The IOC is willing to broker an independent investigation being set up. I suspect Mr. V. won't be doing it. This really puts the ball in Armstrong's court. Will he agree, particularly if the terms of the investigation include the substance of the positive epo finding in the Mabrey research project.
The IOC is willing to broker an independent investigation being set up. >> I>> suspect Mr. V. won't be doing it. This really puts the ball in >> Armstrong's>> court. Will he agree, particularly if the terms of the investigation>> include the substance of the positive epo finding in the Mabrey research>> project.>
Yep, this definitely puts the pressure on Lance. Now we'll see if he> puts up, or was bluffing. If he believes what he said in the letter,> and in the past, he takes a hard look at this. I do have serious> reservations about the IOC and their close and protective relationship> with Pound though. That may also put Lance off if the IOC insist on> naming the "independent" investigators.> As I've said before I really don't trust the IOC either, and there's> been plenty of evidence from the scandals in their recent past to> question them.> If they agree, along with the UCI, Wada, and Armstrong to put together> an investigative team, possibly under the guidance of CAS then he'd> have to take it. It needs to be a group agreed upon by the concensus to> have real validity when all the groups except CASn have such> questionable recent histories.> Will the IOC, UCI, and WADA allow a truly independent, unbiased> investigation is at least as good a question as "Will Lance"?> Bill C> Bill C> Bill C
If you go to http://www.tas-cas.org/en/guide/frmgui.htm you will see a number of very well qualified individuals, many of who do not have IOC or national governing board backgrounds. I would think a panel of three could be put together with proper instruction and mandate.
<photoshoppper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1150933713.186712.36460@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...> Considering that Pound is on the IOC board, and Armstrong is not, I> doubt that Armstrong will see the results he wants.
A suitable panel to conduct an independent investigation can be found. The parties doing the investigation will have to be independent of the IOC, WADA, UCI and Armstrong. There are members of CAS who fit the bill quite easily. There are no doubt other jurists, active and/or retired, who cold also be called upon to independently investigate.
And the IOC did> not address the real issue regarding Pound's objectivity and meddling> in the situation.
The IOC offered to broker an independent investigation which could address those issues or any other issues the parties agree upon.
I don't think Lance was seeking to reopen the dope> investigation. I think he was hoping to put Pound under the microscope> for a little while regardinghis own conduct in the matter.
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the offer of an independent investigation if the reference included the validity of the research conducted by the lab on the samples as research and not as adversarial testing.
WADA never> really answered any questions, and I think it has become clear that> they (Pound) view themselves as being beyond reproach.
It just might be that in this affair, they are above reproach. An independent investigation can make that determination.>
The IOC is willing to broker an independent investigation being set up. >> I>> suspect Mr. V. won't be doing it. This really puts the ball in >> Armstrong's>> court. Will he agree, particularly if the terms of the investigation>> include the substance of the positive epo finding in the Mabrey research>> project.>
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the offer > of an independent investigation if the reference included the validity of > the research conducted by the lab on the samples as research and not as > adversarial testing.
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message news:STnmg.81920$771.20759@edtnps89...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote...>>
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the >> offer of an independent investigation if the reference included the >> validity of the research conducted by the lab on the samples as research >> and not as adversarial testing.>
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message news:1150978585.720927.315380@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
B. Lafferty wrote:>
That's basically how you would have to set up the investigation. >> However, I>> don't think L'Equipe will cooperate. Perhaps Sandy can speak to press>> issues in France/Europe, but here in the US, in a non-criminal>> investigation, I doubt that you could force a newspaper to reveal its>> sources.>
I agree. I don't think L' Equippe would cooperate, but they could> really lean on the UCI and Lab and make a judgement on it. L' Equippe> would have to live with it if they chose not to cooperate.> Let's hope it happens, but I'm not going to hold my breath while I> wait.> Bill C>
Vis-a-vis the leak, isn't the question, "Who at the lab leaked the results?" Hey, lets close Guantanamo and reopen it as an IOC investigative center. We can send Pound, Armstrong, Verbruggen, the lab director, L'equipe reporter, Stapleton, Bryunel, Hamilton and Hincapie there for a fun time of waterboarding.
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:cRumg.10055$o4.2963@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...>
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message > news:STnmg.81920$771.20759@edtnps89...>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote...>>>
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the >>> offer of an independent investigation if the reference included the >>> validity of the research conducted by the lab on the samples as research >>> and not as adversarial testing.>>
If he were your client would you advise him to?>>
-- >> Snippy> Tell the truth.
Read the question again, ninny. If he were your client would you advise him to (take part in that independent inquiry)?
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message news:A4xmg.68466$I61.40901@clgrps13...> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message > news:cRumg.10055$o4.2963@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...>>
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message >> news:STnmg.81920$771.20759@edtnps89...>>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote...>>>>
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the >>>> offer of an independent investigation if the reference included the >>>> validity of the research conducted by the lab on the samples as >>>> research and not as adversarial testing.>>>
If he were your client would you advise him to?>>>
-- >>> Snippy>> Tell the truth.>
Read the question again, ninny. If he were your client would you advise > him to (take part in that independent inquiry)?
Not if he told me he was guilty of using performance enhancing substances. But, an attorney may not advise his client to lie under oath. If the attorney knowing lies on the client's behalf.........well, that can lead to some very interesting situations for client and lawyer. The safest things in this case for Armstrong and counsel to say, short of "I've never used......" is "I've been tested more than any other athlete and never been found positive."
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:oPxmg.10148$o4.9160@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...>
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message > news:A4xmg.68466$I61.40901@clgrps13...>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message >> news:cRumg.10055$o4.2963@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...>>>
"Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote in message >>> news:STnmg.81920$771.20759@edtnps89...>>>> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote...>>>>>
I agree with you. I doubt very much that Armstrong will take up the >>>>> offer of an independent investigation if the reference included the >>>>> validity of the research conducted by the lab on the samples as >>>>> research and not as adversarial testing.>>>>
If he were your client would you advise him to?>>>>
-- >>>> Snippy>>> Tell the truth.>>
Read the question again, ninny. If he were your client would you advise >> him to (take part in that independent inquiry)?>
Not if he told me he was guilty of using performance enhancing substances. > But, an attorney may not advise his client to lie under oath. If the > attorney knowing lies on the client's behalf.........well, that can lead > to some very interesting situations for client and lawyer. The safest > things in this case for Armstrong and counsel to say, short of "I've never > used......" is "I've been tested more than any other athlete and never > been found positive."
And if he told you he is not guilty? What attorney would counsel his client to participate voluntarily in such an inquiry? A college buddy of mine is an attorney for the AG of Florida. His take on lie detector tests is never to take one, period.
"Sandy" <leurre@frreee.fr> wrote in message news:449ae6f4$0$32631$626a54ce@news.free.fr...> Snippy Bobkins a йcrit :>>> y soient malencontreusement glissйes.>>>
I'd be grateful if you'd trim your posts to the relevant excerpts, Sandy.>>
Curtis L . Russell 22 June 2006 23:28:13 [ permanent link ]
On 22 Jun 2006 11:00:42 -0700, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
I'm not sure that I'd go as far as you have, but you raise some good>points about the interlinking here. That's something that's continually>raised as a negative towards USAC by some of the people supporting>Pound, Wada, and the system.> Any "good old boy network" that has power can very easily become a>huge problem.> Hope they let some fresh air and sunlight in, but I can't say I'm>ptimistic.
So here's a suggestion or more:
Hit the delete button on WADA Hit the delete button on the IOC And, of course, hit the delete button on that bloated spectacle, the Olympics Hit the delete button on all NGOs that are solely IOC NGOs and surgically remove the parts of any NGO related to the IOC Get government out of sports altogether, other than how it impacts children in schools Let individual sports organize themselves and if they can make some jerk rich being a jerk, so be it. At least it won't pretend to be an international issue.
I'll miss curling, but I'll get over it.
Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels...
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:449af184$0$20763$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...> Sandy wrote:>>> Go ahead - be grateful.>
In article <ZvAmg.82016$771.56686@edtnps89>, "Snippy Bobkins" <snippy.bobkins@hotmail.com.edu> wrote:
"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message > news:oPxmg.10148$o4.9160@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
[...]
Not if he told me he was guilty of using performance enhancing substances. > > But, an attorney may not advise his client to lie under oath. If the > > attorney knowing lies on the client's behalf.........well, that can lead > > to some very interesting situations for client and lawyer. The safest > > things in this case for Armstrong and counsel to say, short of "I've never > > used......" is "I've been tested more than any other athlete and never > > been found positive.">
And if he told you he is not guilty? What attorney would counsel his client > to participate voluntarily in such an inquiry? A college buddy of mine is > an attorney for the AG of Florida. His take on lie detector tests is never > to take one, period.
That is interesting, coming from an attorney. What does he think is the problem? Giving away information? I decided that I never would; mostly because people often get incensed when I tell them what I really think, and keeping schtum is not feasible. I also decided not to submit to drug tests. This is almost moot, as I choose never to get into situations where these procedures are routine or likely.
-- OK, we'll be starting in a minute. Relax. -- WADDAYMEAN `Relax?' You're monitoring my stress levels and plan to ask provocative questions, ya moron.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
