BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped.

[Laeke]

OK sorry to turns this into a monologue but I bumped into this thread after the media storm.

Originally Posted by MG1962

Liggett has always been very vocal about his anger towards riders using drugs in the sport. So if Liggett thinks Armstrong was clean......thats good enough for me

The impartialy of Liggett is called into doubt. I don't think he ever hid that he was close to Armstrong. And it does seems (although not very publicized) that he may have invested in an Ugandan gold mine along his co-commentator which runs the whole thing. The same one Armstrong has/had(?) a share in.

He was a paid speaker for Livestrong, it seems as well.

Cycling reporters being more or less willingly (or selectively) blind to the problem would not be a first to be fair.

(The african gold mine thing is way less common, and a great colourful detail, I'll say.)

[Laeke]

A pretty interesting (albeit short) interview with two riders that were at USPS in 1997 but "didn't has what it takes" to make it in the elite:
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/ore...n_can_380.html

(MP3 file, 12mn approx.)

[gtm]

I'm delighted that at long last Armstrong has been finally dealt with. It's been a long time coming. I picked him out as dirty back in 2000 & he's been a corrosive influence on cycling for far too long.

There are a number of bizarre delusions flying around this thread.

1) USADA have no jurisdiction over Armstrong & can't strip him of his titles

Wrong. USADA had carriage of Armstrong's nefarious activities as soon as he applued for a racing licence from US Cycling. US Cycling is a signatory to the WAD Code. USADA is empowered to enforce the WAD code by WADA. The UCI has no choice but to take action now Armstrongs thrown in the towel.

2) No positives = not guilty.

Again wrong. Both WADA & USADA have provisions in their regulations vis a vis compelling witness based evidence. As well organised & financed dopers evade positive results (that's the point!) this in entirely logical. On a broader scale it makes sense. If kill someone in front of say 10 witnesses but manage to clean up the physical evidence am I beyond justice? of course not.

3) The 500 + tests.

So says Armstrong. The reality is around 150 & maybe less.

4) The 8 year limitation period.

Armstrong's mistake was to stage his '08 comeback. That set the clock back to zero. Furthermore, he was also charged with running a doping Conspiracy.

5) Everyone else was doing it so Armstrong's doping doesn't matter.

Moral relativism. No one should have been doping.

[Rolfe]

Can they recover the prize money though? What about the sponsorship as well? If he gets to keep the loot, it will have been worth it in the end.

Rolfe.

[gtm]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Can they recover the prize money though? What about the sponsorship as well? If he gets to keep the loot, it will have been worth it in the end.

Rolfe.

Dunno about the prize money - that was awarded in France which isn't my jurisdiction. However, there is scope for The Times to revisit the libel settlement make back in 2006. SCA Promotions may want to have a pop at him as well.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12...l-Service.aspx

I think he may have a real problem with SCA. Getting a $5 million payout by winning a bike race 'clean' when you were actually doped up to the gills is fraud isn't it? That's a crime isn't it?

[Rolfe]

But was there any explicit stipulation that he had to win it clean? That may be the legal stumbling block.

Rolfe.

[gtm]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But was there any explicit stipulation that he had to win it clean? That may be the legal stumbling block.

Rolfe.

Yes, hence the arbitration. 'Morals' clauses are quite standard in these types of contract.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by gtm

...
1) USADA have no jurisdiction over Armstrong & can't strip him of his titles

Wrong. USADA had carriage of Armstrong's nefarious activities as soon as he applued for a racing licence from US Cycling. US Cycling is a signatory to the WAD Code. USADA is empowered to enforce the WAD code by WADA. The UCI has no choice but to take action now Armstrongs thrown in the towel.

..

What has been claimed in this thread is that USADA does not have the power to strip titles from participants in the Tour de France directly. Who in this this thread has said anything different? Perhaps unintentionally, I think you created a strawman to disagree with. The original news reports suggested that USADA would strip Armstrong of his titles. Several people were skeptical that the USADA had the power to directly do something like this and it looks like they were correct. The USADA doesn't have the power to directly strip Armstrong's titles.

UCI seems to think they are the entity that can strip Armstrong of his titles and they don't seem to think they have no choice in this matter. They have stated that they aren't going to do anything until they get more information from the USADA and they have said they will review the information and make a decision. Does UCI know they have no choice in this matter? Do you know that issues like statutes of limitations that USADA seems to have violated with regard to this matter can not be considered by the UCI? What is your level of expertise with regard to the agreement between UCI and the USADA that makes you think that the UCI has no options in this matter? In the end it is the UCI that has the power to make decisions with regard to stripping people of Tour de France titles and I am skeptical that you know what they are going to do with regard to this matter.

[gtm]

Originally Posted by davefoc

What has been claimed in this thread is that USADA does not have the power to strip titles from participants in the Tour de France directly. Who in this this thread has said anything different? Perhaps unintentionally, I think you created a strawman to disagree with. The original news reports suggested that USADA would strip Armstrong of his titles. Several people were skeptical that the USADA had the power to directly do something like this and it looks like they were correct. The USADA doesn't have the power to directly strip Armstrong's titles.

UCI seems to think they are the entity that can strip Armstrong of his titles and they don't seem to think they have no choice in this matter. They have stated that they aren't going to do anything until they get more information from the USADA and they have said they will review the information and make a decision. Does UCI know they have no choice in this matter? Do you know that issues like statutes of limitations that USADA seems to have violated with regard to this matter can not be considered by the UCI? What is your level of expertise with regard to the agreement between UCI and the USADA that makes you think that the UCI has no options in this matter? In the end it is the UCI that has the power to make decisions with regard to stripping people of Tour de France titles and I am skeptical that you know what they are going to do with regard to this matter.

The limitation period is not relevant. By throwing in the towel when he did Armstrong conceded guilt for an ongoing conspiracy from 1998 through to date. He's admitted he never stopped breaking the anti doping regulations so there is no period to limit.

look at the USADA charging letter (see page 6 especially) herewith:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...262704154.html

This is the wording of Article 17 of the WADA code that deals with limitation:

No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other
Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code
unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from
the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.

As far as I can there is no legal problem with charging him with the conspiracy violations as he was 'at it' well within the 8 year period. As I said in a previous post he should have skipped the come back

Expertise? I'm a lawyer & more than capable of getting a fair handle on this kind of material.

[Professor Yaffle]

Bumping with a USADA statement:

Quote:

Today, we are sending the ‘Reasoned Decision’ in the Lance Armstrong case and supporting information to the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC). The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.

The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants’ doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.

Together these different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy. All of the material will be made available later this afternoon on the USADA website at www.usada.org.

The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices. A program organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules and who still play a major and active role in sport today.

The evidence demonstrates that the ‘Code of Silence’ of performance enhancing drug use in the sport of cycling has been shattered, but there is more to do. From day one, we always hoped this investigation would bring to a close this troubling chapter in cycling’s history and we hope the sport will use this tragedy to prevent it from ever happening again.
...

http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html


ETA: apparently the report has been leaked, so you can get an peek before its up on the USADA website:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

[gtm]

I've read the edited highlights. Damning. Armstrong has had his **** handed to him.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by gtm

I've read the edited highlights. Damning. Armstrong has had his **** handed to him.

I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.

The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Resume

The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?

Not sure how you got that from what I said, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

No, no, no, and no.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Not sure how you got that from what I said, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

No, no, no, and no.

Okay. I totally misinterpreted what you wrote.

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Resume

The entire document is a fabrication because the USADA has a vendetta against Armstrong? All 202 pages?

Not just use of, but trafficking in PEDs and doping paraphenalia?

Everyone involved is lying to "get" Lance Armstrong?

Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.

Originally Posted by Timothy Herman (Lances Lawyer)

It points to an impending "farce" with the release of the USADA report "written by USADA with the significant assistance of lawyers from one of Big Tobacco's favorite law firms at a time when Lance Armstrong is one of America's leading anti-tobacco advocates. While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig."

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.

Okay, that's more reasonable.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sp...anted=all&_r=0

Quote:

Armstrong played a key role by doping, supplying doping products and demanding that his top teammates dope so he could be successful.

[gtm]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I disagree. The vast majority (and, according to the Reasoned Decision, the "most critical") of the evidence was the testimony of his former teammates. There is evidence that these teammates, all of whom had a financial interest in cooperating with the USADA.

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.

Why the need for a positive test? You can convict a killer of murder without a corpse. In any case there are positive tests.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

Not quite, according to Armstrong's lawyer they're doing it because they are paid shills for big tobacco, who fear the power of cancer Jesus.

The big tobacco argument is laughable & pathetic at the same time.

[Cain]

What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by Cain

What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.

So now we know why Armstrong is innocent.

Because USA is better than you, you America hater (including USADA)!

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion (I'm not well informed over this issue) but somehow I didn't find your argument compelling enough.

[Cain]

Good point. Why does the USADA hate America?

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Produce a failed test and I'll reconsider.

I totally Agree ~

Never fails to surprise me what people will come up with if they have a problem with someone or something. Now even testing is not good enough.

Tim

[Prometheus]

If all those guys who were on 'performance enhancing' drugs were yet unable to keep from being utterly dominated, for the better part of a decade, by Armstrong, who ostensibly was not on them, then why should we care whether anyone takes the drugs anyway? They obviously don't work as advertised.

[RedRatSnake]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

They obviously don't work as advertised.

I guess they didn't take enough.

Tim ~ LOL

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Bumping with a USADA statement:


http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html


ETA: apparently the report has been leaked, so you can get an peek before its up on the USADA website:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

In case anyone can't access that link for any reason: http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral...ggest-in-sport

[Resume]

Originally Posted by Slocie's

I totally Agree ~

Never fails to surprise me what people will come up with if they have a problem with someone or something. Now even testing is not good enough.

Tim

Yes. When testing for PEDs began in earnest, there was a problem and the solution was masking agents.

[gtm]

I've read the full 202 page reasoned decision & some of the affadavits. Armstrong was doped to the gills throughout his career & anyone who disputes has lost command of their rational faculties. This evidence is overwhelming.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by Cain

What's more likely: Lance Armstrong beats cheaters and so everyone's out to get him because he's a winner, OR he wins by cheating and they're out to get frauds. I think the former, which is the same reason why everyone hates America. Because we're better than you.

You're incredibly naive if you truly believe that pretty much the whole top ten of the Tour de France was doped up, except the one guy that was first. Especially considering Armstrong didn't "just win", no he was miles ahead of his competitors.

Luckily we finally don't have to make these assumptions anymore since the USADA got his former teammates to talk.

[Laeke]

The fixation on tests as an end-all be-all in antidoping is really weird. I may have already said it, but you know who "never" (even though in Armstrong case, even that is not that absolute) tested positive? The immense majority of East-German athletes, despite being juiced since their childhood. The BALCO case -Marion Jones never tested positive- (or the multiple ones in cycling) only demonstrated that even recently a medium-sized doping operation was able to run circles around most traditional tests.
Tests are and always were pretty lousy counter-measures to doping. The big scandals were brought upon when the relevant authorities investigated institutionalized doping.

[gtm]

Originally Posted by Laeke

The fixation on tests as an end-all be-all in antidoping is really weird. I may have already said it, but you know who "never" (even though in Armstrong case, even that is not that absolute) tested positive? The immense majority of East-German athletes, despite being juiced since their childhood. The BALCO case -Marion Jones never tested positive- (or the multiple ones in cycling) only demonstrated that even recently a medium-sized doping operation was able to run circles around most traditional tests.
Tests are and always were pretty lousy counter-measures to doping. The big scandals were brought upon when the relevant authorities investigated institutionalized doping.

+ 1

The whole point of well funded & organised doping programs is enhance performance & avoid positive tests. Armstrong paid Dr Ferrari over $1 million in a 10 year. That buys plenty of negative results. The WADA code acknowledges this & provides for non scientific evidence.

[Le Jab]

What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum. Armstrong has obviously achieved iconic status in the US, and I presume the reason people are finding it difficult to accept that he is a liar and cheat is because of his incredible sporting feats and charity work. My guess is Armstrong will eventually have to confess his guilt, admit he was lying all these years, do the talk show circuit and ask for forgiveness. It seems after all those years thinking he wasnt, he is human after all.

[Croydon Bob]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum. Armstrong has obviously achieved iconic status in the US, and I presume the reason people are finding it difficult to accept that he is a liar and cheat is because of his incredible sporting feats and charity work. My guess is Armstrong will eventually have to confess his guilt, admit he was lying all these years, do the talk show circuit and ask for forgiveness. It seems after all those years thinking he wasnt, he is human after all.

+1

there is a multitude of layers of evidence. Including, for instance, the financial records of the money moving around to pay for the dope, the ingredients, the bribes, etc.

This is (a bit) like smoking, climate change or perhaps even evolution. It is reasonable and understandable to be skeptical at first, but there comes a point where there is just too much evidence. The alternative is a conspiracy of epic proportions; perhaps not as large as the imaginary 911 or Moon landings conspiracies, but bigger than any real conspiracy has ever managed (as far as we know).

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

What I fail to comprehend is that in the face of pretty convincing evidence, there are those who still choose to stick their fingers in their ears and hum.

While I will admit that I do this, it is not because I don't believe that Armstrong, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, etc did some sort of doping, it's because I don't care. I absolutely don't.

Mainly, because I find the distinction between "not allowed" "performance enhancing drugs" and "allowed" PEDs to be silly. You know what the most commonly used PED is in baseball? Ibuprofen. Ask a pitcher, they will tell you the day after pitching, they can barely move their arm until they take some motrin. Ibuprofen allows them to do training that they would not be able to do without it.

Curt Schilling was a hero because he shot up his ankle with cortisol to allow him to go out and pitch. He couldn't have pitched well without it. It enhanced his performance.

But these are allowed PEDs.

I don't care.

[geni]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

While I will admit that I do this, it is not because I don't believe that Armstrong, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds, etc did some sort of doping, it's because I don't care. I absolutely don't.

Mainly, because I find the distinction between "not allowed" "performance enhancing drugs" and "allowed" PEDs to be silly. You know what the most commonly used PED is in baseball?

Baseball isn't a useful comparison as it doesn't really follow the same standards with regards to drugs that more international sports do.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by geni

Baseball isn't a useful comparison as it doesn't really follow the same standards with regards to drugs that more international sports do.

Is there anything, anywhere, where ibuprofen is prohibited?

Neither of the things I mentioned is prohibited by the WADA.

[Le Jab]

There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology. EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone all take an individuals genetic blueprint and push it beyond what would be physically possible outside of a good diet and training regimen.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology. EPO, blood transfusions and testosterone all take an individuals genetic blueprint and push it beyond what would be physically possible outside of a good diet and training regimen.

There's another difference, and one I think is ultimately more important: all sports depend on arbitrary rules that are very well spelled out. If your sport says you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, then you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, period. There is no more argument really than there would be if you said you want four strikes this time around, or a motor on your bicycle. Everyone knows the rules, and if some decide to take a chance, it's their chance. If some get away with it and others don't, it's too bad, but it's still the same chance, the same cheat.

I was something of a Lance holdout, hoping he had somehow managed to do his thing clean, or to be so smart that he found performance enhancers that were at least not technically illegal. Doesn't look so good now. Too bad, 'twas a long shot anyway.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Le Jab

There is a difference. Ibuprofen and cortisone will allow the human body to perform at its best level as determined/limited by an athletes natural physiology.

No.

Curt Schilling's body was NOT ABLE TO PERFORM because his ankle was too sore.

How is that not his "natural physiology"?

As I said, it's an artificial distinction.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by bruto

There's another difference, and one I think is ultimately more important: all sports depend on arbitrary rules that are very well spelled out. If your sport says you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, then you can take ibuprofen but cannot take EPO, period. There is no more argument really than there would be if you said you want four strikes this time around, or a motor on your bicycle. Everyone knows the rules, and if some decide to take a chance, it's their chance. If some get away with it and others don't, it's too bad, but it's still the same chance, the same cheat.

I was something of a Lance holdout, hoping he had somehow managed to do his thing clean, or to be so smart that he found performance enhancers that were at least not technically illegal. Doesn't look so good now. Too bad, 'twas a long shot anyway.

This is what I was about to say. More or less arbitrary (anyway, you'll always have to set the bar somewhere) there are rules, so the problem here is not why the rules are the way they are, but the fact that someone, knowing the rules, cheated, going to great lenghts not to be caught. "The rules are arbitrary, so I don't care if people cheat" sounds a lot like a subterfuge in order to not admit that what Armstrong allegedly did is morally wrong.