Armstrong lawyer goes on offensive against USADA ahead of agency's report to UCI

Just seen your comments PaulJ. I haven't seen the results of the retrospective tests and nor do I know under what conditions the samples were kept. Must make a start on reading the published documents soon.

hairyairey: The UCI doesn't get to decide anything, except "will we appeal this to CAS?". The only body that could overturn the finding against Lance is CAS, and even if that happened it could be on legal technicalities (e.g. statute of limitations interpretation) that would have no effect on the validity of the evidence that Lance has doped since at least '98, and essentially forced others to do so - significantly corrupting the sport.

E.g., we know from the retrospective tests of the '99 TdF samples that the peloton was largely clean that year - that Lance was by far the biggest doper that year.

I will read the evidence when it's published and make a decision then. I trust the UCI will do the same.

There is a principle in US law that a person is not convicted on non 'corpus electus' evidence alone. I presume (and I will check with my wife on this) that something similar would apply in the UK even though we don't officially support plea-bargaining.

Going by what I saw on the Sky ticker in the gym earlier (implying that I work out, although this could be stretching the definition somewhat) 11 of his former teammates are to testify against him. I think that means that they have plea-bargained for a lighter sentence, so their evidence isn't being given willingly (that's what corpus electus means).

It is not unlikely for Lance to annoy 11 of his former teammates, I'd expect he annoyed all of them at one time or another. He is unashamedly arrogant and that's not a good personality trait on anyone (and yes, that does sometimes include me!). It is also not unlikely for a big tobacco company to want to shut up his anti-cancer message.

As for Lance's lawyers naming all their clients they don't need to it'll all be in the public domain for any case that went to court.

Try to look at this objectively. If these 11 witnesses are telling the truth (and mass lying to have someone wrongly convicted has happened before and will happen again. See for example the Charlotte Dymond case http://www.bodminmoor.co.uk/bodmintic/) then there has to be substance to the allegations.

That is to say, they had to have come up with a method to avoid drug detection which is testable in laboratory conditions. It isn't enough after this much time to claim he doped, the sport (and all sports) need enough of the how, what, where and when to stop it happening again.

Isn't it a bit pathetic that the ban handed down to some of these riders coincides with the off-season ? Now, I think the evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that LA cheated, but then I wonder about the fact that some of that same evidence comes from riders who seem to have been given a very sweet deal.

Overall my impression is that something's rotten in the state of USADA.

Also three riders suspended from garmin! Tommy D, Dave z and van da velde! Good job its the end of the season

Hincapie official statement following the hand over of the report is online now to! http://m.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/george-hincapie-admits-doping

.

What's that coming over the hill? Oh, it's a vanishing twin.

Monday Monday; Just another manic monday; and other song titles spring to mind. What prize for the first person to read and post a comment on this report from USADA on monday? Anyone know where and what time it will be published? Obsessed? Me?

Fair-minded people will see whatever USADA issues is far from a 'reasoned decision'...

No, fair-minded people think you should, as said above, STFU and that Lance whingey twat Armstrong should accept the fact that he's been properly done for cheating. Which he did.

Jeeez, what a tit. I don't know why I read this article, I knew it would wind me up.

I thought Armstrong was leaving this in the past, looking to the future, Mom, charidee, etc. etc. Perhaps he should tell his lawyers?

Ok, this is now officially bonkers.

I think it's a measure of the desperation in the Armstrong camp that they're coming out with this crap.(See Gerard Vroomens blog which highlights more of the same http://gerard.cc/2012/10/09/fabiani-is-getting-old/)
It sort of suggests the evidence against Armstrong is that bad....

Desperate stuff from Larry's lawyers (are they being bullied? - so Larry the L**r is against tobacco but pro EPO - you couldn't make this stuff up

This really is clutching at straws now

Seriously? They're insinuating that USADA is pursuing Armstrong for doping because Big Tobacco wants him neutralised?

That's an interesting theory. On the face of it it's less plausible than the idea that a successful cyclist doped at the height of the EPO era, but no doubt they'll be presenting the evidence for this conspiracy at the arbitration at which Armstrong will attempt to clear his name. Oh.

Quote:

"This reasoned decision will be a farce, written by USADA with the significant assistance of lawyers from one of Big Tobacco's favorite law firms at a time when Lance Armstrong is one of America's leading anti-tobacco advocates," stated Herman. "While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig."

So would Mr Herman like to list all of his clients throughout his entire career history of being a lawyer as well as those of his firm?

People in glasshouses should STFU.