if not biased, is at least an embarrassing choice by the USADA as an arbitrator.
This is a separate issue from whether Mr. Armstrong did or did not use PEDs. The issue is, when the USADA is putting together what may be its most important case, it chose an arbitrator who is an embarrassment and who cannot maintain a judicial demeanor when he is supposed to be fairly arbitrating a case.
One of the arbitrators is Clark Griffith. Mr. Griffith recently pled guilty (an Alford plea where he admits the state has sufficient evidence to convict him) to a charge of public nudity while trying to "pick up" one of his students. Salacious details here: https://www.twincities.com/localnews/...twincities.com
Now, this just makes him look bad. However, Mr Griffith was also quoted as expressing at least some opinion of the case, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence." https://www.startribune.com/sports/160869725.html
Mr. Griffith, if not biased, is at least an embarrassing choice by the USADA as an arbitrator.
This is a separate issue from whether Mr. Armstrong did or did not use PEDs. The issue is, when the USADA is putting together what may be its most important case, it chose an arbitrator who is an embarrassment and who cannot maintain a judicial demeanor when he is supposed to be fairly arbitrating a case.
06-30-12, 06:59 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,791
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1020 Post(s)
Liked 463 Times
in
293 Posts
In The jurisdiction where I practice law we would not allow an Alford plea, or its equivalent, in a sex-related case. Either plea straight up or set it for trial.
I don't get the comments to the OP's post.
I don't get the comments to the OP's post.
07-01-12, 05:51 AM
#8
Pointy Helmet Tribe
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Offthebackistan
Posts: 4,338
Bikes: R5, Allez Sprint, Shiv
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 519 Post(s)
Liked 627 Times
in
295 Posts
I wonder if cancer ate away the part of Dopestrong's brain that controls class?
His ability to play the victim while simultaneously indulging in a smear campaign is amazing. Matched only the ability of the Lance Zombie Fanbois to drink whatever Koolaid he serves up.
Ask Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones how incompetent the USADA is. They go after the dopers and they do a damn good job. OP and his ilk ought to be ashamed for piling on to USADA for just doing its job.
His ability to play the victim while simultaneously indulging in a smear campaign is amazing. Matched only the ability of the Lance Zombie Fanbois to drink whatever Koolaid he serves up.
Ask Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Marion Jones how incompetent the USADA is. They go after the dopers and they do a damn good job. OP and his ilk ought to be ashamed for piling on to USADA for just doing its job.
07-01-12, 06:12 AM
#9
bored of "Senior Member"
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: MD / metro DC
Posts: 2,883
Bikes: Cross-Check/Nexus commuter. Several others for various forms of play.
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 642 Post(s)
Liked 593 Times
in
453 Posts
Speaking of opinions about what people think of the evidence....
(legal-ish question here, not baiting the pro/con Armstrong crowd, I hope)
The bits I've been seeing in the media have USADA referring to evidence to follow, and Armstrong's camp referring to the absence of evidence (as opposed to inferences and conclusion) that has been put forward. One the one hand, I understand the complaint that you can only respond to specific evidence not broad allegations. OTOH, I would not expect all of that to be in the media and there is probably a time-phasing of disclosure that may be correct even if subject to a PR spin.
Do any of you in-the-know re these types of proceedings have a sense of whether the USADA is being competent in that regard, i.e. is the substantive disclosure of real evidence following established norms for the process (if not the media)?
(legal-ish question here, not baiting the pro/con Armstrong crowd, I hope)
The bits I've been seeing in the media have USADA referring to evidence to follow, and Armstrong's camp referring to the absence of evidence (as opposed to inferences and conclusion) that has been put forward. One the one hand, I understand the complaint that you can only respond to specific evidence not broad allegations. OTOH, I would not expect all of that to be in the media and there is probably a time-phasing of disclosure that may be correct even if subject to a PR spin.
Do any of you in-the-know re these types of proceedings have a sense of whether the USADA is being competent in that regard, i.e. is the substantive disclosure of real evidence following established norms for the process (if not the media)?
07-01-12, 04:21 PM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,655
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Speaking of opinions about what people think of the evidence....
(legal-ish question here, not baiting the pro/con Armstrong crowd, I hope)
The bits I've been seeing in the media have USADA referring to evidence to follow, and Armstrong's camp referring to the absence of evidence (as opposed to inferences and conclusion) that has been put forward. One the one hand, I understand the complaint that you can only respond to specific evidence not broad allegations. OTOH, I would not expect all of that to be in the media and there is probably a time-phasing of disclosure that may be correct even if subject to a PR spin.
Do any of you in-the-know re these types of proceedings have a sense of whether the USADA is being competent in that regard, i.e. is the substantive disclosure of real evidence following established norms for the process (if not the media)?
(legal-ish question here, not baiting the pro/con Armstrong crowd, I hope)
The bits I've been seeing in the media have USADA referring to evidence to follow, and Armstrong's camp referring to the absence of evidence (as opposed to inferences and conclusion) that has been put forward. One the one hand, I understand the complaint that you can only respond to specific evidence not broad allegations. OTOH, I would not expect all of that to be in the media and there is probably a time-phasing of disclosure that may be correct even if subject to a PR spin.
Do any of you in-the-know re these types of proceedings have a sense of whether the USADA is being competent in that regard, i.e. is the substantive disclosure of real evidence following established norms for the process (if not the media)?
1. Lance has had three positive tests over the years. One was buried. One was covered with a back dated doctors prescription and one was tested years later and was beyond the statute of limitations. So he's lying about the never tested positive in 500 test's.
2. USADA has if anything been known to not speculate on evidence that was not very convincing and sound. Making them perhaps a little more lenient than some other countries equivalent agencies. This would seem to indicate that the evidence against Lance is pretty convincing.
3. The USADA is an administrative body or court and does not follow the same legal procedures that a civil or criminal court does. Lance is trying to spin the media in a way that makes it look like they are incompetent or not following procedure. The proceeding does not work in the same way as a court proceeding and most athletes that have been sanctioned have probably had a lot less non-analytical findings against them than Lance has. The USADA can not take away Lance's freedom or put him in jail. They can only sanction him from sports or take away placings in races.
4. The panel member fiasco is regretable but we do not know all of the facts about the case. There are sexual perverts everywhere. USADA may not have known about this affair. The issue is if the person can be objective. Probably not completely in the area of sex but since this is not that kind of thing it seems less important. ALso, the panel was unanimous which leads one to believe that the evidence against Lance is no small matter.
5. The fact the Lance attacks a panel member instead of being able to strongly refute any of the facts show that he is playing dirty because it's all that he has. This implies that he is both guilty and a person with little character. Which further supports the idea that he may have been involved with more than just personal PED use himself.
6. You have to understand that the amount of evidence against Lance is many times more than most athletes who have been sanctioned in the past when you look at the whole picture. The problem is that most people believe what they are lead to believe from the mass media when most of it is spin and misrepresentation. You combine that with hero worship and you have a situation were common fans are not able to be objective.
Last edited by Hezz; 07-01-12 at 04:27 PM.
07-01-12, 05:14 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
No one can really know the complete bottom line but I can tell you several facts that are based on general concensus or testimony.
1. Lance has had three positive tests over the years. One was buried. One was covered with a back dated doctors prescription and one was tested years later and was beyond the statute of limitations. So he's lying about the never tested positive in 500 test's.
2. USADA has if anything been known to not speculate on evidence that was not very convincing and sound. Making them perhaps a little more lenient than some other countries equivalent agencies. This would seem to indicate that the evidence against Lance is pretty convincing.
3. The USADA is an administrative body or court and does not follow the same legal procedures that a civil or criminal court does. Lance is trying to spin the media in a way that makes it look like they are incompetent or not following procedure. The proceeding does not work in the same way as a court proceeding and most athletes that have been sanctioned have probably had a lot less non-analytical findings against them than Lance has. The USADA can not take away Lance's freedom or put him in jail. They can only sanction him from sports or take away placings in races.
4. The panel member fiasco is regretable but we do not know all of the facts about the case. There are sexual perverts everywhere. USADA may not have known about this affair. The issue is if the person can be objective. Probably not completely in the area of sex but since this is not that kind of thing it seems less important. ALso, the panel was unanimous which leads one to believe that the evidence against Lance is no small matter.
5. The fact the Lance attacks a panel member instead of being able to strongly refute any of the facts show that he is playing dirty because it's all that he has. This implies that he is both guilty and a person with little character. Which further supports the idea that he may have been involved with more than just personal PED use himself.
6. You have to understand that the amount of evidence against Lance is many times more than most athletes who have been sanctioned in the past when you look at the whole picture. The problem is that most people believe what they are lead to believe from the mass media when most of it is spin and misrepresentation. You combine that with hero worship and you have a situation were common fans are not able to be objective.
1. Lance has had three positive tests over the years. One was buried. One was covered with a back dated doctors prescription and one was tested years later and was beyond the statute of limitations. So he's lying about the never tested positive in 500 test's.
2. USADA has if anything been known to not speculate on evidence that was not very convincing and sound. Making them perhaps a little more lenient than some other countries equivalent agencies. This would seem to indicate that the evidence against Lance is pretty convincing.
3. The USADA is an administrative body or court and does not follow the same legal procedures that a civil or criminal court does. Lance is trying to spin the media in a way that makes it look like they are incompetent or not following procedure. The proceeding does not work in the same way as a court proceeding and most athletes that have been sanctioned have probably had a lot less non-analytical findings against them than Lance has. The USADA can not take away Lance's freedom or put him in jail. They can only sanction him from sports or take away placings in races.
4. The panel member fiasco is regretable but we do not know all of the facts about the case. There are sexual perverts everywhere. USADA may not have known about this affair. The issue is if the person can be objective. Probably not completely in the area of sex but since this is not that kind of thing it seems less important. ALso, the panel was unanimous which leads one to believe that the evidence against Lance is no small matter.
5. The fact the Lance attacks a panel member instead of being able to strongly refute any of the facts show that he is playing dirty because it's all that he has. This implies that he is both guilty and a person with little character. Which further supports the idea that he may have been involved with more than just personal PED use himself.
6. You have to understand that the amount of evidence against Lance is many times more than most athletes who have been sanctioned in the past when you look at the whole picture. The problem is that most people believe what they are lead to believe from the mass media when most of it is spin and misrepresentation. You combine that with hero worship and you have a situation were common fans are not able to be objective.
And it should be noted that the OP posted with a "how often do you beat your wife" type of subject line. Smacks of the very game Lance has been playing - a game which is at long last very nearly played out.
07-01-12, 08:04 PM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 236
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I havent seen the failed test results yet from Armstrong. Can you post them here since you already have them, thank you.
07-01-12, 08:31 PM
#13
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,558
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 2,179 Times
in
1,469 Posts
I don't know about you but I would like to see the government take dangerous criminals off the street. I constantly see criminals walk away because the US Attroneys don't have the resources to prosecute.
The people in USADA and those that went after Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens want the publicity and attention and don't care how much taxpaper money they spend or how much time they waste.
07-01-12, 08:35 PM
#14
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,558
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 2,179 Times
in
1,469 Posts
No one can really know the complete bottom line but I can tell you several facts that are based on general concensus or testimony.
1. Lance has had three positive tests over the years. One was buried. One was covered with a back dated doctors prescription and one was tested years later and was beyond the statute of limitations. So he's lying about the never tested positive in 500 test's.
1. Lance has had three positive tests over the years. One was buried. One was covered with a back dated doctors prescription and one was tested years later and was beyond the statute of limitations. So he's lying about the never tested positive in 500 test's.
07-02-12, 04:42 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
Personally, I want to take "dangerous criminals" off the streets, too. It's a darn shame that so many murders have gone unpunished as a result of the public funds diverted away to prosecute Bonds and Clemens, and that those murderers will remain free to kill because USADA has chosen to go after Lance. But I also think there's real damage to our collective culture that results from choosing to treat cheaters who prosper (and people who lie to Congress, and cheaters who try to destroy the reputations of those who call them out) as not worthy of correction or sanction. i want my 7-year-old to believe she's on a somewhat level playing field, regardless of what field of endeavor she chooses - whether sports or business or something else. I find the idea that cheating to succeed is not a big deal because it isn't murder pretty troubling.
Last edited by Picchio Special; 07-02-12 at 05:02 AM.
07-02-12, 11:21 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 149
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Personally, I am just tired of my tax dollars going to fund this circus. Considering the economy, the national debt, balance of payments deficit, Obamacare, etc, I don't really give rip about what may or may not have done by the USPS team ten years ago. Give it a rest and concentrate on more pressing issues.
07-02-12, 12:49 PM
#17
Senior Member
Personally, I am just tired of my tax dollars going to fund this circus. Considering the economy, the national debt, balance of payments deficit, Obamacare, etc, I don't really give rip about what may or may not have done by the USPS team ten years ago. Give it a rest and concentrate on more pressing issues.
No positive test results, no paper trail. That is the problem.
07-02-12, 01:51 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
07-02-12, 02:37 PM
#19
Senior Member
Personally, I am just tired of my tax dollars going to fund this circus. Considering the economy, the national debt, balance of payments deficit, Obamacare, etc, I don't really give rip about what may or may not have done by the USPS team ten years ago. Give it a rest and concentrate on more pressing issues.
Obamacare? Really?
Lulz on da twit.
07-02-12, 02:56 PM
#20
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,558
Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1106 Post(s)
Liked 2,179 Times
in
1,469 Posts
Since you are so certain of other people's motives and that those people "don't care" how much money they spend or time they "waste," please post some proof here. Surely, you can provide some evidence, since you are certain enough to make such a dismissive blanket statement.
A jury unanimously found Clemens not guilty of the six charges against him after a day and a half of deliberations. It was a result of a two-month trial and five-year investigation that cost the federal government $10,548,772, according to CNBC reporter Darren Rovell, yet netted a disappointing result.
In the case of Lance, you may think he's innocent or guilty but USADA should just have said thats enough. He's been proven not guilty from over 500 drug tests. Let's just leave it alone. Instead they are spending taxpayer money for no good reason. I would like this money to go towards better purposes.
07-02-12, 03:47 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
The missing link in this whole deal is the biological passport data. Watch for that aspect of the case to emerge. You have much to learn. Your lesson will come soon. Of course, Lance will spin his guilty verdict and put up a smoke screen. He always does. And guys like you will continue to eat it up.
07-02-12, 04:00 PM
#22
abandoning
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
You want proof? The government spent $10.5 million, took years, had two trials, and the jury decision was open and shut.
It doesn't take rocket science to conclude tghe government had no/very week case and should not have even started it. But they did and I will leave it up to you to guess why.
In the case of Lance, you may think he's innocent or guilty but USADA should just have said thats enough. He's been proven not guilty from over 500 drug tests. Let's just leave it alone. Instead they are spending taxpayer money for no good reason. I would like this money to go towards better purposes.
It doesn't take rocket science to conclude tghe government had no/very week case and should not have even started it. But they did and I will leave it up to you to guess why.
In the case of Lance, you may think he's innocent or guilty but USADA should just have said thats enough. He's been proven not guilty from over 500 drug tests. Let's just leave it alone. Instead they are spending taxpayer money for no good reason. I would like this money to go towards better purposes.
you should know that clemens and bonds were both cases initiated by the doj, not usada, for perjury and obstruction of justice. i know, that disrupts your 'usada is a waste' narrative, but how would you feel if others started making similar guilty by association arguments?
p.s. the doj did have several successful perjury prosecutions stemming from balco including bonds on obstruction of justice, marion jones, trevor graham, and tammy thomas.
07-02-12, 04:06 PM
#23
abandoning
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Well, if that's the case, it doesn't say much about the desire to boost their reputations of the people who mounted the prosecution, does it? They set themselves up to fail in order to look good? Really? But more importantly, the facts you state don't do anything to prove that the people involved "don't care." And your facts say less than nothing about the motives of the USADA, since they had zip to do with Bonds or Clemens. So no proof for you. And by the way, the fact that Clemens wasn't convicted doesn't mean he didn't lie to Congress. I guess you think that's OK or not a big deal. Forgive those of us who do.
The missing link in this whole deal is the biological passport data. Watch for that aspect of the case to emerge. You have much to learn. Your lesson will come soon. Of course, Lance will spin his guilty verdict and put up a smoke screen. He always does. And guys like you will continue to eat it up.
The missing link in this whole deal is the biological passport data. Watch for that aspect of the case to emerge. You have much to learn. Your lesson will come soon. Of course, Lance will spin his guilty verdict and put up a smoke screen. He always does. And guys like you will continue to eat it up.
07-02-12, 04:28 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
In the case of Lance, you may think he's innocent or guilty but USADA should just have said thats enough. He's been proven not guilty from over 500 drug tests. Let's just leave it alone. Instead they are spending taxpayer money for no good reason. I would like this money to go towards better purposes.
And by the way, the "500 drug tests" mantra you feel compelled to repeat is the weakest link in the Armstrong defense. Beating drug tests is not that hard. Pantani beat all the tests. Marion Jones beat all the tests. Now if you really want to make the case that they were both clean, well, then I'm all ears.
Last edited by Picchio Special; 07-02-12 at 04:33 PM.
07-02-12, 04:29 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lancaster County, PA
Posts: 5,045
Bikes: '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
10 Posts
i know that the biological passport is the cover story on the usada letter, but the doj investigation, while not yielding a trial, did produce sworn testimony regarding lance and doping. perhaps usada has some very credible witness testimony that they never had before. this is speculative, but i find it interesting that those guys rumored to have testified all asked usac to not include them on the olympic roster.