Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
DJRC said:
That in reality its overwhelmingly circumstantial. Its also got the production and editing values of a pre GCSE student piece of course work and the quality of something not even my Italian suppliers would fail to manage.
For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
The evidence isn't only, or even mainly, circumstantial. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
Don't run away with the idea that circumstantial evidence is in some way poor or untrustworthy. It is, in fact, preferable to limited eye-witnes testimony. I don't know when we got circumstantial prefixed almost universally by the modifier 'only', but cirumstantial is good.
But I agree, the circumstantial evidence is ovewhelming.
What condemns him is the mix of circumstantial and eye-witness testimony. Far from bing limp, there is a considerable case to answer.
If it was indeed limp one wonders why Armstrong, who would have seen it, with all his money and risks associated with being branded a drugs cheat, didn't opt to put his case in a tribunal where he picked one of the three judges and could refuse the appointment of one of the remaining two.
I would be happy to go to a court with the evidence presented in this report, production values notwithstanding. It is merely a report, not a court file. Further, we have the suggestion that there are emails which might, one presumes, be made available if there is any challenge. I wish we could have done that when prosecuting offenders in the police.
Whilst the report is not game, set and match, it is overwhelmingly convincing without any form of explanation from LA. The suggestion that expensive lawyers would be able to overturn the decision is not an indictment of the evidence but of the adversorial nature of the courts. It is not a search for truth. But it does leave open the question as to why LA didn't go to the tribunal. However, one wonders what LA's defence would be. I would suggest that they would have to prove a conspiracy amongst the other racers, most of whom have come out of this with their reputation as cyclists shattered, but their reasons for doing so have the smell of truth.
Derek Smith said:
If it was indeed limp one wonders why Armstrong, who would have seen it, with all his money and risks associated with being branded a drugs cheat, didn't opt to put his case in a tribunal where he picked one of the three judges and could refuse the appointment of one of the remaining two.
He was fed up apparently. 
el stovey said:
None of his team mates who admitted to doping tested positive either. David Millar was caught with syringes, he never tested positive.
It was easy for dopers to not test positive.
Have you read the report? It's based on loads more than testimony.
I agree about the thoroughness of the tests, but the other riders have admitted guilt and Armstrong has not - therefore it needs to ne proven.It was easy for dopers to not test positive.
Have you read the report? It's based on loads more than testimony.
I can't see how he didn't dope, but in my eyes it has not yet been proven that he did. And until that time he should not be punished as it sets a ridiculous precedent.
groomi said:
I agree about the thoroughness of the tests, but the other riders have admitted guilt and Armstrong has not - therefore it needs to ne proven.
I can't see how he didn't dope, but in my eyes it has not yet been proven that he did. And until that time he should not be punished as it sets a ridiculous precedent.
He's being punished because he refused to turn up and formally face the evidence at the next step, which was a n arbitration panel. It's the only outcome available. If you refuse to face the charges you get found guilty. He knew that when he made the decision.I can't see how he didn't dope, but in my eyes it has not yet been proven that he did. And until that time he should not be punished as it sets a ridiculous precedent.
funkyrobot said:
Efbe said:
are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?
What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
What about other sports? What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.
If I recall correctly, cycling has always been the most tested sport.
What would happen if other sports were tested to these extremes?
Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
Just throwing in my tuppence on Sky from earlier- will read the depressing Armstrong stuff over lunch.
In all seriousness, I think a lot of people have a dig at Sky, as a). some segments of the British sporting public really hate a winner (an extreme extension of underdog syndrome - (see people STILL refusing to believe Murray is even competent even though he won a slam) and b). people like a conspiracy theory (especially in the face of massed opinion) as it makes them feel more intelligent than others. (I am talking about the ones who focus specifically on sky rather than generally - as at least they seem to be paying more attention).
My theory on Sky is that they are probably clean. My logic is that the team has been incredibly openly and consistently damning of doping - usually proferring this opinion without prompting. Many other teams are quiet on the issue and when they get caught serve the ban and come back.
But if Wiggins or Brailsford ever got shown to be dopers not only would it be the end of the road professionally, because of their open stance on the issue their personal reputations will be in complete tatters. It would be game over for basically everything they have worked hard for. Gone.
That is why my money is on them being clean. The stakes are too high for them on this issue.If they were dopers they would be much better served keeping their heads down on the issue.
Anyway. Back to the present...
In all seriousness, I think a lot of people have a dig at Sky, as a). some segments of the British sporting public really hate a winner (an extreme extension of underdog syndrome - (see people STILL refusing to believe Murray is even competent even though he won a slam) and b). people like a conspiracy theory (especially in the face of massed opinion) as it makes them feel more intelligent than others. (I am talking about the ones who focus specifically on sky rather than generally - as at least they seem to be paying more attention).
My theory on Sky is that they are probably clean. My logic is that the team has been incredibly openly and consistently damning of doping - usually proferring this opinion without prompting. Many other teams are quiet on the issue and when they get caught serve the ban and come back.
But if Wiggins or Brailsford ever got shown to be dopers not only would it be the end of the road professionally, because of their open stance on the issue their personal reputations will be in complete tatters. It would be game over for basically everything they have worked hard for. Gone.
That is why my money is on them being clean. The stakes are too high for them on this issue.If they were dopers they would be much better served keeping their heads down on the issue.
Anyway. Back to the present...
Efbe said:
Agreed.
Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
its not naive, just cynical. of course speed and strength change, I think you are under massively estimainting the improvements in training and nutrition made in the last decade alone. Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
you dont have to go too far back before you get to a point where footballers were eating a giant portion of steak and potatoes the night before a game.
incidentally, football has a pretty good drug testing regime, partly due to the lifestyle of the footballer and the places they can sometimes be found of an evening....
Derek Smith said:
DJRC said:
That in reality its overwhelmingly circumstantial. Its also got the production and editing values of a pre GCSE student piece of course work and the quality of something not even my Italian suppliers would fail to manage.
For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
The evidence isn't only, or even mainly, circumstantial. However, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence.For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.
Don't run away with the idea that circumstantial evidence is in some way poor or untrustworthy. It is, in fact, preferable to limited eye-witnes testimony. I don't know when we got circumstantial prefixed almost universally by the modifier 'only', but cirumstantial is good.
But I agree, the circumstantial evidence is ovewhelming.
What condemns him is the mix of circumstantial and eye-witness testimony. Far from bing limp, there is a considerable case to answer.
If it was indeed limp one wonders why Armstrong, who would have seen it, with all his money and risks associated with being branded a drugs cheat, didn't opt to put his case in a tribunal where he picked one of the three judges and could refuse the appointment of one of the remaining two.
I would be happy to go to a court with the evidence presented in this report, production values notwithstanding. It is merely a report, not a court file. Further, we have the suggestion that there are emails which might, one presumes, be made available if there is any challenge. I wish we could have done that when prosecuting offenders in the police.
Whilst the report is not game, set and match, it is overwhelmingly convincing without any form of explanation from LA. The suggestion that expensive lawyers would be able to overturn the decision is not an indictment of the evidence but of the adversorial nature of the courts. It is not a search for truth. But it does leave open the question as to why LA didn't go to the tribunal. However, one wonders what LA's defence would be. I would suggest that they would have to prove a conspiracy amongst the other racers, most of whom have come out of this with their reputation as cyclists shattered, but their reasons for doing so have the smell of truth.
No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of b
d lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presenting quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication. The adversarial nature of the courts is the only thing that matters, the truth is irrelevent. The truth became irrelevent as soon as this became a war and that was a long time ago.Edited by DJRC on Thursday 11th October 13:12
Edited by DJRC on Thursday 11th October 13:15
DJRC said:
You would go to court with that????????????
No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of bd lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presentatial quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication.
I'm not sure why you're banging on about this. The evidence is enough for USADA and for WADA, they even compliment USADA's work. The evidence was enough for Armstrong and his huge legal team to give up defending himself.No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of b
d lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presentatial quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication.He's already been found guilty. It's all over.
pablo said:
Efbe said:
Agreed.
Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
its not naive, just cynical. of course speed and strength change, I think you are under massively estimainting the improvements in training and nutrition made in the last decade alone. Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
you dont have to go too far back before you get to a point where footballers were eating a giant portion of steak and potatoes the night before a game.
incidentally, football has a pretty good drug testing regime, partly due to the lifestyle of the footballer and the places they can sometimes be found of an evening....
If we look at the increased performance in cycling:
and compare the increase in performance since the 60s until a decade or so when drugs are supposed to have left cycling, against 100meters times:
then against serve speed in tennis:
what we see is that after doping left cycling the performance has dropped, and has stopped increasing like it was.
The progression of the other sports look very like the progression of cycling whilst drugs were still common place.
I am no expert on this, and there will be much better data sources out there. yes nutrition will have improved, even if Bolt claims to live off KFC, training may have improved a bit, though I am a bit more dubious when it comes to running training. but the improvements seem too much for just this.
We've always known Lance Armstrong was a bit of a dick and on drugs, but his ex team mate was on Radio 5 telling a story last night of Lance pulling a French motorist out of his car and beating black and blue and leaving him on the side of the road, quite badly injured according to this account.
Vocal Minority said:
Just throwing in my tuppence on Sky from earlier- will read the depressing Armstrong stuff over lunch.
In all seriousness, I think a lot of people have a dig at Sky, as a). some segments of the British sporting public really hate a winner (an extreme extension of underdog syndrome - (see people STILL refusing to believe Murray is even competent even though he won a slam) and b). people like a conspiracy theory (especially in the face of massed opinion) as it makes them feel more intelligent than others. (I am talking about the ones who focus specifically on sky rather than generally - as at least they seem to be paying more attention).
My theory on Sky is that they are probably clean. My logic is that the team has been incredibly openly and consistently damning of doping - usually proferring this opinion without prompting. Many other teams are quiet on the issue and when they get caught serve the ban and come back.
But if Wiggins or Brailsford ever got shown to be dopers not only would it be the end of the road professionally, because of their open stance on the issue their personal reputations will be in complete tatters. It would be game over for basically everything they have worked hard for. Gone.
That is why my money is on them being clean. The stakes are too high for them on this issue.If they were dopers they would be much better served keeping their heads down on the issue.
Anyway. Back to the present...
I do think Sky are clean, but, you could argue that Mr Armstrong took that exact same stance. Consistent denial of doping, its hard work, most tested person ever etc etc. In all seriousness, I think a lot of people have a dig at Sky, as a). some segments of the British sporting public really hate a winner (an extreme extension of underdog syndrome - (see people STILL refusing to believe Murray is even competent even though he won a slam) and b). people like a conspiracy theory (especially in the face of massed opinion) as it makes them feel more intelligent than others. (I am talking about the ones who focus specifically on sky rather than generally - as at least they seem to be paying more attention).
My theory on Sky is that they are probably clean. My logic is that the team has been incredibly openly and consistently damning of doping - usually proferring this opinion without prompting. Many other teams are quiet on the issue and when they get caught serve the ban and come back.
But if Wiggins or Brailsford ever got shown to be dopers not only would it be the end of the road professionally, because of their open stance on the issue their personal reputations will be in complete tatters. It would be game over for basically everything they have worked hard for. Gone.
That is why my money is on them being clean. The stakes are too high for them on this issue.If they were dopers they would be much better served keeping their heads down on the issue.
Anyway. Back to the present...
It also doesn't help that Sky say they have a zero tolerance policy to doping yet have a Doctor on the team that is associated with doping and Michael Barry has now admitted to a doping past.
They've also been the dominant team this last year or so and have also seen some pretty dramatic improvements from riders. So you can see why some people might ask the question.
regarding the court action etc.
Which physical law has been broken here?
is it a criminal matter?
is EPO in teh same class as say heroin? if LA is a dealer and forced teammates into accepting and taking the stuff then if proven that is disgraceful.
but is that a "crime"? sports cheats should be exposed but is it a criminal matter?
Which physical law has been broken here?
is it a criminal matter?
is EPO in teh same class as say heroin? if LA is a dealer and forced teammates into accepting and taking the stuff then if proven that is disgraceful.
but is that a "crime"? sports cheats should be exposed but is it a criminal matter?
Efbe said:
pablo said:
Efbe said:
Agreed.
Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
its not naive, just cynical. of course speed and strength change, I think you are under massively estimainting the improvements in training and nutrition made in the last decade alone. Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.
Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.
you dont have to go too far back before you get to a point where footballers were eating a giant portion of steak and potatoes the night before a game.
incidentally, football has a pretty good drug testing regime, partly due to the lifestyle of the footballer and the places they can sometimes be found of an evening....
If we look at the increased performance in cycling:
and compare the increase in performance since the 60s until a decade or so when drugs are supposed to have left cycling, against 100meters times:
then against serve speed in tennis:
what we see is that after doping left cycling the performance has dropped, and has stopped increasing like it was.
The progression of the other sports look very like the progression of cycling whilst drugs were still common place.
I am no expert on this, and there will be much better data sources out there. yes nutrition will have improved, even if Bolt claims to live off KFC, training may have improved a bit, though I am a bit more dubious when it comes to running training. but the improvements seem too much for just this.
I have just thought of something quite important for this argument, though anecdotal
I do/did a bit of fell running. My best mate runs at national level now. He runs in the championships and places quite highly in the results. iirc his best position this year was 23rd in the championships or something a month or so ago.
the races they do have been there for decades, they rarely change, but course records are hardly ever broken. No doubt more and more people are running in their free time. nutrition is improving, so are training techniques. but the progression at local club level and professional level differ. we are only seeing records being consistently broken year after year for the latter.
I do/did a bit of fell running. My best mate runs at national level now. He runs in the championships and places quite highly in the results. iirc his best position this year was 23rd in the championships or something a month or so ago.
the races they do have been there for decades, they rarely change, but course records are hardly ever broken. No doubt more and more people are running in their free time. nutrition is improving, so are training techniques. but the progression at local club level and professional level differ. we are only seeing records being consistently broken year after year for the latter.
London424 said:
I don't think tennis is the best example there as I think that's almost all technology driven, same for golf. You can't compare long drive stats as the clubs and balls are so technologically advanced compared to even 5 years ago as to make comparison meaningless.
i was about to make the same point about technology and although its easy to scoff at sports science, from a human performance perspective, they reduce the actions of an athlete to a bare minimum and over analyse it to the nth degree in order to identify where potential gains can be found... DJRC said:
You would go to court with that????????????
No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of bd lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presenting quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication. The adversarial nature of the courts is the only thing that matters, the truth is irrelevent. The truth became irrelevent as soon as this became a war and that was a long time ago.
The evidence is clear. There are quite a number of fellow cyclists with eye witness testimony which puts LA in the frame. There is considerable circumstantial evidence, including those whom LA 'ssociated' with. No wonder the police lose so many cases. If you genuinely do not think a cpl of b
d lawyers ... esp Yank courtroom brawlers... would regard that as prime meat then you are vastly more naive than I thought possible. The presenting quality is just outright amateur and if you produced it as an official piece of plod work your boss would have told you to write it again before it ever went anywhere near publication. The adversarial nature of the courts is the only thing that matters, the truth is irrelevent. The truth became irrelevent as soon as this became a war and that was a long time ago.As for the dig at police, the quality of the file is immaterial at the moment as it is not, and is not intended to be, a prosecution file. It is merely the prima facie evidence, disclosure if you will, and it should be viewed as such. Your opinion as to its quality of presentation may or may not be spot on, but is immaterial. The evidence is damning: eye witness and corrobative circumstantial evidence. It hits the sweet spot.
The police do not charge for court, that is a function of the CPS. The police cannot and do not 'lose cases' anymore. I would suggest that if this file came to me, in a proper format, then my recommendation to the CPS would be to prosecute.
LA's defence has been two-fold:
That he did not fail one of the 500+ drugs test he underwent, and
That the agency is picking on him.
The 'never failed' is make-believe (as must be the 500 figure as well) and the agency has only to suggest that there is no other rider who has had so many other riders condemning them.
The fact remains that LA has not chosen to defend himself in front of a tribunal where at least two of the officials will not be picking on him but instead has resorted to press releases. If, as you suggest, a coupe of aggressive briefs could tear the agency's case apart without difficulty, one wonders why he hasn't opted to do so. Perhaps because the case is better founded than you think?
I repeat: a number of riders who have given evidence against him together with corrobative circumstantial evidence. There is also some real and documentary evidence as well. I'm not sure what else one would require from a prosecution file. I think the reason the CPS lose so many cases is that they often do not have such overwelming evidence. One thing which the CPS would consider is the likely defence. I'm bemused as to what LA's could defence be? From what I can see is that all the other riders are telling lies, Ferrari is innocent and that it is all a conspiracy.
Don't reckon the chances of that being successful. Even bruisers have to have something to back up a story.
Going by the report, I'd say I'm convinced that LA is a drugs cheat.
I think it probable that all successful riders, as well as many of the domestiques, were on drugs at the same time. It would appear thought that LA not only shot up hills to a greater extent than all the other riders.
London424 said:
I do think Sky are clean, but, you could argue that Mr Armstrong took that exact same stance. Consistent denial of doping, its hard work, most tested person ever etc etc.
It also doesn't help that Sky say they have a zero tolerance policy to doping yet have a Doctor on the team that is associated with doping and Michael Barry has now admitted to a doping past.
They've also been the dominant team this last year or so and have also seen some pretty dramatic improvements from riders. So you can see why some people might ask the question.
Indeed. Sky shunned Millar yet welcomed Barry and Leinders. Why?It also doesn't help that Sky say they have a zero tolerance policy to doping yet have a Doctor on the team that is associated with doping and Michael Barry has now admitted to a doping past.
They've also been the dominant team this last year or so and have also seen some pretty dramatic improvements from riders. So you can see why some people might ask the question.
And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.
HundredthIdiot said:
Indeed. Sky shunned Millar yet welcomed Barry and Leinders. Why?
And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.
Barry told Brailsford he hadn't doped, obviously it was a lie. And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.
Unfortunately the USADA report also mentions Sean Yates SKY DS who not only tested positive for doping himself in 1989 but also worked with Armstrong in Discovery and also worked with Astana. I thought Leinders was no longer with SKY.
el stovey said:
Barry told Brailsford he hadn't doped, obviously it was a lie.
If that's the case they must dismiss him immediately.el stovey said:
Unfortunately the USADA report also mentions Sean Yates SKY DS who not only tested positive for doping himself in 1989 but also worked with Armstrong in Discovery and also worked with Astana.
Indeed, Yates's doping is common knowledge.el stovey said:
I thought Leinders was no longer with SKY.
Ah, I'd missed that they'd canned Leinders. Busy news day yesterday!http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renew...
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff