Thread: Lance Armstrong and the consequences Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023819
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Lance Armstrong dose not contest doping charges, and in consequence is stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. At least so if the US anti-doping agency Usada prevails against international cycling federation UCI.

Is it still believable that any of the top competitors in cycling are "clean"? Like, say, one Bradley Wiggins?
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Difficult to know, but I can see that if you'd had had to fight something for 10 years - it is just possible you might throw in the towel even if you were innocent.

I think the prosecution still need to make an actual case.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
It is slightly more believable as they are riding slower these days. Team sky hiring certain doctors puts a bit of doubt there though. In cycling circles lance has been assumed to have been doping for a long time so its not exactly news. What is more interesting is whether the UCI were complicit in the whole thing. As far as lance goes the battle is a PR on, which judging by Twitter he is still doing ok at.
 
Posted by Mr Tambourine Man (# 15361) on :
 
Road Cycling was dirty until recently but if you follow the tours you'll notice that it's changed in the last decade. You no longer see half so many 'spectacular' sprints up Category 1 climbs but more constant speeds. The authorities have also got serious with the Blood passport and stripping guilty riders of victories.

As for Brad (who comes originally from the squeaky clean world of British track cycling), he puts it wonderfully here :

"If I doped I would potentially stand to lose everything. It's a long list. My reputation, my livelihood, my marriage, my family, my house. Everything I have achieved, my Olympic medals, my world titles, the CBE I was given. I would have to take my children to the school gates in a small Lancashire village with everyone looking at me, knowing I had cheated, knowing I had, perhaps, won the Tour de France, but then been caught."

Call me naif but when I saw Brad win in Paris last month there was no suspicion in my mind.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
He may well have used drugs. But I don't understand how they can strip him of his wins if he's never tested positive for drugs. (Yes, I know there are people who say he used...but that's not the same as a test result.)
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

I think the prosecution still need to make an actual case.
The last thing LA wanted was this to go to.arbitration and the full details be exposed. By not contesting the case he is hoping that won't happen and he can still make himself out as the persecuted victim. USADA say more details will come out but other people are still being charged.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He may well have used drugs. But I don't understand how they can strip him of his wins if he's never tested positive for drugs. (Yes, I know there are people who say he used...but that's not the same as a test result.)
There are test results, but excuses were made (and accepted which is where UCI might get into trouble) e.g. on the basis of backdated prescriptions. Also, testing is not the be all and end all. Many people have been found to have doped and admitted it without test results. The effect of doping is easier to pick up than the drugs themselves which is where the biopassport has come in, and I think that was going to be part of the USADA case.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
It is generally considered to be getting cleaner as time goes on, but even as late as 2010 the then winner of the TdF (Alberto Contador) was stripped of the title. He blamed contaminated meat.

Armstrong has successfully rebutted pretty much continuous allegations of doping for many years. Interestingly, there was recently a court case in the US centered around whether or not he (and his team) had effectively used US Government money to dope while he was the centre piece of the US Postal team. That ended up not going ahead. It will be interesting to see, if USADA are in a position to name all the people who agreed to testify in their case, whether that court case will make a comeback.

If not, and the names of witnesses don't come out, or they wouldn't be prepared to take the stand in a criminal case, Armstrong supporters will just argue there is no case to answer - which I suppose is kind of what his position is now.

It's also worth noting that not all the "governing bodies" are in agreement here. The UCI (the cycling body) have been contesting in the US that USADA had no jurisdiction in the case. In turn, WADA has accused UCI of jeopordising their own credibility on the whole doping issue.

It's all a bit of a pigs ear really.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I note he had brain surgery two years prior to his first tour win. If he did dope, I wonder if that effected his judgement ? Even quite subtle damage to the frontal lobes of the brain can increase risk taking and lower social awareness and reasoning.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
It will never be clear to me how much testosterone Lance needed to take after his cancer, just to function normally, and how much would be needed to put him at an advantage over the other cyclists. Do the examiners even know? Do the people who witnessed him using drugs know whether it was medicine he needed for his illness or illegal drugs?

He may be guilty of all charges, but if he didn't do anything wrong apart from getting cancer then it's just a huge, crying shame.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
He is on record saying he never took any restricted drugs even whilst having treatment. In any case it isn't just testosterone but also steroids, EPO, growth hormones, blood transfusions.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is it still believable that any of the top competitors in cycling are "clean"? Like, say, one Bradley Wiggins?
Yes. The tragedy of this is that the case is big news just when cycling's been starting to get its act together on doping, and the biological passport's massively reduced the level and impact of doping from the peloton a deux vitesses* days.

Ross Tucker's done some good work on this, covering the impact of the bio passport and analysing power output this year. Cycling fans are naturally cautious and cynical, given the legacy of the last 20 years, but Evans last year and now Wiggins both seem to be clean and plausible.


* Two-speed peloton - no translation for peloton.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He may well have used drugs. But I don't understand how they can strip him of his wins if he's never tested positive for drugs. (Yes, I know there are people who say he used...but that's not the same as a test result.)
The same way as Marion Jones, David Millar, Richard Virenque and many other people were convicted of doping without a positive test result. He had the opportunity to contest the charges, and chose not to. That's the same as pleading guilty, whatever spin he wants to put on it.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It will never be clear to me how much testosterone Lance needed to take after his cancer, just to function normally, and how much would be needed to put him at an advantage over the other cyclists. Do the examiners even know? Do the people who witnessed him using drugs know whether it was medicine he needed for his illness or illegal drugs?

He may be guilty of all charges, but if he didn't do anything wrong apart from getting cancer then it's just a huge, crying shame.
You needn't worry about that. [Biased]

This case isn't based on a few strange test results - it's based on specific, corroborated eye-witness testimony from his ex-teammates that you were either "on the program" or you were out. Floyd Landis, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Jonathan Vaughters and many others have testified that the entire team were on a systematic doping regime (mainly blood and EPO, I think), with strong hints that the UCI was complicit in covering up and giving notice of any planned tests. Of course, if Lance was innocent, he could and surely would have mounted a defence. He didn't.

But we'll probably get to see into the dealings of his team in time. Some of the detail will most likely come out in Johan Bruyneel's related hearing (unless he decides to fold as well), Travis Tygart has said there's nothing to stop the evidence being published now, and I imagine there's going to be a lot of interest in some people finally coming clean.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Anything Armstrong was prescribed for a medical condition is allowable. The question is not whether Armstrong took any drugs, but whether he took anything not prescribed or anything above the levels prescribed.

There's also a thread about this in the Circus.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I can't find it immediately, but I think there is performance evidence to support the assertion that cycling is cleaner. There were at least two positive tests in the 2012 Tour de France, with both riders sent home forthwith. The Tour needs another 'druggie' winner like it needs a hole in the head. In so far as you can be certain of anything, Wiggo doesn't do drugs.

In general, British cycling is reckoned clean at the top, now. You can never be 100% certain, even with Brailsford at the helm, but I'd be surprised if there was any authorised or condoned monkeying about with drugs to gain advantage. The Brailsford focus on technology and performance improvement has always been the cumulative value of detailed very small - and legitimately obtained - improvements.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I think we are a while away from finding out just how this plays out. The USADA's approach here, even if it is technically within the rules/its jurisdiction, is a LONG way from normal procedure. It's by no means clear that the international cycling community is going to accept that just because a US agency has declared Lance Armstrong cheated, it has to agree that Lance Armstrong cheated.

Especially not when the relevant international bodies have explicitly told the USADA to stop doing what it was doing.
 
Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
[QUOTE] Cycling fans are naturally cautious and cynical, given the legacy of the last 20 years, but Evans last year and now Wiggins both seem to be clean and plausible.
Knowing one person who has known for many years as a friend as well as team mate one prominant Australian rider mentioned frequently,this statement might not be totally on track. Blood oxygenisation is as enhancing as artificual stimulants etc. and has not been regularly checked, or as stringently.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I'm not sure about blood oxygenation. Use of EPO and Blood Doping (by transfusion) both improve blood oxygenation and are both illegal. While there's a reliable test for EPO use, I don't think Blood Doping by transfusion is detectable by medical means.

Are you referring to something else which is currently classified as illegal, but not regularly tested?
 
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
So what will the consequences be now that Armstrong is stripped of his tour titles?
Will the record the runner-up as winner?
In 2000, 2001 and 2003 he finished ahead of Jan Ulrich. Surely they won't give him the title instead, seeing HE has been officially banned for doping. Will they then list the third-finishing guy and so on? Will they have to go down the list until the first Italian comes up?
(I understand the Italian anti-doping agents have the reputation of beeing less keen to catch their own guys than those in other countries).
Or will the winners' list of the Tour de France just record a blank #1 for the seven Armstrong years?

Another question: I recently read Tim Krabbé's The Runner (an excellent novel about cycle racing) and wondered when systematic doping might have begun.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I would never go so far as to assert Armstrong never took drugs. But to fool EVERY test over a 10 year period? I think there has to be something to that. IMO, no one has proven anything.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I've been wondering if maybe his cancer is back? Guilty or not, he might want to give his energy to that rather than further wranglings. Hope that's not the case, though.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would never go so far as to assert Armstrong never took drugs. But to fool EVERY test over a 10 year period? I think there has to be something to that. IMO, no one has proven anything.
Be careful. It's a bitch trying to get the sand out of your ears and nose.

Did you miss the many confessed drug cheats who never tested positive? I mentioned a couple upthread, and I'd have thought you might have heard of Marion Jones at least. Did you miss the strong suggestion that the UCI were complicit in this, even tipping Armstrong off when a test was planned? And there are many known ways of evading doping controls, from flushing your system with water and diuretics to substituting someone else's urine via a catheter bag.

Barnabas, the bio passport is intended to pick up variations which suggest blood doping, and while it takes a lot to justify a ban based on that information (deliberately so), it helps to target testing, and keeps the level of doping within fairly narrow margins. I'd also be interested to know what "blood oxygenisation" is being alleged, though.

Sylvander, I think we have to wait and see on the titles. We may yet end up with a farcical swap of one doper for another, for boring official reasons, but I think Riis's 96 win was just annulled, and the record books show an asterisk next to it. That would be my preferred option, but with so many different processes to follow, common sense may not play much of a part.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Just a PS. TGG's crossposted links were to the evidence I'd seen suggesting that cycling is cleaner, following the EPO test and the bio passport. Your sins are more likely to be found out.

The links also contain some observations on Wiggins' outburst. Outbursts don't tell you a lot, except that the person is pissed off. Which he clearly was.

To illustrate the problem, here's a more controlled attack on a journalist. It's pretty revealing.

Paul Kimmage's use of "cancer" and "remission" in his thinly-veiled attack on Lance Armstrong was just a piece of crap. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference that he may well have been right about Armstrong's use of performance enhancements. His observation was not "clever journalism" it was tasteless and vile. Armstrong was completely right to pan him for it at the beginning of his response.

And that's the sort of thing that cyclists are also up against, given the chequered history of the sport in recent years. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick. If you target anyone prominent, you're going to be right some of the time, so just take a potshot for any reason at all. After all, you're a journalist.

I'm with the clean-up brigade. Cycling needs it. It's not easy to do and it isn't helped by careless journalistic accusations, nasty innuendo, or outbursts in response.

As for Lance Armstrong himself, I think Gumby is right to point us to the evidence against which will be published. From what I read so far, it's likely to be impressive.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would never go so far as to assert Armstrong never took drugs. But to fool EVERY test over a 10 year period? I think there has to be something to that. IMO, no one has proven anything.
This seems to be a common misconception, one promoted by Armstrong himself. In fact, he has failed tests, as discussed in this article.
Refusing to contest in the way that he has, if he is innocent, is very difficult to understand. Particularly when one considers how much he has to lose.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Particularly when one considers how much he has to lose.
Which is what, exactly? Given that his career is over.

He's not the first person to say "I've had enough of this" by the way. One of the places I went in my mind was Martina Hingis' positive test for cocaine. Having come back out of retirement, she clearly didn't feel that it was worth her while carrying on while fighting to clear her name. She just re-retired herself and that was the end of it.

EDIT: It's also rather mystifying what the USADA thinks it has to gain in this. In no way can you claim to be 'cleaning up the sport' when you rewind history over a decade to ban someone who is no longer competing.

[ 25. August 2012, 10:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Did you read the article I linked to? If you do ever, you will note that, as well as his titles, he stands to lose quite a lot of money.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Only if people actually believe the USADA's findings.

Which, frankly, I think is actually LESS likely in the circumstances where the findings are not being contested. As things stand, we have a number of other organisations saying that the USADA's behaviour is awfully strange, as well as a judge in a civil court saying the same thing while declining to intervene on the grounds that there are specialist sport bodies designed to deal with the issue.

Armstrong will only lose money if others decide the USADA is credible. And up to this point that hasn't happened.

I certainly don't think it's a given that he'll be stripped of his titles by the people who actually gave him those titles.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Part of my scepticism is because the drug testing system is so relentlessly stacked against anyone who is caught up in it.

There are known cases of the drug authorities getting it wrong. Cases where people have had to fight for years and years to prove their case and clear their name. Cases which have demonstrated that the system simply can't cope with all the individual quirks of biochemistry.

Which is highly relevant because, as has been discussed in another thread recently, top athletes are essentially freaks of nature. When everybody is working insanely hard, part of what you gives the edge is being extremely unusual in your physical/genetic make-up. I find it rather worrying that at least some parts of the testing system rely on assumptions that everyone is biochemically the same when clearly that ISN'T the case.

One of the first examples of this I remember coming across was the Australian pentathlete Alex Watson. He was considered guilty of doping himself with caffeine - on the grounds that the level of caffeine in his blood was not possible from drinking coffee, no matter how much you had drunk.

Alex Watson underwent experiments that demonstrated his body accumulated caffeine at an unexpectedly high rate because he couldn't metabolise it normally. The authorities were completely correct in saying that a person with normal biochemistry couldn't possibly have that level of caffeine in their blood, but they made a fundamentally wrong assumption that Alex Watson's biochemistry was normal.

[ 25. August 2012, 11:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
I feel the whole issue is very sad. Whether the allegations are true or not, Lance is still a remarkable athlete. Drugs couldn't have been the sole reason for such magnificent cycling feats.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would never go so far as to assert Armstrong never took drugs. But to fool EVERY test over a 10 year period? I think there has to be something to that. IMO, no one has proven anything.
Ah, yes -- the Guys and Dolls defense: 47 arrests; No convictions.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I would never go so far as to assert Armstrong never took drugs. But to fool EVERY test over a 10 year period? I think there has to be something to that. IMO, no one has proven anything.
Ah, yes -- the Guys and Dolls defense: 47 arrests; No convictions.

--Tom Clune
How on earth do you equate an arrest with a TEST?

I tell you what Tom. I've been tested for explosives residues in airports at least half a dozen times now. They say it's random selection, but by golly, one day they're going to catch me at it.
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
The reason why the testimony of alleged co conspirators is not favored is that such witnesses have a number of motivations to say what they are saying that are not necessarily aligned with telling the truth.

Revenge, a desire to see others caught up so they don't stand out as much, hope that co-operation will get them something of value, etc., are all reasons for co-conspirator testimony.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Meh....testimony is testimony.

And the fact that Hincapie et al, up to 10 former teammates, would have testified is pretty clear that something was going on.

As others have said, by giving in, Armstrong has done what others have done, admitted guilt. He can spin it all he wants.

He's guilty in the eyes of sports jurisprudence.


As for the UCI, if they don't follow through with what WADA says, they will be disbanded as an organizing body.

They will not go to the wall for Lance Armstrong.

Heck, nobody is going to the wall for him, which should tell people something here.

[ 25. August 2012, 14:48: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Meh....testimony is testimony.
The rules of evidence have clearly passed you by. An awful lot of testimony is excluded by courts precisely because its value as truth is highly questionable.

[ 25. August 2012, 14:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Og,

I personally saw you using EPO. And, I have several other friends who saw you doing it too.

What are you going to do about it? You can't prove we didn't because we are prepared to testify about times we were all together with you, but no one else was present.

11 to 1, you must have done it.

[ 25. August 2012, 14:57: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
A more effective argument:

10 people that said I stole office supplies.


I choose not to confront said 10 people.

I get fired.


I do confront, I've got a chance, although not much of one as we lived pretty much communally for months on end and the office supply cupboard was in the same room as where we lived....and they were stealing with me at the same time so they'll get fired too....

but I would still get fired.


*******

And, yes, testimony is testimony. Its up to the judge/jury to decide what is credible.

But, Lance isn't letting the judge/jury hear that testimony as he's done the equivalent of pleading guilty (no matter how he spins it).
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
A more effective argument:

10 people that said I stole office supplies.


I choose not to confront said 10 people.

I get fired.
I had another job lined up anyway.

See, there's the problem right there with your 'effective argument'. There's an inbuilt assumption that you have something at stake to protect.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
A more effective argument:

10 people that said I stole office supplies.


I choose not to confront said 10 people.

I get fired.


I do confront, I've got a chance, although not much of one as we lived pretty much communally for months on end and the office supply cupboard was in the same room as where we lived....and they were stealing with me at the same time so they'll get fired too....

but I would still get fired.
In the 'Kangaroo courts' one finds in the workplace that would often be so. It also explains why many dismissals are taken to tribunals (and beyond) and the dismissal found to be unsatisfactory if not plain wrong.

*******
quote:

And, yes, testimony is testimony. Its up to the judge/jury to decide what is credible.

But, Lance isn't letting the judge/jury hear that testimony as he's done the equivalent of pleading guilty (no matter how he spins it).
I love this 'equivalent of pleading guilty'. Is the absence of an intact hymen the equivalent of not being a virgin - irrespective of how the bride-to-be spins it?
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Meh....testimony is testimony.
The rules of evidence have clearly passed you by. An awful lot of testimony is excluded by courts precisely because its value as truth is highly questionable.
But Armstrong chose not to question it. If the evidence is so questionable (as it must be if he's innocent, right?) he could show that in arbitration.

Of course, it's not just "the testimony of co-conspirators" (would you use the same argument if a mafia boss went down, I wonder?). There's testimony of people who had nothing to do with it, with no possible motive for perjuring themselves, corroborating those stories. Start with the driver of the team bus which "broke down" so they could get a quick infusion of blood. Move on to the reported lab source confirming that Armstrong tested positive for EPO in the 2002 Tour de Suisse, but it was hushed up. There's probably a whole lot more, including physical evidence, test results and who knows what else. We'll have to wait until the evidence comes out.

Lots of people drinking the Pharmstrong Kool-Aid today.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
A more effective argument:

10 people that said I stole office supplies.


I choose not to confront said 10 people.

I get fired.
I had another job lined up anyway.

See, there's the problem right there with your 'effective argument'. There's an inbuilt assumption that you have something at stake to protect.
This is nonsense. Of course Armstrong has something at stake to protect. His titles. His fortune, at least part of which is linked to him being drug free. Most of all, his reputation.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
So, the whole "I'm moving on with my life" speech is a total lie, and he's sitting somewhere wetting his pants?

Okay then.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What jurisdiction do the USADA have to strip him of The title? Genuinely curious [Confused]

[ 25. August 2012, 20:22: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Wharf jurisdiction do the USADA have to strip him of The title? Genuinely curious [Confused]
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Why Klingon jurisdiction, of course.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Gah! Feckin' mobile phone!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@Gumby

Norfolk UK sings in unison again. Lance was "definitely not the Messiah" of the cycling world; it's become increasingly clear that "a very naughty boy" is likely to be closer to the mark.

[Says he, speaking as a one-time admirer]

And I'm off for two weeks, so, regretfully, this is likely to be my last contribution for a while.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, the whole "I'm moving on with my life" speech is a total lie, and he's sitting somewhere wetting his pants?

Okay then.
If you're under the impression that this is a full rebuttal, just to let you know - it isn't.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
According to a scientific adviser to the French anti-doping agency, Armstrong was warned before all planned doping controls.
quote:
The inspectors encountered many difficulties in making unannounced checks. Armstrong was always informed in advance, so he still had twenty minutes to cover his tracks. He could thin his blood or replace his urine. He used the EPO only in small quantities, so it was no longer there to detect. We were powerless against this way of working
Here's the link
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, the whole "I'm moving on with my life" speech is a total lie, and he's sitting somewhere wetting his pants?

Okay then.
If you're under the impression that this is a full rebuttal, just to let you know - it isn't.
I'm not suggesting that it is. What I'm suggesting, though, is that that scenario has its own problems. You basically seem to suggest that rather than "I don't care anymore" being a true picture, he does indeed care and he's hoping an extremely risky bluff pays off.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Absolutely not, and how you could come to that conclusion is mystifying. I am implying that walking away in the manner that he has, when he has so much to lose, suggests he doesn't think he will be successful. If he did, with everything at stake I have pointed out, it is inconceivable that he would simply say 'Ah, Bugger it!'
If Armstrong is anything, he is a scrapper. Why give up now?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
So...um...no-one has answered my question: wtf have the pronouncements of an American drug body got to do with the Tour de France?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So...um...no-one has answered my question: wtf have the pronouncements of an American drug body got to do with the Tour de France?
I honestly haven't got the faintest idea, except for some notion that all the sporting bodies have apparently promised to listen to all the drug-testing bodies.

An agreement that may very well break down, given that in this particular case the sporting body has ALREADY said it didn't agree with what the drug-testing body was doing!
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So...um...no-one has answered my question: wtf have the pronouncements of an American drug body got to do with the Tour de France?
Hi Matt, I'll give it a crack.

The four bodies involved are:
USADA and the UCI are signatories to the WADA code.

Under the WADA code, sanctions handed down to an athlete are mutually enforceable. So if a national anti-doping agency is a signatory to the code and that agency sanctions an athlete, all other WADA signatories are obliged to enforce that ban.*

The UCI sanction the Tour de France. The race is held under UCI rules, one of which states that athletes are not eligible to compete if they have been banned for doping.

USADA has banned Armstrong and disqualified his results dating back to 1998. Armstrong therefore becomes ineligible to have raced in all UCI-sanctioned events since that time. The ASO must therefore strip his Tour de France results under its obligations to the UCI.

The only impediment here to the titles being stripped will be if the UCI, for whatever reason, disputes USADA's finding and opts to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. We're yet to find out whether that will happen.

*Fun fact: Armstrong could, theoretically, have been investigated and sanctioned by a foreign anti-doping agency. This happened recently in the case of Alejandro Valverde, a Spaniard, who was charged by the Italian Anti-Doping Ageny (CONI) and subsequently banned for two years.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Many thanks; that links the body to the event for me.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Given what we know (or in my case, think I know) about the effect of steroids on genitals, perhaps the solution to doping woes in the future will involve measuring a man's schlong when he turns professional as a cyclist. Then regular measurements thereafter. Factoring in variations due to weather conditions etc, that may sort the ... um ... men from the boys, as it were.
Granted, this will not help catch most of the female cheats.

FFS - who misspells schlong?

[ 30. August 2012, 07:59: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
[Big Grin]

Unfortunately, steroids are small potatoes in cases of doping in cycling. I have no doubt that they're used in training, but their impact is limited. Power to weight ratios mean that there's no benefit in getting ripped like a bodybuilder.

Because cycling is basically about lots of long-distance races, the doping methods of choice are all about increasing aerobic capacity. Hence EPO (which can now be tested for directly) and blood transfusions (which can be detected if someone else's blood is used), both of which increase the number of red blood cells and hence the oxygen-carrying capacity of the body.

If anyone's using a new variant of EPO (like the riders who were using CERA in 2008 until they were caught by a new test) or extracting and reinfusing their own blood, that should be flagged up by the Bio Passport, because it will make their blood values quite irregular. There are still some problems with building a doping case entirely on Passport data (although it has been done), but huge fluctuations will be a big red flag, and it allows the anti-doping authorities to target their tests better.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Just read through this. Apart from the straw man re cancer in the middle (which is a bit bizarre), I think it is quite convincing.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
[Big Grin]

Unfortunately, steroids are small potatoes in cases of doping in cycling. I have no doubt that they're used in training, but their impact is limited. Power to weight ratios mean that there's no benefit in getting ripped like a bodybuilder.
Another reason for steroid use is muscle recovery. Especially useful for aging athletes.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Unfortunately, steroids are small potatoes in cases of doping in cycling. I have no doubt that they're used in training, but their impact is limited. Power to weight ratios mean that there's no benefit in getting ripped like a bodybuilder.
The advantage of steroids is that they allow you to train harder and longer. The muscle will only develop in those areas that are exercised, looking like a bodybuilder is unlikely to happen to a cyclist, steroid use or not.

For this reason steroid use in sport tends to happen in training, there is little impact on the day. Prolonged use in training followed by a gap before competition would have the same advantages as continual use. This is why testing out of competition is important. Especially in an athlete who concentrates his season on one event.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
And it runs and runs and runs (I know, what should I expect...)

Tyler Hamilton's expose of EPO doping in the (defunct) US Postal Team was published in the US on Thursday. I understand it will be serialised in The Times in the UK.

Clearly I haven't read it yet – but the reports of its content paint a picture of it almost being Organised Crime running the (defunct) US Postal Team with little shots of EPO for all who could be drawn in to the web.

Q: Are Hamilton's recollections to be taken as reasonably accurate? Or considered to be sour grapes?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
And it runs and runs and runs (I know, what should I expect...)

Tyler Hamilton's expose of EPO doping in the (defunct) US Postal Team was published in the US on Thursday. I understand it will be serialised in The Times in the UK.

Clearly I haven't read it yet – but the reports of its content paint a picture of it almost being Organised Crime running the (defunct) US Postal Team with little shots of EPO for all who could be drawn in to the web.

Q: Are Hamilton's recollections to be taken as reasonably accurate? Or considered to be sour grapes?
Those points of view are not exclusive, and I think they will both apply here. People will be falling over themselves to apologise so that they can point the finger at a bigger fish.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
As someone who has been a competitive cyclist (though at much lower level than TdF!) and had to come back after illness, I have to say that I have always admired Armstrong for his achievement in overcoming his own cancer, and I continue to do so.

He had cancer so severe that only about 10% of people with that survive at all. But Armstrong did not just survive, but got back on his bike. To even get to the stage of being able to ride 40km gently, would have shown considerable physical and mental strength and determination. To recover enough to ride in club races would be an even bigger feat. But to drag oneself up to the level of even being able to finish the Tour de France shows fantastic determination, that was an inspiration to all my club peleton. (The performance of Alex Zannadi and others in the parolympics are equally inspirational.) So even if he was (is) personally not very likeable and arrogant, he did genuinely have something to be arrogant about.

As a matter of course, as part of his initial recovery, the doctors had him on steroids, to build up his ravaged body to the point where he could stand up and walk. That is an accepted medical use of steroids, and a good reason why they are legally available at all. But as has been pointed out upthread, steroids are not much use to enhance performance in road cycling (unlike in, say, power-lifting!).

In any case, performance enhancing drugs are the icing on the cake, not the filling. If you don't have the basic ability and put in the training they can't turn you into a star. But they could perhaps take you from being 50th-ranked world to being 5th-ranked, or maybe from being 5th to 1st.

Several professional riders and ex-riders hung round our club and so we heard a lot of gossip about the Tour and other big events. At the time when Lance was starting to feature, the gossip was that drugs were widespread at the top level. They had died down a bit after the Tommy Simpson case, but had revived in more selective form, with the rise of Miguel Indurain - who though 'clean' himself was such a physical freak (he had a heart almost as big as Phar Lap's) that his competitors found it impossible to stay near him without artificial boosting.

As other have pointed out, most of Armstrong's closest competitors have been outed as druggies. If he was one also - which I can believe even though I don't want to - then it evens out, so he probably would have beaten them anyway if they had all been clean. Ironic, eh?
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
Now it all seems to be spilling out, as the USADA releases its detailed dossier.

I stand by earlier admiring remarks about Armstrong, but with more qualifications than before. Oh dear, what a tangled web we have here.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
I stand by earlier admiring remarks about Armstrong, but with more qualifications than before. Oh dear, what a tangled web we have here.
You'll go far in the Church of Lance. The man has been shown to be a lying, cheating bully, running a massive, sophisticated doping ring with a combination of bribery and intimidation, and still you can't bring yourself to condemn him. But you previously gave reasons for your admiration, so let's examine them properly.

He recovered from cancer - True, but many people do. Some even go on to achieve great things afterwards. The fact of "beating" cancer doesn't imply moral fortitude or any other praiseworthy quality, unless you consider luck, chemotherapy and a robust immune system to be virtues.

He went from cancer to the top of his sport - Looks impressive, but even leaving aside the doping (we'll come to that later), he was already an incredibly fit athlete with all the appropriate physiological attributes. Cancer doesn't linger and become something you live with - if it's gone, it's gone. It would have been worse if he'd had glandular fever. It would be a miracle if he'd won a cycling event with impaired lung function. This doesn't register.

He beat other dopers - Yes, the only people who could get near him were also doping, but that's because his doped performance was outside the limits of what was humanly possible clean. That doesn't help your case. You might as well say that a guy who used a rocket pack to a high jump contest was only challenged by the other people with rocket packs, so he didn't really cheat anyone. On which note:

If everyone was doping, it was a level playing field - This begs the question, as there were people who competed clean, as well as those who tried and were forced out by the unnatural pace of a doped peloton. But in any case, not all dope is equal. Armstrong had the best doping doctor (Ferrari), is alleged to have bribed the UCI to make positive tests disappear, and built a whole team on the basis that you either doped or you were out. And when the only effective control on blood doping and EPO abuse was the haematocrit level threshold of 50%, those who had a lower clean level (like Armstrong) had more to gain from these methods.

Drugs are the icing on the cake - Yes and no. I couldn't go out and win the TdF (or even my local Cat 3) however much EPO I injected, but the margins are much bigger than you imply. While "traditional" doping had been mostly about easing the pain and getting through each day, EPO and blood doping completely changed the picture. If you weren't juiced, you were nowhere. Just ask Christophe Bassons.

Armstrong lied, cheated and bullied. He used people, wrecked their lives by coercing them into doping to help him, then spat them out when they'd served their purpose. Most of all, when the sport seemed to be on the cusp of genuine change after the Festina scandal in 1998, he took up their mantle of doping and pursued it more vigorously and more ruthlessly than ever before, becoming the chief enforcer of the omerta in the peloton.

Just read the account of Dave Zabriskie in USADA's released summary document. He blamed drugs for his dad's death, and got into cycling to get away from that. But Armstrong wanted him to dope, because he needed as much strong team support as possible. He and Bruyneel turned the screw, offered him the needle or the boot, and Dave, with nowhere else to turn, caved in. If you can admire a man who would do something like that, your moral compass would appear to be broken.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
[tangent]
It strikes me that if road cycling is such a team sport, to the extent of needing domestiques etc, then the win should be credited to the team - as in a relay - not to an individual.
[/tangent]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Broken Lance? He's still officially in denial, I see. I'm not surprised by that, but it looks completely shameless.

The USADA dossier is even more damning than the earlier forecasts. The bullying looks as well evidenced as the doping.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Doublethink: [tangent]
It strikes me that if road cycling is such a team sport, to the extent of needing domestiques etc, then the win should be credited to the team - as in a relay - not to an individual.[/tangent]
By now, I think the win should be credited to the pharmaceutical company.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
For anyone who fancies a bit of bedtime reading, the complete USADA file is available as a pdf here.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[tangent]
It strikes me that if road cycling is such a team sport, to the extent of needing domestiques etc, then the win should be credited to the team - as in a relay - not to an individual.
[/tangent]
In a sense, it is. While the winner still has to cover the course faster than anyone else, the tradition is that the prize money for winning a big event is split between every member of the team except the winner, whose reward is the fame and sponsorship (and, most likely, biggest salary in the team) that goes with his position. Cycling's an odd sport with many peculiarities.

Anyway, I thought that Lance said he was tired of fighting. Is that why his lawyers have been all over TV and radio in the last 24 hours throwing around the same implausible, disingenuous or just plain fabricated arguments? It's almost as if his tiredness was just an excuse to avoid confessing or perjuring himself in arbitration, so that he could continue his battle in the less forensic court of popular opinion.

But still, people find excuses for him. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
I'm amazed by the number of people still making excuses for the guy. Idols really are hard to relinquish.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
Armstrong has been lieing for so long that he may well be convinced that he's telling the truth.

Perhaps there's some kind of Psychological or Psychiatric terminology for that.

For me, the bullying and controlling is the worst of it. Armstrong is the dirtiest sportsman ever, in fact he's the biggest fraud in all of sporting history.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I posted in Hell, on the TICTH thread, because it seemed the right thing to do. I'm angry with myself for believing Armstrong for so long, but we've seen elsewhere how fame blinds people to faults in their heroes.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Wow. Bitter, much?

Thank goodness this pathetic excuse for a human being decided to utilize his fame and fortune into establishing the largest athlete-named charity in the world which has raised almost $500 million dollars to fight cancer and support its victims.

What a jerk. Oh, and what have you blameless ones done for the world lately?
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Wow. Bitter, much?

Thank goodness this pathetic excuse for a human being decided to utilize his fame and fortune into establishing the largest athlete-named charity in the world which has raised almost $500 million dollars to fight cancer and support its victims.

What a jerk. Oh, and what have you blameless ones done for the world lately?
I don't think anyone's claiming to be blameless, and it's wonderful that he used his fame to start a charity and if his charity is one of the ones that does actual good rather than just self-promoting, that's fantastic.

But do you really think that it doesn't matter AT ALL how that fame was achieved? What you do with your fame and how you got it in the first place are two separate things. If Armstrong cheated as it now seems he did, that doesn't of course negate any good he did with the resulting fame. But conversely, the fact that he started a big charity and raised lots of money doesn't mean that the cheating didn't happen, or doesn't matter.

If you rob a bank and use the funds to build an orphanage, does the originally robbery not matter anymore?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Wow. Bitter, much?

Thank goodness this pathetic excuse for a human being decided to utilize his fame and fortune into establishing the largest athlete-named charity in the world which has raised almost $500 million dollars to fight cancer and support its victims.

What a jerk. Oh, and what have you blameless ones done for the world lately?
Nope, what pisses me off to the max is that, not for the first time, I sincerely believe a gifted and talented person has abused or misused those gifts then deluded themselves into thinking that if they do enough good works they can undo any wrong they may have done.

Mostly though I'm just angry with myself for going along with Lance Armstrong's story for so long.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
But that is the norm, right? I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.

I am very thankful that LiveStrong has not been adversely affected and that donations are actually up. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nope, what pisses me off to the max is that, not for the first time, I sincerely believe a gifted and talented person has abused or misused those gifts then deluded themselves into thinking that if they do enough good works they can undo any wrong they may have done.

I guess the same applies to the robber barons of 19th century American capitalism, like Rockefeller and Carnegie. But at least their foundations are still doing good work, a century later.
 
Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :
 
No-ones saying that Livestrong hasn't done, isn't doing and wont be doing good things. And I don't see criticism of his systematic cheating as bitterness. If there's any bitterness its with cycling fans like myself who wanted to believe the sporting miracle that Armstrong was, even though there was always a vague suspicion that the whole pro-peloton was drugged.

I think people are coming at this from two different angels – Those who got to know Armstrong because of Livestrong and so see very much good in him – and those who got to know Armstrong as cycling fans and so are now very disappointed.

These two routes to know Armstrong are quite different, and I presume (as in my presumptive opinion) that non cycling fans that didn't know about the cycling Armstrong and became aware of him through Livestrong will find the opprobrium being chucked at him to be a bit much.

Personally, the Livestrong thing was not something I knew about (but I can only commend its work) – but the cycling was something I did know about. And I'm not sure that trying to weigh up which aspect of the man was or is more important will ever be resolved.

As ever with this complex man, the thoughts people have about Armstrong now depends on what window you look through and whether you think that window has just been smashed.

<Edited first sentence to ensure I write what I mean>

[ 11. October 2012, 21:03: Message edited by: Shire Dweller ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Grits, the cumulative evidence detailed in the report is by any standard overwhelming and Lance Armstrong has declined his right to contest it at a formal hearing.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key (back in August):
He may well have used drugs. But I don't understand how they can strip him of his wins if he's never tested positive for drugs. (Yes, I know there are people who say he used...but that's not the same as a test result.)
Unless there are enough of those people and their evidence is consistent.

And that evidence is now in. 164 pages of it, plus appendices.

The remaining question is who gets the titles now?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
In a criminal law matter, the onus would be on the prosecution to prove its case, and the defence would be perfectly entitled to sit there silently.

That's pretty much my gripe with this whole business, and it's Armstrong's official gripe, and even if he IS hiding something it is still a legitimate gripe.

Process matters. The USADA has not followed normal processes. The pursuit of someone, even you're thoroughly convinced of their guilt, does not give you permission to cut corners and ignore the system.

The prosecution is not the judge.

In one sense I'm happy to hear that the UCI is going to look at the dossier. What I'm not at all happy about is the manner in which the dossier has got to them.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The first thing I'm tempted to ask some of these witnesses, starting with Landis, is: if this program was so sophisticated and so damn good at preventing Armstrong from being detected... then why did YOU get caught?

Seriously. You were leading the Tour de France. I would have thought ensuring you didn't caught would have been a high team priority, if the team was running this whole thing and being clever about it. So what went wrong?
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first thing I'm tempted to ask some of these witnesses, starting with Landis, is: if this program was so sophisticated and so damn good at preventing Armstrong from being detected... then why did YOU get caught?

Seriously. You were leading the Tour de France. I would have thought ensuring you didn't caught would have been a high team priority, if the team was running this whole thing and being clever about it. So what went wrong?
I've been hearing this arguement and it doesn't seem to hold water.

My understanding is that only Landis got caught. (And don't forget he wasn't leading until he did an outrageous run that had a lot of people going "UH WHAT?!?!") That means many only testified.

i.e. Getting caught isn't the only way to prove things.

Unless of course you don't believe in the weight of testimony.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first thing I'm tempted to ask some of these witnesses, starting with Landis, is: if this program was so sophisticated and so damn good at preventing Armstrong from being detected... then why did YOU get caught?

Seriously. You were leading the Tour de France. I would have thought ensuring you didn't caught would have been a high team priority, if the team was running this whole thing and being clever about it. So what went wrong?
I've been hearing this arguement and it doesn't seem to hold water.

My understanding is that only Landis got caught. (And don't forget he wasn't leading until he did an outrageous run that had a lot of people going "UH WHAT?!?!") That means many only testified.

i.e. Getting caught isn't the only way to prove things.

Unless of course you don't believe in the weight of testimony.
Landis probably got caught because he inadvertently infused a bag of his own blood which was contaminated with testosterone. He or his doctor got careless, but before the Tour, not during it.

That's also the likeliest explanation for why Contador was caught with microscopic amounts of Clenbuterol in his blood during the 2010 Tour de France. Like Landis, he tested positive during a Tour which he won. There's no reason to be taking Clenbuterol during a three-week Tour, but plenty of reason to be taking it during the off-season when you might be banking your blood for later use.

Hamilton, according to his account in his excellent and detailed book, The Secret Race, was caught because Armstrong called the UCI and told them to test him.

The complicity between Armstrong and the UCI is one reason why this is much more important than your average doping case, and why Armstrong is more than just your average doper.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first thing I'm tempted to ask some of these witnesses, starting with Landis, is: if this program was so sophisticated and so damn good at preventing Armstrong from being detected... then why did YOU get caught?
Here you are also assuming that the doping program was applied equally to all. USADA's evidence, witness testimony and Hamilton's book make clear that there was a hierarchy both within the sport as a whole and within individual teams.

Hamilton raced for several years paniagua - ie on bread and water - while more highly regarded riders on his team, including Armstrong, were given access to EPO, testosterone and other forms of doping. Hamilton was only allowed access even to the moderate performance enhancing drugs like testosterone when he earned his stripes.

Access to the team's blood doping program was even more tightly restricted. This is because blood doping requires organisation. Blood has to be safely extracted, labelled, stored at the correct temperature, transported to the race and safely transfused. The process does not come cheap. Not every team could afford the best doctors. Not every rider in every team was on the same program.

USADA's evidence documents payments by Armstrong of over $1 million to Dr Michele Ferrari, cycling's most renowned doping doctor. Very few, if any other riders, had access to that sort of money.

As mentioned upthread, Armstrong also enjoyed a special relationship with the UCI that Floyd and Tyler, among others, did not.

It was in no way a level playing field on US Postal or on any other team. Not all dopers were equal.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
Still, by many standards -- legal and otherwise -- that does not substantiate actual proof.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
Still, by many standards -- legal and otherwise -- that does not substantiate actual proof.
Out of interest, how you do explain the sworn eyewitness statements by 7 former teammates and by 26 witnesses in total, the corroborating scientific evidence and the $1 million in payments to the banned doping doctor?
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
I feel weird about this. I have watched the Tour since I was knee high to a grasshopper and can remember Indurain winning [Smile]

I never really took to Lance, there was something that I couldn't like about him. I spent years feeling guilty about this because he was a survivor, hero, charitable philanthropist and sporting great and I still didn't like him.

I think they should just have 'no winner awarded' for the years where the winner is proven to have doped. That's probably the easiest and most logical thing to do.

I feel sad for what this means for cycling's profile because it always has been an awesome sport to watch but I think if someone is going to cheat then they deserve to be punished. In some ways Lance's charity work has also further condemned him since now in future any sporting star who makes similar commitments might have to deal with the shadow of this over people's willingness to donate. I hope not though.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Unless of course you don't believe in the weight of testimony.
I don't believe in all testimony automatically being assigned the same weight.

The whole purpose of the adversarial model of justice, as practiced in countries that derived their system from the English model, is to see just how well testimony holds up.

Having worked in a tribunal, I've witnessed cases both of testimony surviving a particular kind of challenge very well, and of testimony collapsing under that kind of challenge. As a person working in the tribunal, and able to see a range of cases and not have a stake in the outcome, it can be quite fascinating to see the tactics used to challenge a person's evidence and observe how they work in one case and utterly fail in another.

The issue as I see it in this case is, as I've already said, the prosecution is not the judge. Or ought not to be. While I realise there are some difficulties here in that Armstrong decided not to pursue the process, there are still major concerns, from my point of view, with essentially having the prosecutor able to present its case and say "he's guilty!". Well sure, that's what every prosecutor says.

And every decision-maker whose decision got challenged in the tribunal I worked for said that their decision was right. Well, at least every decision-maker who kept going up until the hearing. But some of them clearly WEREN'T right. Some of them had relied on erroneous information. Some of them had been mistaken as to their interpretation of facts. Some of them relied on evidence given by people who had made sincere but wrong misinterpretations of facts. In at least one case they had initially relied on evidence that not only the tribunal concluded was falsely given, THEY had, by the time of the hearing, concluded it was false as well.

Aside from my own personal experience, there are also documented cases of prosecution cases that look convincing completely falling apart when properly tested. Including of course on appeal.

What I want, one way or another, is for testimony to be tested. I'm not terribly convinced that the USADA are the people to do the testing, any more than I'm convinced that criminal prosecutors are always capable of properly assessing whether the evidence they are gathering for their case is cogent and accurate. We are all prone to causing the 'facts' to fit our pre-existing theory about the outcome. My concern is no more and no less than that a body that appears to have been determined for a long time to prove that Armstrong was guilty of doping is not the appropriate body to have the final word on whether Armstrong was guilty of doping.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I wonder if Grits and orfeo have seen the significance of this extract from the start of the report.

quote:
Pursuant to Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), after a sanction is announced because the sanctioned party has failed to challenge the charges against the party, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall submit to the entities with appeal rights a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
In short, the document now published is necessary precisely because Lance Armstrong did not challenge the charges. Of course it represents the prosecution case - not in full as the document makes clear, but comprehensive enough to support the need other bodies might have to check up on whether the findings and decisions are reasonable. That seems fair both to Armstrong, the WADA, UCI or anyone else who has an interest in checking, independently, the fairness of both findings and processes.

Professional bodies who carry out disciplinary investigations into the conduct of professionals often use what are described as quasi-judicial processes. But if these processes are thought to be unfair or defamatory, the person being charged can challenge the legal fairness of findings and processes in the legal courts - or seek damages for defamation - or both. Armstrong has already tried some of that, not got very far. It doesn't seem likely that he will do this, but he may still have some recourse to further legal action now the document is "out there". Perhaps its very publication gives him some additional options? I don't know for sure, but lawyers nearly always have ways and means.

So where's the legal beef? What we've got is access to "the prosecution case" whose findings Armstrong has stopped challenging. Personally, after reading it, that should come as no great surprise. It's come from a body which has authority to make professional rulings under its remit. The extent to which other interested parties will accept this reasoned decision is still up to them, I think.

The USADA has done its job, and explained why. I think cycling will benefit in the long term from the way they've done it. Which pleases me, as an enthusiast for the sport who has been saddened by the drugs taint. The message is simple. It doesn't matter how big you are.

[ 12. October 2012, 08:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
Still, by many standards -- legal and otherwise -- that does not substantiate actual proof.
Yes but this is why the sneaky "not contesting the charges" thing is so unsatisfactory, ISTM. If his choices were (a) have the tribunal hear the thing out and come to a conclusion or (b) plead properly guilty, then we wouldn't have this mess. The fuzz is of Armstrong's own making, AFAICT.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
la vie on rouge

There is a bit more at stake here than just Armstrong's reputation. This may also throw some light on the "won't contest" approach.

Here's the WADA view. Very supportive.

Here's some very recent news about the UCI response. Which is awaited.

You can see that the UCI is "behind the 8 ball". If indeed there was some quid pro quo between Armstrong and UCI re prior positive drug tests - and if indeed money has changed hands (big ifs), then Armstrong's last throw may be to see if the UCI can find some procedural defence against the USADA findings because that might serve its own interests.

David Millar's comments (those of a poacher turned gamekeeper) are very interesting in this context.

Please pardon the metaphor, giving the context is cycling, but there are wheels within wheels here.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a bit more at stake here than just Armstrong's reputation.
There's Johan Bruyneel's job for a start. Here's a Belgian perspective.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder if Grits and orfeo have seen the significance of this extract from the start of the report.

quote:
Pursuant to Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), after a sanction is announced because the sanctioned party has failed to challenge the charges against the party, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall submit to the entities with appeal rights a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
In short, the document now published is necessary precisely because Lance Armstrong did not challenge the charges.
I must have missed the part where it says "publish it loudly on the internet". In fact, I missed where it had the word publish at all.

[ 12. October 2012, 23:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
orfeo

So far as I can make out from the rules, under these circumstances, USADA was under no obligation to keep the contents of the report confidential in advance of any review by interested parties. Neither WADA and UCI have objected to the publication of the document, at least I've seen nothing in public to suggest that they have.

Lance Armstrong chose not to challenge the evidence, whatever continuing concerns he may have over remit or process, so he can have no complaint about the decision to publish. Whether he or his lawyers find grounds for any fresh legal action as a result of the contents of the publication is a matter for him.

Do you think USADA have acted improperly in publishing their report? If so, why?

[ 13. October 2012, 01:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I don't think they've necessarily acted improperly in that sense, but what it means that everyone is going to go read the prosecution case and say "yep, he's been found guilty".

The whole thing has had the air for quite a while, now, of 'the case is over' rather than 'the case is in progress'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, I suppose the interested parties are WADA, UCI, IOC, maybe CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) if anyone calls them in. Any of them might raise objections or queries about the findings and the processes, and therefore the decisions which have followed, within the time frame allowed. It's all out there now.

USADA's findings are, currently, unchallenged. That might not continue to be the case. I think I read somewhere that the issues over remit (which to my mind amount to "overlapping goalkeepers") should be referred to the CAS. That issue might drag on for a while.

The impact any of that might have on Lance Armstrong's credibility and reputation will, I suppose, depend on what these bodies come up with. For the time being at least, Armstrong and his legal team are, voluntarily, on the sidelines. That's his choice. He can hardly complain if his own reputation, and that of USADA, are now in the hands of others.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
The UCI have 21 days to decide whether to appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They've indicated this will be unlikely, but as self preservation is involved you never know.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
e: innocent until proven guilty. That's the general standard for criminal law, but this isn't a criminal case. The world professional cycling "community" is a private club, and they govern themselves. So yes, they can be judge, jury and executioner, and it really isn't any outsiders' business if they are. And while reasonable doubt is enough to acquit a defendant in a criminal proceeding, most civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities. IANAL, of course.

In university, I was briefly acquainted with a Canadian sprinter who regularly came in 4th in the 100 meters in the Ben Johnson era. He was sure everyone ahead of him was cheating (and he was proven right), but there was no way he would do the same. He never went to the Olympics. He doesn't have a foundation or plastic bracelets. He's a real sports hero.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
On the issue of how strong is the evidence, there are reports of two legal cases already being contemplated against Armstrong. One would be a criminal case for illegal drug use in California, which the report says is unlikely to proceed because the prosecutor would be unlikely to rate the evidence as good enough for that test. The other would be a civil case in which a sponsor wants some of their money back (they tried to withhold it originally on grounds of suspicion of doping but Lance successfully sued them on grounds that he was not a doper !), so the case would rest on his 'obtaining money by false pretences'
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Two quotes from Tukai's link give pause for thought. Firstly re the re-opening of a criminal investigation (as opposed to the civil case)
quote:
"If I were a betting man I would say they are absolutely, positively not going to re-open the investigation," said Professor Jordan Kobritz, chair of the Sports Management Department at SUNY Cortland.

Kobritz said that any criminal prosecution would be tough to prove to a jury and would cost millions of dollars.
Secondly, this more general observation
quote:
"If anyone still believes he was not doping, then they believe in Santa Claus." Professor Jordan Kobritz
I'd suggest those paradoxical quotes give pause for thought about the burden of proof in criminal cases. There are, quite properly, very high standards to be observed over the precise nature of charges and what evidence is admissible. Depriving people of their liberty requires very high standards. Burden of proof and benefit of doubt allow a lot of wriggle room.

Re-opening the civil case seems much more likely, if for no other reason than the chances of a "without prejudice" out of court settlement must have been greatly increased. Hard to believe Armstrong's lawyers would advise a fight in court with SCA Promotions now. Particularly if the UCI stay mum on the USADA report.

Depriving people of their money is subject to rather different considerations than depriving them of their liberty. That's hardly a surprise.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder if Grits and orfeo have seen the significance of this extract from the start of the report.

quote:
Pursuant to Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), after a sanction is announced because the sanctioned party has failed to challenge the charges against the party, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall submit to the entities with appeal rights a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
In short, the document now published is necessary precisely because Lance Armstrong did not challenge the charges.
I must have missed the part where it says "publish it loudly on the internet". In fact, I missed where it had the word publish at all.
Hahaha! So if the evidence isn't published, the cry goes up "this is a witch hunt, there's no evidence" and if it is, the complaint is "how dare you publish this evidence, you're not following proper procedures." Brilliant!

Barney's already pointed out that contrary to the claims of Armstrong fanbois, USADA are following due process to the letter. And everyone is surely aware that doping cases follow different rules from the norm in criminal cases, most obviously because strict liability is applied.

But it's technically true that Armstrong is yet to be officially found guilty (or more accurately, that his guilty verdict still has to be ratified by the UCI). Still, the evidence is clearly sufficiently damning for RSNT to sack Johan Bruyneel, even though he denies the charges, is due for an arbitration hearing, and wasn't even the subject of the published "reasoned decision". I have no idea how anyone who's been paying attention can claim that Armstrong's anything other than guilty as sin (and as charged).
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The other would be a civil case in which a sponsor wants some of their money back (they tried to withhold it originally on grounds of suspicion of doping but Lance successfully sued them on grounds that he was not a doper !), so the case would rest on his 'obtaining money by false pretences'
The SCA Promotions case you refer to was not actually decided in LA's favour because he in any way defended himself against allegations that he cheated.

It was decided on a technicality, in that the terms of the contract only specified that Armstrong had to have won the Tours to be awarded the bonuses ($5 million, IIRC). It was not considered an issue how he won the Tours, only that he was officially recognised to have won them.

Not surprisingly, now that he is being stripped of his wins SCA are pretty keen to get their money back.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
The fallout is starting to take effect in Australia. Former US Postal rider Matt White has admitted doping. He has stood down from his roles with the Green Edge team, where he is sporting director, and with Cycling Australia, where he is a national selector.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Hahaha! So if the evidence isn't published, the cry goes up "this is a witch hunt, there's no evidence" and if it is, the complaint is "how dare you publish this evidence, you're not following proper procedures." Brilliant!
No. If the evidence isn't aired in the appropriate forum, then there's a complaint from me. I don't recall EVER saying "there's no evidence". Nor were the claims of witch hunt from Armstrong, as far as I'm aware, based on "there's no evidence". It was based on saying that the evidence was of questionable credibility.

As for the business about criminal versus civil burdens of proof that people have raised: that is absolutely correct, but completely beside the point. All you do is replace the words "prosecutor" and "defendant" with "plaintiff" and "defendant". In a civil case the same basic principle of testing evidence applies. The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
Still, by many standards -- legal and otherwise -- that does not substantiate actual proof.
Out of interest, how you do explain the sworn eyewitness statements by 7 former teammates and by 26 witnesses in total, the corroborating scientific evidence and the $1 million in payments to the banned doping doctor?
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
Good question. Depends on the system, but it's still the judge who decides whether the plaintiff has made a convincing case. Not the plaintiff.
 
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
The fallout is starting to take effect in Australia. Former US Postal rider Matt White has admitted doping. He has stood down from his roles with the Green Edge team, where he is sporting director, and with Cycling Australia, where he is a national selector.
Clear evidence that the thing is a frame-up. No Australian would ever do Bad Things In Sport™. Only Russians and Nasty People do that. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
Good question. Depends on the system, but it's still the judge who decides whether the plaintiff has made a convincing case. Not the plaintiff.
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.

In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".

orfeo, I think you are crying "not fair" re USADA because their processes do not meet the strict tests of conviction in criminal cases. I think the SUNY professor I quoted above would agree with you. If the evidence in the USADA report did, incontrovertibly, meet those standards, then the US criminal prosecutors would be able to use it to re-open the question of Armstrong's criminality. His call is "very unlikely to do that" and I think he's probably right for the reasons he gave.

But that is also beside the point. Using the agreed and proper framework of its own quasi-judicial processes, the USADA report is overwhelmingly persuasive that

a) Lance Armstrong not only broke doping rules

but also

b) used his power and influence to put a lot of pressure on team-mates to do the same - to help him out.

To quote the good Professor, not seeing that is a a bit like giving the benefit of the doubt to the existence of Santa Claus.

You may not like the process, orfeo, but it's hard to disagree with the professor over its persuasiveness. Or in my view its propriety within USADA rules of operation.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
For most if not all of those years Armstrong was the team's #1 rider. He was the one with the greatest chance of winning races and the rest of the riders in the team were there to give him the best possible chance of winning. that's the way it is with road races like the Tour de France.

In addition to assisting the lead rider on the road, they did so off the road too.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.

In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".
Exactly. So until the ratification and futher effect happens, the process is still in progress. The USADA doesn't control the Tour de France, for instance.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For most if not all of those years Armstrong was the team's #1 rider. He was the one with the greatest chance of winning races and the rest of the riders in the team were there to give him the best possible chance of winning. that's the way it is with road races like the Tour de France.

In addition to assisting the lead rider on the road, they did so off the road too.
On top of this, if the Belgian press is to be believed* (see my link on the previous page) is that it wasn't Armstrong but team mnager Johan Bruyneel who was the brains behind hiding Armstrong and others doping.

British press does not seem interested in Bruyneel, after all it is Armstrong whose name is on the record books as US champion, world champion and seven times Tour de France winner. If the investigators would go after Bruyneel there is more chance IMO of establishing the truth about Armstrong.


*phrase to stay on the right side of the libel laws.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.

In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".
Exactly. So until the ratification and futher effect happens, the process is still in progress. The USADA doesn't control the Tour de France, for instance.
Sure, that's common ground. The fact that a very large number of us are personally persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt has no part to play in this outworking. We're not part of the judging process.

I accept your point that media behaviour does seem to set aside these ratification processes. But then it often does. "Provisional until ratified" doesn't sell papers or advertising.

WADA, UCI, IOC will take seriously their responsibilities to both the sport and those suspended by the USADA processes. The published reasoned decision leaves them no option. However embarrassing it may be to some.

The reasoned decision is also an Aunt Sally from their POV. It will stand unless someone finds good reasons to discredit it. I'm sure USADA are only too keenly aware of that.

Won't be long now.
 
Posted by boofhead (# 4478) on :
 
GRITS. Read the evidence summary - USADA's evidence against Armstrong
There were positive tests, one during the tour in 1999 where Armstrong was popped for cortisone. They made up a medical exemption after he was popped to cover up. (Emma O'Reilly) .
He was popped for EPO during the 2001 Tour de Suisse and paid off the UCI to make it go away.
Then a journalist from L'Equippe got hold of some retroactive tests from the 1999 tour from the AFLD where they were trialling a new test for EPO. He then got hold of some information from the UCI tying riders' names to their samples and was able to work out that Armstrong , using the new test was positive at least 6 times during the 1999 tour
Going along with that, 5 of his 8 team mates from the 1999 tour have testified that they were using banned drugs and they saw Armstrong using banned drugs.
And finally read the testimony of Betsy Andreu and David Zabriskie and weep for what he did to them and put them through. And if you are feeling unfulfilled, go and read this thread on the Cyclingnews Forum .Livestrong is a sham used to fund Armstrong's lifestyle.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
Others have covered 'never tested positive'. He did, at least eight times that we know of.

Neither was he the only one who cheated and didn't get caught. George Hincapie never tested positive. Dave Zabriskie never tested positive. Christian Vande Velde never tested positive. Tom Danielson, Jonathan Vaughters, Michael Barry. Their sworn confessions are all available here.

And these are only examples from the current USADA case. Going back a few years we have Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich, Alex Zulle. They all raced in Armstrong's era, never tripped the wire and later admitted doping. I could go on, but it's a long list.

[ 14. October 2012, 08:57: Message edited by: koshatnik ]
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
///I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
There is a persistent myth developing that Lance is the only one here without a positive drug test, or facing punishment.

This is not true.


A few people who have said they were doping and have been given bans were not caught.

Hincapie for one.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
Despite Armstrong saying he is ignoring all of this, he clearly isn't. He still has lawyers releasing statements and trying to control the public reaction. PR is all Armstrong cares about now. There was no way on earth he was going to end up under oath.

Livestrong, I predict will be next on the radar. Now there is some serious interest in Armstrong and it's fashionable to give him a (deserved) kicking it wouldn't surprise me if lots of journalists are doing some digging into the organisation.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
Tonight's Four Corners program on Australian TV interviewed a number of the true heroes in the Armstrong case. They include Betsy Andreu, who told the truth in court in 2005 and copped years of subsequent abuse. Michael Ashendon, the Australian doctor who helped develop the test for EPO. And former Armstrong masseuse Emma O'Reilly, who bravely told her story to Sunday Times journo David Walsh in 2004 and was vilified by LA as an alcoholic prostitute.

It's online here and gives a decent sense of how deep the rabbit hole goes. Not sure if video will play for those across ditches/ponds.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
It'll play here in the UK. Interesting that it features a few bits from Phil Liggett....

quote:
PHIL LIGGETT: I, look, I admit I've, I've been very proud to commentate on Armstrong over these, over these years because I've seen a man and I've seen how he's battled the elements and I've seen how he's come forward, and I'm very sad. What do I think? Everybody else did it, so I find it very difficult not to think that Lance did it
Also interesting the the Armstrong team are now keen on lie detector tests
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Without disputing that Livestrong has done some good work, it seems that its contribution to actual cancer research is ... well, tricky to pin down.

[ 15. October 2012, 14:04: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by Tubifex Maximus (# 4874) on :
 
The BBC Radio 5 programme "Peddlers, Cycling's dirty truth" is available on i-player here It's two hours long and pretty detailed.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Armstrong has stepped down from Livestrong.

As to Grits' constant refrain that he 'never tested positive' - you have been told a number of times on this thread that he has. You are ignoring it.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A sign of the pressure on UCI.

And another sign.

Personally, I'm happy for the UCI to take the full 21 days and come out with something considered, rather than get prompted into something hasty.

I should think the UCI lawyers' offices are pretty busy places at present.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
Okay. Tested positive for EPO in his 1999 urine samples. EPO testing on urine samples was not a technique that came into effect until 2001 - so he wasn't caught at the time. (This is the problem - the doctors were a step ahead of the regulators until the Biological Passport).

You want a second? He tested positive for steroids - and claimed that it matched a cream he used for saddle sores. Anyone want to guess why he used that cream?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
The UCI have ratified the USADA decision

quote:
UCI president Pat McQuaid said: "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."

McQuaid added Armstrong had been stripped of all results since 1 August, 1998 and banned for life.

 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Here is a link to the UCI statement.

It's an interesting read, defensive in places, containing some criticism of the USADA statement, ratifying it's decisions, leaving open the question of whether Armstrong or WADA will call in the CAS. So far as WADA is concerned, the response seems to me to be suggesting that an appeal by them to CAS re statute of limitation would be in WADA interests and consistent with WADA responsibilities. "We're not going to appeal, maybe you should?" seems to me to be the thrust of that part of the response.

Essentially, the UCI has acquiesced in the decision, with some qualifications and reservations, but not sufficient to justify an apppeal.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The list of TdF winners is showing 'vacated' for the years 1999 to 2005. Are they going to award these to other riders or leave it blank?

As Cadel Evans* is the only rider to have been on the podium in those years who has not been linked to drug taking at some point in his career I think it is better left unawarded.

*At least so far.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The announcement said they'd leave those years blank as too many others had been linked to drugs too
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Does this book need reclassifying as a comedy?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a link to the UCI statement.

It's an interesting read, defensive in places, containing some criticism of the USADA statement, ratifying it's decisions, leaving open the question of whether Armstrong or WADA will call in the CAS. So far as WADA is concerned, the response seems to me to be suggesting that an appeal by them to CAS re statute of limitation would be in WADA interests and consistent with WADA responsibilities. "We're not going to appeal, maybe you should?" seems to me to be the thrust of that part of the response.

Essentially, the UCI has acquiesced in the decision, with some qualifications and reservations, but not sufficient to justify an apppeal.

It's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Very interesting indeed. I doubt the media will pick up all the subtleties in here. It pretty much says "we end up agreeing with the outcome but your process left a lot to be desired".

And you know what? I'm okay with that. Because as much as anything it tells me that the UCI looked at this case with a critical eye, and came to the conclusion that the procedural defects weren't enough to void the outcome.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
The saddest thing is that I'm afraid this is going to backfire on the sport as a whole. I mean, do I really even care about it anymore, since it seems impossible to determine if anyone is riding "unaided"? I'll be suspicious of every win from now on, and that just kind of ruins it for me. Watching the Tour de France was always a highlight of my summer; now, I just think it will be hard to appreciate any of it.

I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The irony is that if they were ALL doing it, if they had all STOPPED doing it then Armstrong might have won anyway.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
The thing I don't understand - how did he feel when he won - knowing it was all a cheat? His celebrations looked so genuine.

Where did his sense of satisfaction come, knowing full well he'd not done it off his own merit or ability?

Two very similar stories - Savile and Armstrong. Both cheats in different ways and both built up huge charities in order to give them legitimacy.

Fallen idols.


[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:

I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
You'd rather not know the truth??
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
From the stories coming out, it's not true that all cyclists at the time were doing it. Several cyclists didn't make the top grade and top groups because they refused to get involved in drugs, although they were doing well enough to get selected.
 
Posted by quantpole (# 8401) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
The saddest thing is that I'm afraid this is going to backfire on the sport as a whole. I mean, do I really even care about it anymore, since it seems impossible to determine if anyone is riding "unaided"? I'll be suspicious of every win from now on, and that just kind of ruins it for me. Watching the Tour de France was always a highlight of my summer; now, I just think it will be hard to appreciate any of it.

I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
There's a big indicator that it's cleaner these days as they are riding slower. I would be amazed if it doesn't go on still but I am happier that someone riding clean could do it. This article is quite good on the more technical side.

What I wonder about is other sports. If Armstrong and co could run such a programme for so long without getting caught I'd be very surprised if there weren't similar issues waiting to come out (or not, some things could well stay hidden forever).

[ 23. October 2012, 08:44: Message edited by: quantpole ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From the stories coming out, it's not true that all cyclists at the time were doing it. Several cyclists didn't make the top grade and top groups because they refused to get involved in drugs, although they were doing well enough to get selected.
True. I was thinking primarily of the top of the tree, and it is indeed emerging that some people basically shot their own career down by refusing to join in.

Boogie, this arguably goes to your question as well: he could celebrate and be happy if he thought his big rivals were on a level playing field with him.
 
Posted by koshatnik (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The irony is that if they were ALL doing it, if they had all STOPPED doing it then Armstrong might have won anyway.
For the thousandth time, they were not all doing it. Neither were those who were doing it, doing it equally. Armstrong's was a highly sophisticated doping program. He paid for exclusive access to the best doctors.

Since Armstrong doped for his entire professional career, we have no way of knowing whether there is any truth to your suggestion. But there is nothing to suggest that it is so. His physiology is, compared to other top cyclists, nothing exceptional. He responded well to blood manipulation. He was a bully and a remorseless cheat. He has, thank God, been exposed and the sport is better for it.

[X-post]

[ 23. October 2012, 09:02: Message edited by: koshatnik ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the sport is already in recovery. For many of us these findings, although worse than we believed, were to be expected. I'm not complacent about collateral damage but cycling will get over it.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0