Lance Armstrong to lose Titles, Banned - Page 41

I read over that document and there is a bunch of circumstantial evidence and much of it does look suspicious, but there isn't much hard evidence. Here is one example of their evidence:

"Jonathan Vaughters also believed Armstrong was likely using EPO—there were some tell tale signs, such as Lance carrying around a thermos (It is necessary to keep EPO cool at all times to prevent it from spoiling. Thermoses were used by riders to keep EPO cool and ice cubes rattling inside a coffee thermos in the middle of the summer were an indication the rider might be using EPO.)"

Of course keeping a drink cold could also merit using a thermos...

There is alot of talk about how they could have provided more evidence via subpoena and other legal action if this went to trial, but most of their current evidence centers around the testimony of 9 people who were removed from Lance's team and/or caught for using performance enhancers by the USADA, or spouses of those people. Pretty much all of the evidence I read in that report revolves around them believing their witnesses who are telling them what they want to hear and Lance's involvement with a doctor who was charged with doping. USADA also said that they retested samples from Lance from way back in 1999 and found EPO, but admit that the evidence had a good chance of being inadmissable. They spend a whole page or two discussing Actovegin, which they concluded Armstrong was "definitely" using for performance enhancement, again based on ex-team testimony. Lance claimed the doctor had it to treat road rash injuries and not for performance enhancement, but USADA is convinced he lied. The kicker being that Actovegin isn't a banned substance in the first place. Because USADA is convinced Armstrong lied about what the Actovegin was used for, that is evidence that he is lying now. There is sworn testimony by people in Armstrong's camp proclaiming his innocence, and because USADA's witnesses contradict that, Armstrong's defenders are assumed to be lying.

Now that doesn't mean Armstrong is innocent, but the "over whelming" evidence is primarily testimony from former team mates and competitors, most of whom were caught with drugs, and their spouses, some of whom are hoping to make money by selling books based on the story they are telling.

On a side note, USADA has no connection with the US government, and this was an arbitration case, not a criminal case. From what I have heard USADA would have been them both prosecuting and ruling on the case that seems like they clearly already decided on. This wasn't a jury trial. Furthermore the doctor they tie Armstrong to had his conviction overturned, and the key witness against that doctor is one of the witnesses against Armstrong. That being said it was overturned due to statute of limitations, and the evidence against him was also suspicious, but again it was almost all witness testimony from an italian rider who was caught using drugs and said he got them from the doctor.


The evidence they have is highly suspicious and I can see why people would believe that all the smoke means there must have been a fire, even if they were never able to actually find that fire. Still that document is the equivalent of just hearing a prosecuting attourney's opening arguement. If you have ever had to serve in jury duty before, a trial can sound completely different after each lawyer presents their case. I can see why Lance might feel he was in a no win situation, if it is true that USADA was going to be the arbitrator in their own case against Armstrong, which is what I heard when the news was first announced.

It is also curious that someone who was so cautious that he managed to not get a postive test over the entire course of his career, would risk mentioning his drug use in front of the spouses of his team mates, or be trying to force teammates to dope when they were reluctant knowing that losing that team mate could mean they turn him in. I wouldn't be surprised if Armstrong was guilty, but I didn't see anything so convincing in that document as to say there is no doubt.