A Very Bad Morning For Lance


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:37 am

As he resigns as Chairman of his charity, then Nike terminates their sponsorship deal with him(though to their credit will continue to support Livestrong)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20 ... a/1638565/


Let's see if Armstrong and his lawdogs come out and rip Nike and Phil Knight as vociferously as they did USADA and Travis Tygart.

I won't hold my breath...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:50 am

A bad your for Lance, and not a great year for Nike. They've had to re-name two buildings on their campus--the Joe Paterno Child Development Center and now the Lance Armstrong Fitness Center.

At least they did the right thing here. It's pretty clear that they had to.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:31 am

guru wrote:As he resigns as Chairman of his charity, then Nike terminates their sponsorship deal with him(though to their credit will continue to support Livestrong)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/20 ... a/1638565/


Let's see if Armstrong and his lawdogs come out and rip Nike and Phil Knight as vociferously as they did USADA and Travis Tygart.

I won't hold my breath...


Lance and his attorney's have been pretty silent since USADA released their report. More so for Lance than the attorney's. I think they realize they are up against a storm (not to mention up the proverbial creek) and are now in desperate damage control. Lance resigns as chairman for Livestrong today. Plenty more to come in the days, weeks and months ahead I bet.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:54 am

A man gots to ask hisself....is getting kissed on the cheek a few dozen times by pretty French girls in heels and yellow dresses worth all this angst? (But then, in his cloak of self-righteousness, Lance may not feel any angst, just a smug awareness that "I'm right, they're all wrong.")
DrJay
 
Posts: 5483
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:54 pm

DrJay wrote:A man gots to ask hisself....is getting kissed on the cheek a few dozen times by pretty French girls in heels and yellow dresses worth all this angst? (But then, in his cloak of self-righteousness, Lance may not feel any angst, just a smug awareness that "I'm right, they're all wrong.")


In George Hincapie's case - yes - he married one of those pretty French girls in heels and yellow dresses.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:58 pm

If I were Mr. Armstrong, I'd now be worried about being sued. I read last week that an insurance company that paid off for a record bonus was thinking of suing him to get that payment back. What about Nike? Their statement said they had been misled for 10 years. Sounds like a potential lawsuit for fraud, doesn't it?

And if I were Mr. Armstrong's law dude, I might be worried about being paid.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15041
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:11 pm

tandfman wrote: What about Nike? Their statement said they had been misled for 10 years. Sounds like a potential lawsuit for fraud, doesn't it?



Not with that $500,000 skeleton in their closet...
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:30 pm

guru wrote:
tandfman wrote: What about Nike? Their statement said they had been misled for 10 years. Sounds like a potential lawsuit for fraud, doesn't it?



Not with that $500,000 skeleton in their closet...


Recently Mark Block, now this. Nike not looking too good at the moment.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:37 pm

Remember, it was the FBI that did the heavy lifting in this investigation and then just handed over their files, which included all the sworn testimony, to USADA. Without various law enforcement agencies on both sides of the pond, there's a long list of athletes in cycling and track & field who would have never been exposed as dopers. Neither the UCI, the IAAF nor any of the other sports governing bodies will ever be able to stop athletes from doping until they get the power to issue subpoenas and conduct search warrants.

One big difference between doping in cycling and doping in other sports is that in cycling it's a team effort, versus individual efforts in other sports, which means that cyclists always have at least a dozen potential witnesses who can rat them out. This means that Armstrong had a lot more people to worry about than Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Bonds only had Greg Anderson (he went to prison instead of testify) to worry about and Clemens only had Brian McNamee (he got discredited due to his criminal record) and Andy Pettitte (he pulled a Frankie Pentangelli) to worry about.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:40 pm

Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:46 pm

bambam wrote:
DrJay wrote:A man gots to ask hisself....is getting kissed on the cheek a few dozen times by pretty French girls in heels and yellow dresses worth all this angst? (But then, in his cloak of self-righteousness, Lance may not feel any angst, just a smug awareness that "I'm right, they're all wrong.")


In George Hincapie's case - yes - he married one of those pretty French girls in heels and yellow dresses.

I'm sure that there are a lot of dopers who retired unscathed who have no regrets. Bjarne Riis and Erik Zabel haven't been stripped of anything despite confessing their sins, and I doubt that any action will be taken against Johan Museeuw either, not to mention those many cyclists who never flunked a test or confessed to anything, and I would assume that there are quite a few Grand Tours winners amongst them.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby marknhj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:10 pm

From London's Sunday Times: A spokeswoman for the Sunday Times confirmed that it is "considering taking action to recover money spent on a libel case Armstrong brought and to pursue him for fraud."

CNN - "The libel case involved a 2004 Sunday Times article which referenced a 2003 book, "L.A. Confidentiel -- Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong." Published in France by two journalists, one of them Sunday Times sports reporter David Walsh, the book dealt with doping allegations against Armstrong.

The newspaper settled with Armstrong in June 2006 after the High Court ruled the article would be interpreted as meaning Armstrong was a "fraud, a cheat and a liar," the UK Press Gazette, an industry journal, reported at the time."
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:13 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Remember, it was the FBI that did the heavy lifting in this investigation and then just handed over their files, which included all the sworn testimony, to USADA.



Simply not true. Everything in the USADA report was collected by USADA


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/! ... cision.pdf

From Section I: Summary Of Reasoned Decision


USADA wrote:None of the evidence USADA summarizes in this Reasoned Decision was obtained from the United States federal law enforcement investigation involving Mr. Armstrong. After the announcement by U.S. District Attorney Andre Birotte on February 3, 2012, that he was discontinuing the criminal investigation of Armstrong’s conduct, USADA formally requested copies of non-grand jury evidence from the case. However, no documents have been received to date. As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby br » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:22 pm

Lance's afternoon just got worse...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... y/1638341/

The announcements rolled in steadily:

-- Nike cut Armstrong loose in the morning, repeating its opposition to performance-enhancing drugs and declaring Armstrong had "misled" the company for more than a decade. Nike also said it will take his name off the Lance Armstrong Fitness Center at its world headquarters.

-- Hours later, Anheuser-Busch, which used Armstrong to pitch Michelob, issued a statement that said, "We have decided not to renew our relationship with Lance Armstrong."

-- Trek announced on its web site that it was "terminating" it relationship with Armstrong and was "disappointed by the findings and conclusions in the USADA report regarding Lance Armstrong."

Trek said it "will continue to support the Livestrong Foundation and its efforts to combat cancer."

-- 24 Hour Fitness issued a forceful statement, saying, "Given the evidence surrounding Lance Armstrong's alleged actions, we have determined that our business relationship with Armstrong no longer aligns with our company's mission and values."

-- Sports drink producer FRS announced Armstrong had resigned from its board. In a statement, Matt Kohler, the company's chief marketing officer, said "this seemed like a good time to part ways."

-- Honey Stinger, a Colorado company that markets energy foods, issued a statement that said "we are in the process of removing Lance Armstrong's image and endorsement from our product packaging."

-- RadioShack issued a statement that said it had "no current obligations" to Armstrong under a sponsorship deal it agreed to in July 2009, but declined to disclose further details about its relationship.
br
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:23 pm

guru wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Remember, it was the FBI that did the heavy lifting in this investigation and then just handed over their files, which included all the sworn testimony, to USADA.



Simply not true. Everything in the USADA report was collected by USADA


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/! ... cision.pdf

From Section I: Summary Of Reasoned Decision


USADA wrote:None of the evidence USADA summarizes in this Reasoned Decision was obtained from the United States federal law enforcement investigation involving Mr. Armstrong. After the announcement by U.S. District Attorney Andre Birotte on February 3, 2012, that he was discontinuing the criminal investigation of Armstrong’s conduct, USADA formally requested copies of non-grand jury evidence from the case. However, no documents have been received to date. As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement.

What about the list of names that USADA claims testified against Armstrong? USADA has no subpoena power. Do you believe George Hincapie ratted out Armstrong willingly?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:28 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:What about the list of names that USADA claims testified against Armstrong? USADA has no subpoena power. Do you believe George Hincapie ratted out Armstrong willingly?



Apparently, yes


http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/


It took tremendous courage for the riders on the USPS Team and others to come forward and speak truthfully. It is not easy to admit your mistakes and accept your punishment. But that is what these riders have done for the good of the sport, and for the young riders who hope to one day reach their dreams without using dangerous drugs or methods.

These eleven (11) teammates of Lance Armstrong, in alphabetical order, are Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.

The riders who participated in the USPS Team doping conspiracy and truthfully assisted have been courageous in making the choice to stop perpetuating the sporting fraud, and they have suffered greatly. In addition to the public revelations, the active riders have been suspended and disqualified appropriately in line with the rules. In some part, it would have been easier for them if it all would just go away; however, they love the sport, and they want to help young athletes have hope that they are not put in the position they were -- to face the reality that in order to climb to the heights of their sport they had to sink to the depths of dangerous cheating.

I have personally talked with and heard these athletes’ stories and firmly believe that, collectively, these athletes, if forgiven and embraced, have a chance to leave a legacy far greater for the good of the sport than anything they ever did on a bike.

Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:33 pm

That's not to say their grand jury testimony didnt play a role in their cooperation with USADA. But any testimony used by USADA was collected separately.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby catson52 » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:59 pm

As a sucker for cheesy shows like "Cold Case", I am very pleased when past wrongs come to light, and some modicum of right is reintroduced.
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:10 pm

Anheuser-Busch and now Trek has dropped Lance. Who is next? This is getting ugly in a hurry.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:15 pm

catson52 wrote:As a sucker for cheesy shows like "Cold Case", I am very pleased when past wrongs come to light, and some modicum of right is reintroduced.


I agree. In the long run this may be the best thing to ever happen to the sport as it currently exists. In the long run though the culture of the sport needs changing at that has to come from the top down. Sponsors, Teams, Organizations (UCI), all have to take a hard look at themselves and say enough is enough. That won't be easy, if it is even possible.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:30 pm

guru wrote:That's not to say their grand jury testimony didnt play a role in their cooperation with USADA. But any testimony used by USADA was collected separately.

We can only specualte about how that grand jury testimony was used but I have a hunch that somehow it was used to squeeze these guys. At the very least it was used to develope a strategy on how to proceed and who to question, but I suspect it was more than that. Hopefully these details will come out soon.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:34 pm

Once they had testified under oath to the grand jury, it made sense to get in front of the USADA investigation and participate voluntarily. Either way their cycling careers and legacies were finished.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby marknhj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:38 pm

odelltrclan wrote:
catson52 wrote:As a sucker for cheesy shows like "Cold Case", I am very pleased when past wrongs come to light, and some modicum of right is reintroduced.


I agree. In the long run this may be the best thing to ever happen to the sport as it currently exists. In the long run though the culture of the sport needs changing at that has to come from the top down. Sponsors, Teams, Organizations (UCI), all have to take a hard look at themselves and say enough is enough. That won't be easy, if it is even possible.


Well said, odelltrclan and catson. As someone who had first-hand exposure to this culture of deceit a few decades ago and had to compete against frauds and cheats, I agree completely. (While I'm at it odelltrclan, I came to support your posts on the other thread but it was closed just as I did so. You were pretty much alone in making informed and real posts, against the small minority of drug apologists who can be so vocal here).
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:05 pm

Thanks MarknHJ. Feel like a minority here quite often. I won't comment on or go in the direction of that other thread as I would hate to see this one go down as well.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:07 pm

guru wrote:Once they had testified under oath to the grand jury, it made sense to get in front of the USADA investigation and participate voluntarily.
It made sense for guys like Jonathan Vaughters who seems to have genuinely found PED religion and Landis and Hamilton who are banned from the sport and are trying to sell books, but it makes no sense for the others.
guru wrote:Either way their cycling careers and legacies were finished.

None of their careers were affected. Two of them are already banned, four of them are already retired and the other five recieved a six-month suspension to be served during cycling's off-season. Also, I don't know what "legacy" means to journeymen domestiques which is what most of these guys were/are.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:14 pm

marknhj wrote: (While I'm at it odelltrclan, I came to support your posts on the other thread but it was closed just as I did so. You were pretty much alone in making informed and real posts, against the small minority of drug apologists who can be so vocal here).

So now you want to come to this thread, start the same shit all over and get it locked too? I would really appreciate it if you would take this sanctimonious, self-righteous crap somewhere else. FYI, that's what the "pm" button is for. :(
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:11 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


Not sure. I would say that the key is the judge's interpretation if a physician-patient relationship had been established. That, of course, applies to the testimony, they can subpoena anybody they want.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby spinoza » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:20 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


There is no straight forward answer; in common law jurisdictions the existence of privilege - and where it exists it is a right of the patient, not the doctor - will depend on how the courts in that jurisdiction have applied the common law tests, and also whether on whether a statute has been enacted creating, or modifying, the scope of the privilege. If it is simply the common law, the existence of the privilege will depend on the facts of the case in which it is asserted; it isn't an absolute privilege. For example, a doctor who assisted in the doping efforts in any way might well be a party to a fraud, and a become a compellable witness, assuming he was granted appropriate immunity, even if in normal circumstances he would not be. FWIW, I was called to the bar in Canada, not the U.S., and my grasp of U.S. law may well be other than accurate.
spinoza
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby marknhj » Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:52 pm

odelltrclan wrote:Thanks MarknHJ. Feel like a minority here quite often. I won't comment on or go in the direction of that other thread as I would hate to see this one go down as well.


My pleasure and agreed!
marknhj
 
Posts: 5070
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:06 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


I have no idea about the answer to your question, but James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Aurora CO movie theater shooting and HIS medical records with his psychiatrist apparently are not available to the prosecution. Go figure.....
DrJay
 
Posts: 5483
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby guru » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:16 pm

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Think Lance will get himself another Sports Illustrated cover next week?

How about he writes another book, called "It's Not About Me." :)
DrJay
 
Posts: 5483
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kevinsdad » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:32 pm

DrJay wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?


I have no idea about the answer to your question, but James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Aurora CO movie theater shooting and HIS medical records with his psychiatrist apparently are not available to the prosecution. Go figure.....


Under the Federal code of evidence, also used by many states, there are many ways to lose the privilege. For example, Armstrong may simply have chosen not to invoke it because he thought the physician could help him. Or perhaps he waived it by voluntarily disclosing communications with his physician prior to the subpoena. Also, it doesn't apply to all communications between doctor and patient; only to those pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition, and communications about performance enhancement might arguably not be considered as such. It is doubtful that communications in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy are privileged either, and perhaps the prosecutor was proceeding on that theory.
kevinsdad
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:08 am

guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:27 am

Where is the evidence of perjury - he already stated a different version than she did; there is no new 'evidence' that says who is right about that conversation. External events (to that conversation) do not bear on the statement, just on the overall use of PEDs.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.


I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:17 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.


I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.


Just to inform you of the facts of the alleged event, this was a meeting that took place at the beginning of his treatments. Dr. Miller said that he did not hear Lance admit to past drug use. The Andreus state that he did confess and listed all of the PED's he admitted to. Betsy is adamant that the said doctor was not even present at the meeting in question and could not have offered testimony.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby j-a-m » Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:42 am

According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby DrJay » Fri Oct 19, 2012 11:03 am

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance- ... ?hpt=hp_c1

"The latest bad news came Friday when Dutch bank Rabobank announced it would no longer sponsor professional cycling teams after the controversy that has engulfed Armstrong and the cycling profession.

The bank, which has sponsored teams for the past 17 years, made it clear that its decision to end its sponsorships by the end of the year was to distance itself from the doping allegations."

"It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision," said Bert Bruggink, of Rabobank's managing board. "We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future."
DrJay
 
Posts: 5483
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:47 pm

j-a-m wrote:According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program


I don't think there's ever been a positive PED test in the NBA. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests