Armstrong's titles stripped and banned for life from cycling- Mtbr.com
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 200 of 293
  1. #1
    Stripes
    Guest

    Armstrong's titles stripped and banned for life from cycling

    Let the discussions begin:

    "Lance Armstrong persevered through the most difficult bicycle races on the planet and survived testicular cancer, but this week, the 40-year-old found a battle he had no interest in continuing. Armstrong said late Thursday night that he will stop fighting allegations that he used banned substances during his stellar career.

    After Armstrong’s announcement, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said it would ban the cyclist for life and recommend he be stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles."

    Lance Armstrong faces lifetime ban from USADA; Tour de France titles in jeopardy - The Washington Post

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    165
    Why are adults being told what they can use to enhance performance, and become a better athlete?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,294
    Every time I see 'testicular cancer survivor' in conjunction with cycling and Armstrong, I wonder why in the world does it matter. Yes, it's awesome. Yes, congrats for surviving cancer, which sucks. All cancers suck. It's not an excuse for him to dope his way through his career.

    And he's a jerk for what he does at Leadville with the younger riders on his team.

    That's my .02

  4. #4
    wal
    wal is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by motorbacon View Post
    Every time I see 'testicular cancer survivor' in conjunction with cycling and Armstrong, I wonder why in the world does it matter. Yes, it's awesome. Yes, congrats for surviving cancer, which sucks. All cancers suck. It's not an excuse for him to dope his way through his career.
    you're basing the 'dope his way through his career' statement on what exactly? emails from 'anonymous sources'? failed drug tests where the tests are public and verified by independent parties? help me out here...

    also, can you point me to somewhere where he has used his cancer experience as a crutch or some sort of 'excuse' for his actions?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pmarshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    He based that statement on an email from me so yeah, I am the source. The email went like this-

    Dear Motorbacon,

    Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs during every single bike race. Hope all is well. Miss you big buddy.

    Sincerely,

    Pmarshall
    They never made the "Slowster"

  6. #6
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    Let the discussions begin:

    "Lance Armstrong persevered through the most difficult bicycle races on the planet and survived testicular cancer, but this week, the 40-year-old found a battle he had no interest in continuing. Armstrong said late Thursday night that he will stop fighting allegations that he used banned substances during his stellar career.

    After Armstrong’s announcement, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said it would ban the cyclist for life and recommend he be stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles."

    Lance Armstrong faces lifetime ban from USADA; Tour de France titles in jeopardy - The Washington Post
    We'll see...
    The USADA is a joke.
    I hope you all like your tax dollars spent this way.
    Ridiculous.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by pmarshall View Post
    He based that statement on an email from me so yeah, I am the source. The email went like this-

    Dear Motorbacon,

    Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs during every single bike race. Hope all is well. Miss you big buddy.

    Sincerely,

    Pmarshall

  8. #8
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    For anyone who doesn't think doping is rampant in most major sports with any money involved, including the olympics, I would encourage you to read 2 books: From Lance to Landis about the history of doping in cycling, and, Game of Shadows about Conte/Bonds, MLB and several other olympic athletes also found to be doping.

    Aside from the direct eye-witness accounts from MANY people of Lance's doping, this book, along with Game of Shadows, shares how fundamentally ineffective the whole anti doping effort is.

    There are 3 fundamental problems that make rampant doping a near certainty in high-payoff sports like the big 3 US sports, cycling, olympics, etc.

    1) Drug tests are ineffective and behind the game
    2) Labs test any John Doe sample for a fee, allowing athletes to carefully control their doping levels and enter events confident that they will pass tests. According to Game of Shadows, many labs get the majority of their revenue from these anonymous samples, rather than from tests requested by real race authorities
    3) Overseeing organizations like UCI are populated by insiders in the sport and also fear the complete downfall of their sport if the rampant doping is exposed. When you have a few dopers, NOT catching them is a danger. When you have almost ALL dopers, like the Tour had in the EPO era before any EPO test was even developed, CATCHING them is the biggest danger. This problem persists today, these sports organizations like UCI and MLB are standing on a landmine, they know if they open it up, it will be devastating to their sport, so they do various things to undermine anti-doping efforts maintaining the guise of enforcement.

    Ok, first, the tests:
    Generally speaking there are 2 kinds of tests:
    A) Tests that look for elevated levels of known constituents in your body, like your hematocrit (red blood cell measurement) or your testosterone:epitestosterone level. Another is Carbon Isotope Ratio test, which looks for the ratio of un-natural carbon isotopes typically found in synthetic testosterone, to the amount of the natural carbon isotope in the body.
    B) Tests that look for specific substances, like the clubenotrol test, tests for various synthetic testosterones, EPO etc.


    Ok, here's the problem with group A: tests for levels of normal things in your blood:
    These tests are kind of fuzzy math - there is no way to pick an exact threshold that PROVES doping, because they're looking for elevated levels of things that are already in your body. So, WADA, MLB, and UCI set arbitrary thresholds for these, but, they are very high because the consequence of a false positive is deemed much worse that the consequence of a missed positive.

    The normal male T/E ratio is around 1:1 or a little above, but, the threshold that is considered undeniable doping is 4:1, which is so far above a normal human, its a joke. Shultz Et. Al found this high threshold results in roughly 40% false negatives from subjects given a hefty dose of synthetic testosterone in a controlled study:

    Doping Test Results Dependent on Genotype of UGT2B17, the Major Enzyme for Testosterone Glucuronidation
    "Here, we show that 40 % of the
    subjects without the UGT2B17 gene never
    reached the T/E cut off ratio of 4.0 on any of the
    15 days after a single intramuscular dose of 360
    mg testosterone."

    Next, MANY cyclists, and virtually all modern world-class athletes have ready access (through their 'doctors' or 'trainers') to the same labs that the WADA/UCI/MLB does, you send the labs a John Doe sample, they will test it and tell you whats in it. So, athletes and their doctors can easily get their T/E right up to threshold, not over, by adding Epitestosterone to balance out the ratio. This is how Barry Bonds beat the tests for so long (the Clear was a new synthetic testosterone, undetectable, and the Cream was Epitestosterone to balance out the ratio. This works until you mix up the doses and go over on the T or under on the E. Landis had a 12:1 result, this is how he got caught.

    The hematrocrit test for red-blood cells, indicating EPO, transfusion, or other agent, is vulnerable to the same problem. Normal humans are ~40. Exceptional humans have a hematocrit ~44-45. The threshold for the test, undeniable doping, is 50. According to the book on Lance and Landis, most of the TdF tests at 49 plus. Just under the threshold considered undeniable doping, imagine that. Of course MLB/UCI don't publish this kind of stuff because any rational person would conclude rampant doping.

    Carbon Isotope Ratio test, the follow-on to the failed T/E test, is prone again to the same problem. Fuzzy math = high threshold = athletes dope right up to the threshold.

    So, this group of tests is all really quite lenient and easy to beat.

    Ok, the problem with group B (tests that test for an exact known compound, like Deca Durabolin, Sustanon, pharmaceutical EPO, etc. ) is that chemists can always make more that don't show up on these tests. The Clear is a perfect example, new synthetic testosterones are being created al the time.

    So, tests are generally lenient, easy to beat, and, athletes and their doctors subsidize the labs by sending in their own samples anonymously all the time, creating a complete house of cards.

    Ok, so we covered #1 and #2, tests and labs.
    Now #3:
    Does UCI/MLB/etc. really WANT to catch these guys? It goes without saying that if an organization thinks a large number of their athletes were doping they would want to hide it, it threatens their sport's livelyhood.

    According to the Lance/Landis book, UCI routinely telegraphed the start of new testing for EPO and other doping agents in advance of the beginning of the test. During the height of the (open) EPO era, pretty much 80% of the TdF was using EPO because it was readily available and their was no test for it. When a test was developed, UCI told athletes EXACTLY WHEN they would start testing for it, rather than just testing for it and punishing people who all knew it was on the banned substances list. WHY would they do this? Because they knew if 80% of the tour tested positive for it, it would be over - goodbye sponsorships. This was when Lance supposedly first tested positive for EPO, but UCI put a lid on it because everyone did that year.

    WADA is much better on this front, because they are an independent body and don't have to answer to TdF sponsors. This is why you see in the Lance news there is a disagreement on the proof between UCI and WADA.

    Anyways, today MLB is the same way: They do the T/E test before they even try the Carbon Isotope Ratio test - see Conte article here:
    Victor Conte sees MLB drug-test loophole - SFGate

    CIR explained
    The New York Times > Sports > Image > Graphic: How Carbon Isotope Ratio Testing Works

    WHY would MLB do this? the T/E is easy to beat, by boosting Epi, just like Bonds did. They're trying to catch idiot dopers who mess up their T or E dose. They don't want to catch everyone, if they did, it would be a major scandal and cost millions.

    Anyways, I hope this was informative to anyone who is interested in this stuff. If you go down the same path I did, after reading those 2 books, if you want to keep believing that sports are mostly clean, and that tests work, you're welcome to do that. But, please don't just take these organizations snake-oil at face value (we are testing, it works) and believe that crap without doing your research.
    Last edited by Procter; 08-24-2012 at 12:07 AM.

  9. #9
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849

  10. #10
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    I can tell you that for a fact Lance either did do it or he didn't . At this point, who cares ?

    What I do care about is that USADA waged a disgusting and vile vendetta against the greatest American cyclist who ever lived... To what end?

    Lance has done more for american cycling than probably any other person in the world. He has increased the awareness, helped launch probably millions of American into the sport, and helped many companies make money--- tv stations, advertisers, bike companies, and I bet a long list of others that don't come to mind right now.

    Lance has been out of the sport for five years or so now. all the Aholes of the USADA did by this action is to sully the sport of professional cycling even more, and call attention to the fact that they are nothing more than a bunch of assclowns.
    Last edited by BIGABIGD; 08-24-2012 at 01:31 AM.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  11. #11
    ONE speed under God.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    190
    ^ and what about his work on cancer? The guy has done. so much for sooo many people.
    Nashbar SS 29er
    K2 FS Attack
    Cannondale R600

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    6,542
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    ^ and what about his work on cancer? The guy has done. so much for sooo many people.
    This. I feel like this argument is old, worn out and ridiculous. There has to be some underlying reason why this thing keeps coming up... like mentioned above, lots of athletes use PED's. Yet there are no witch hunts, especially for those retired.

    If one person turns their back on the Livestrong Charity because of this stuff, shame on the USADA.

    I never get e-mails from p-marsh. Only harassment on Strava. In fact, I'm starting my own charity - Stravastrong.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Simpledesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    440
    After the testing proved he didn't, it's come down to "did to/did not"

    Sad day for Lance either way

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
    '12 Trek Marlin Signature Green
    '13 Santa Cruz Tallboy LT Gulf Blue/Orange

  14. #14
    sftrydr
    Reputation: ssulljm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,088
    Had a dream last night, LA+I were sitting at a kitchen table, he was not making eye contact+was kinda bein shifty.
    I reached out my hand, shook his, gave him the ol "tough break kid, but I really don't care any more, most probably never will. Thanx for the good times memories"
    We then poured ourselves bowls of cheerio's, and sat there +ate e'm in silence .

    Make of it whatcha will

    Jim

  15. #15
    aka dan51
    Reputation: d-bug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,012
    Innocent until proven guilty, and they'll continue to try to prove guilty long after he's dead.
    They'll probably want his body for autopsy and find "some irregular tissue growth, proving something something"

  16. #16
    Air Pirate
    Reputation: Bokchoicowboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,036
    What I don't understand is the USADA appears to be able to "convict" without due process. That is simply wrong. I read someone's statement in an article this morning, whom I believe is part of the USADA, where he said that Armstrong's not entering into arbitration is an admission of guilt. How is that an admission of guilt? How does this agency have the ability to bypass any idea of due process in the discharge of this case?

    My understanding, from what I have read so far, is that USADA's "evidence" consists almost exclusively of testimony from other riders and people involved in the sport...which pretty much amounts to hearsay. Many things I have read state they have no actual physical evidence, just the testimony. The most laughable of all is that one of their witnesses is Landis, and we all know how reliable and honest that guy is. If that is truly all USADA has, then I have great doubt in their case being correct, true, or righteous.

    And, as another poster has stated, toward what end is all this? Armstrong is retired, everything is history, what good will come of this? Are they simply looking to make an example of Armstrong, or is this some way for some schmuck in the USADA to show how important and powerful he/she is by taking down the big bad giant Lance Armstrong?
    "You're messing with my zen thing, man!"

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GuruAtma's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,743
    If he did dope, he beat all the other cyclists who were also doping.

    If he didn't dope, he still beat them. Either way, he won.
    功夫大师喜欢骑着他的自行车在山上。

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,354
    What he said.

  19. #19
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,326

    Wurd.

    Quote Originally Posted by GuruAtma View Post
    If he did dope, he beat all the other cyclists who were also doping.

    If he didn't dope, he still beat them. Either way, he won.
    Well, it is.
    Ripley V1 XC/Gravel Adventure rig
    Marin Hawk Hill 2.5

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: X-FXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    702
    Our tax dollars were spent on something that has no bearing and isn’t relevant, what a complete waste of time/money. It’s sad but if an athlete comes out ahead of everyone else it’s presumed they doped, rather than through hard work an training…..

    How money has he spent that could have gone to cancer related issues. If there is evidence then try the case in a court of law not some organization that appears to just have a vendetta.

  21. #21
    aka baycat
    Reputation: Ryan G.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8,480
    I would expect this from the French. Right Zorg

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Haus Boss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,495
    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

    So basically, Lance ran with an entire flock of ducks, yet you're telling me he ain't one.

    Personally, I think doping is rampant among many professional sports. Like many things in life, I think we would rather live in a world of naivety than learn the unsettling truth. Lance, Malky, and Colon are only the tip of the iceberg.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Lance saw this coming years ago. He saw how McGuire and Bonds et al fell apart under scrutiny. Lance is a smart guy. He knew that, perhaps down the road, dozens of guys would be in a position to testify against him. Hence, Livestrong. Livestrong is more like a personal PR arm whose goal is basically to promote itself, and Lance. Essentially it's a message of hope: Lance beat cancer, and so can you. The flip side of this is, don't anybody say anything bad about Lance, because it's killing the dream for thousands of people.

    Ultimately he made his choices and decided he'd rather play things out in the court of public opinion, and the recent announcement is completely consistent with that.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by yzfrider View Post
    Why are adults being told what they can use to enhance performance, and become a better athlete?
    They're not. They're just paying the consequences for doing so.

  25. #25
    Mtn View, CA
    Reputation: gddyap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    481
    Looked like a lose-lose scenario for him. So why bother to go through the stress and expense of the arbitration process.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

  26. #26
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by BIGABIGD View Post
    ^ and what about his work on cancer? The guy has done. so much for sooo many people.
    FWIW Livestrong doesn't donate to cancer research. It's a "cancer awareness" charity. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but people seem to be caught up in believing that his charity funds research. Which it doesn't.

    Interesting article over at Outside Online:

    Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: highrevkev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    320
    I say we legalize all forms of steroids, then have categories in each sport where everyone is doping.....lets see how big, far, and faster we can go!

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pmarshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    This. I feel like this argument is old, worn out and ridiculous. There has to be some underlying reason why this thing keeps coming up... like mentioned above, lots of athletes use PED's. Yet there are no witch hunts, especially for those retired.

    If one person turns their back on the Livestrong Charity because of this stuff, shame on the USADA.

    I never get e-mails from p-marsh. Only harassment on Strava. In fact, I'm starting my own charity - Stravastrong.
    That is crazy talk Dion! My emails always get returned when I send them to you. The last one is copied for you to see.

    Dear almighty powerful Dion,

    As you may know, Strava has been watching you. Some frequent users of Strava have also taken notice of your latest PR's. Based upon countless hours of research regarding your times and speed, I have been authorized to collect a urine sample from you. It is with great regret that Strava has flagged you for further testing but the sanctioning body must investigate every claim of abuse. The facts are this: Your name is Dion. Dion rides bikes. Dion is married and has kids. Dion takes drugs. Based solely upon this overwhelming amount of evidence, you have been targeted. I am outside your house right now ready to collect. I can see you have already given another type of sample by yourself but I am only here for urine. Thank you for quick response. I can only hope that these claims prove to be false and Strava will invite you to return to local competition among the last pages of all leader boards.

    Your friend and laboratory consultant,

    Pmarshall.

    P.S.- please don't eat any asparagus prior to the sample taking.
    They never made the "Slowster"

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    FWIW Livestrong doesn't donate to cancer research. It's a "cancer awareness" charity. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but people seem to be caught up in believing that his charity funds research. Which it doesn't.

    Interesting article over at Outside Online:

    Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com
    Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: curly1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by GuruAtma View Post
    If he did dope, he beat all the other cyclists who were also doping.

    If he didn't dope, he still beat them. Either way, he won.
    I agree. And as far as we know he didnt fail any tests... right?

  31. #31
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Please read my post on the ineffectiveness of the testing and don't take my word for it, do your own research. Bonds never failed a drug test either.

  32. #32
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Will USADA invalidate all his Strava runs too?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: sanjuro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,005
    1. I believe the reason he stopped fighting it is that if a hearing was convened, the witness testimony of his doping would be made public and the result still be the same, a ban.

    So by ending it, he can claim martyrdom instead of having his transgressions displayed in an official hearing.

    2. Originally, I thought it was sour grapes going after Lance now, especially when you look at the list of dopers who were runners-up: Ullrich, Beloki, Vinkourov, Basso, Rumšas.

    3. I read this interview by David Walsh, who also mentioned Christophe Bassons, a racer who was drummed out of pro cycling because of his objections to doping.

    I realize that there is the entire cycling organization, from race organizers to the riders, who not only permitted, but encouraged doping, and was willing to destroy good men for speaking up.

    I see this especially with baseball as well.

  34. #34
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan G. View Post
    I would expect this from the French. Right Zorg
    You know the joke in France: "without doping, the TdF would end in September". So, they all dope, big whooptidoo. I could not care less. I just want to see guys climbing the Alpe d'Huez in the big ring. FWIW, I still think Lance was the greatest cyclist.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro View Post
    I believe the reason he stopped fighting it is that if a hearing was convened, the witness testimony of his doping would be made public and the result still be the same, a ban.
    I think George Hincapie's testimony was the final piece of the puzzle. Lance knew that once his buddy told the truth, the gig was up. Interesting article written about a month ago...

    Hincapie, an Armstrong teammate, seen as reluctant but reliable witness

  36. #36
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    So now the doper who actually got caught will get three of his titles?

    Bullcrap. USADA is just trying to make a name for themselves (like EPA did with DDT ban, which caused a whole lot of deaths from malaria in the world, and did not actually solve anything).

  37. #37
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro View Post
    So by ending it, he can claim martyrdom instead of having his transgressions displayed in an official hearing.
    Allegations of his transgressions. It was the goal of USADA to drug him through the mud as much as they could, even so any of that testimony was not even remotely good enough for criminal prosecution.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Allegations of his transgressions. It was the goal of USADA to drug him through the mud as much as they could, even so any of that testimony was not even remotely good enough for criminal prosecution.
    It's not a criminal case though. He's not going to prison. USADA's role is to expose dopers. I think it's pretty clear that's exactly what they did.

    Should they have nailed him years ago? You can make that argument I guess but better late than never in my opinion.

    The Lance apologists crack me up. I saw the same responses from Bonds/Giants fans as well. Don't let the insurmountable evidence get in the way of your hero worship. Hey, I should know, I'm an A's fan. The A's teams of the late 80's practically invented performing enhancing drugs in baseball. They won a World Series juiced.

    Lance is one of the most competitive people on the planet. There's no way he doesn't fight this to the death unless he knows deep inside that the whole charade is finally over.
    Last edited by Carl Hungus; 08-24-2012 at 03:12 PM.

  39. #39
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    It's not a criminal case though. He's not going to prison. USADA's role is to expose dopers. I think it's pretty clear that's exactly what they did.
    I do believe that there should be the same standard of a due process and evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    The Lance apologists crack me up. I saw the same responses from Bonds/Giants fans as well. Don't let the insurmountable evidence get in the way of your hero worship. Hey, I should know, I'm an A's fan. The A's teams of the late 80's practically invented performing enhancing drugs in baseball. They won a World Series juiced.
    I do not care if Armstrong doped. If he did, he won against people who had actually been caught doping. What I do not like is faceless bureaucrats making names for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    Lance is one of the most competitive people on the planet. There's no way he doesn't fight this to the death unless he knows deep inside that the whole charade is finally over.
    Charade is sending his titles to admitted doper who had actually been caught.

    It is just little people enjoy causing bigger people fail. They are still little.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: TahoeBC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    6,101
    So who are they gonna award the TDF victory's to??

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    I do believe that there should be the same standard of a due process and evidence.
    They had first person accounts, probably from Hincapie and others. Is it pictures of him hooked up to blood bags? Probably not, but if they didn't have insurmountable testimonial evidence, there's no way Lance just says "I give".

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    I do not care if Armstrong doped. If he did, he won against people who had actually been caught doping. What I do not like is faceless bureaucrats making names for themselves.
    If you don't care that's your business but I do and to say "Well, they were all doping and he was still the best." is a cop-out to me. They weren't all on Lance's program.

    Faceless "bureaucrats" (nice buzz word that means nothing) still have a job to do. We should be applauding them for (finally) doing it, not blaming them.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Buzkil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    764
    That's it!!!! I am never drinking Michelob Ultra again...
    To love me is to rep me, world domination is eminent/imminent/immanent.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    So who are they gonna award the TDF victory's to??
    I nominate these guys..or are cigs considered PEDs?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  44. #44
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    They had first person accounts, probably from Hincapie and others. Is it pictures of him hooked up to blood bags? Probably not, but if they didn't have insurmountable testimonial evidence, there's no way Lance just says "I give".
    He said he gives up because he had no chance of actually winning. I do not believe that any evidence they could have had against him would survive a criminal trial level standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    If you don't care that's your business but I do and to say "Well, they were all doping and he was still the best." is a cop-out to me. They weren't all on Lance's program.
    Well, it your business not to care that a person can be punished without a proper process, but I do, and from what I know I believe that USADA's process is anything but proper.

    I think it is a bigger crime then the alleged doping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    Faceless "bureaucrats" (nice buzz word that means nothing) still have a job to do. We should be applauding them for (finally) doing it, not blaming them.
    I can not applaud a selective and unfair prosecution.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    804
    Quote Originally Posted by TahoeBC View Post
    So who are they gonna award the TDF victory's to??
    supposedly I am getting one....just got a text message.

    By some statistical analysis of race performances USADA decided, with high probability, I was the next guy in line who wasn't doping. I wasn't even doing road races, whatever. I'll have to wear the jersey on a group ride, I'll let you take a picture with me.

  46. #46
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Bokchoicowboy View Post
    My understanding, is that USADA's "evidence" consists almost exclusively of testimony from other riders and people involved in the sport...which pretty much amounts to hearsay.
    So, couple things on this - yes eyewitness testimony is fallible, because it could be either A) false, or B) erroneous - "I thought I saw a blue honda"

    We've seen only glimpses of the evidence, and the USADA is saying they will release it in time. Why they are not releasing it now raises questions. But, what we know is that several former team mates publicly stated that they collaborated with and witnessed Lance's doping over years of time, which is very unlikely to be erroneous (falsely remembered) but, to be fair, is possibly false. But I understand there is also eyewitness accounts from people who are completely removed from cycling and have no motive to falsify their account to bring down Lance, like Betsy Andreu who testified in a sworn deposition in 2006 that Lance admitted to doping to his doctors in a 1996 hospital.

    However, hearsay is completely different and is not considered reliable. Hearsay is when person A testifies that person B said that person C said X, where person B is not actually present or available to corroborate the conversation because they not present, missing, dead etc. Person A testifying that Person B said X is NOT hearsay, and is allowed in courts all the time. None of the evidence that I have seen is hearsay, its all direct testimony from people actually witnessing conversations or actions by Lance.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    Lance saw this coming years ago. He saw how McGuire and Bonds et al fell apart under scrutiny. Lance is a smart guy. He knew that, perhaps down the road, dozens of guys would be in a position to testify against him. Hence, Livestrong. Livestrong is more like a personal PR arm whose goal is basically to promote itself, and Lance. Essentially it's a message of hope: Lance beat cancer, and so can you. The flip side of this is, don't anybody say anything bad about Lance, because it's killing the dream for thousands of people.

    Ultimately he made his choices and decided he'd rather play things out in the court of public opinion, and the recent announcement is completely consistent with that.
    This. Too many people believe that Livestrong raises monies for cancer research. It raises money to promote LA's ego.

  48. #48
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by ddprocter View Post
    None of the evidence that I have seen is hearsay, its all direct testimony from people actually witnessing conversations or actions by Lance.
    Where did you see that evidence - and why nothing came out of the federal investigation?

    BTW, are you even under threat of perjury when testifying to USADA?

  49. #49
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    In general, it's hard for us to be objective about Lance. He is either:
    - our hero
    - the one that got us interested in cycling
    - we're in awe of the money raised for cancer.

    In the end, none of these are relevant to this case. This is about cheating with a very, very good drug that could not be detected by testing of that time.

    fc

  50. #50
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by ghettocop View Post
    This. Too many people believe that Livestrong raises monies for cancer research. It raises money to promote LA's ego.
    Too many people believe that USADA fights doping. It spends taxpayer moneys to pursue personal vendettas and promote itself.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ghettocop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Too many people believe that USADA fights doping. It spends taxpayer moneys to pursue personal vendettas and promote itself.
    No argument from me there.

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    They're not. They're just paying the consequences for doing so.
    Selective enforcement in Lance's case. Performance enhancers are so common, you could disqualify a much larger population. Is anyone other than Lance being investigated in the cycling world? So what they are saying is, if your succesfull, were gonna strip your accomplishment away. Lance was the obly cyclist doping during this time frame? How do you know the 2nd place and 3rd place finisher didn't dope?

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by ddprocter View Post
    But I understand there is also eyewitness accounts from people who are completely removed from cycling and have no motive to falsify their account to bring down Lance, like Betsy Andreu who testified in a sworn deposition in 2006 that Lance admitted to doping to his doctors in a 1996 hospital.
    I guess there are two sides to ...

    Armstrong Defends Himself Against Doping Allegations - ESPN Video - ESPN

  54. #54
    Obi
    Obi is offline
    -_-
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,748
    Quote Originally Posted by zorg View Post
    You know the joke in France: "without doping, the TdF would end in September". So, they all dope, big whooptidoo. I could not care less. I just want to see guys climbing the Alpe d'Huez in the big ring huffing and wheezing like a purebred racehorse with leg arteries bulging and dark thick tears of blood flowing down their cheeks as their heads burst once to the summit.


    Oh, and FWIW, I still think Lance is the greatest cyclist man has ever known thus far.
    FIXED.

    As I said in the other thread...

    *USADA=UnitedStupidAnnoyingDickwadAssociation

    *IOC=IntelligenceOverComes

    ~I know I always prefer the intelligent folks.

    The sheer fact that Zorg the finicky-frenchy just gave props to a "Steeeennnkeeen Ameerikeen" is good enough for me though.

    I know I always prefer the intelligent folks.

  55. #55
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,737
    Oh, well...
    I don't rattle.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    301
    why does everyone obsess over who 'wins' the old Tours now? i don't think anyone cares. this is about the future of the sport. if some young kid is deciding whether to dope or not right now, let this be a good example to him/her. no matter how famous or how popular you are, you will be held accountable down the road.

    for those of you with kids, are you comfortable with the idea that they will dope, just because everyone else in their chosen sport dopes?
    something about the west coast...it makes me wanna ride

  57. #57
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    A Bully Gets His

    This was by no means an isolated incident.

    Simeoni: Justice Has Come A Bit Late In Armstrong Case | Cyclingnews.com

    A bully is getting his just deserts.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  58. #58
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    if some young kid is deciding whether to dope or not right now, let this be a good example to him/her. no matter how famous or how popular you are, you will be held accountable down the road.
    I think selective prosecution will have the opposite effect. Most of the doping is done by people who are just trying to make a living. This will not deter anybody from smearing some Androgel after a hard workout, as they no that nobody will bother, they are too busy blowing all efforts of a high profile case (with no positive tests).

    Even in the pros - did anybody stop doping in baseball? Nope.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    if some young kid is deciding whether to dope or not right now, let this be a good example to him/her. no matter how famous or how popular you are, you will be held accountable down the road.
    That's a sweet thought, but I think the only message USADA is sending is that if your name is Lance, we will bust you no matter what. If your name is Floyd, Levi, Georg, Frankie, Tyler, or anything else feel free to take anything you like.

  60. #60
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720
    I do not understand the American neurosis that causes us to want to tear down our heroes at all costs.

    Of course I don't condone cheating and want the sport to be clean.

    But how will this do that?

  61. #61
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    Just like the fbi, one has to go after the most notorious criminal to make an impact.

    The authorities will always go after those that have benefited the most from cheating.

    Take down the tallest tower and the highest tree and every man, woman, child will take note. It will be in the news, in the papers and on the forums.

    fc

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Just like the fbi, one has to go after the most notorious criminal to make an impact.

    The authorities will always go after those that have benefited the most from cheating.

    Take down the tallest tower and the highest tree and every man, woman, child will take note. It will be in the news, in the papers and on the forums.

    fc
    Got it! Fill yourself to the gills with red blood cells, win the Giro, Olympic medals and a bunch of other stuff, make millions of dollars, not a problem. Just don't be the best.

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    301
    not sure what you mean, you'll find Tyler and Floyd's name on the same list as Lance:

    http://www.usada.org/sanctions/

    Quote Originally Posted by EBrider View Post
    That's a sweet thought, but I think the only message USADA is sending is that if your name is Lance, we will bust you no matter what. If your name is Floyd, Levi, Georg, Frankie, Tyler, or anything else feel free to take anything you like.
    something about the west coast...it makes me wanna ride

  64. #64
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    There is so much carnage from this.

    Loser = Lance Armstrong
    Loser = USADA
    Loser = Cycling
    Loser = Cycling's image to non-cyclists
    Loser = Cycling's new & up-coming, non-doping pros that will be viewed as dopers
    Loser = The inspiration that if one has cancer, not only can they beat it, but they can kick-ass afterwards

    Nothing good comes from this.

    P

  65. #65
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    not sure what you mean, you'll find Tyler and Floyd's name on the same list as Lance:

    http://www.usada.org/sanctions/
    Will the USADA now vacate all the results for Floyd, Levi, Georg, Frankie, Tyler and all the other "secret witnesses" since they don't need their testimony?

    I'm not a big Lance fan, but this is ridiculous.

    P

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    not sure what you mean, you'll find Tyler and Floyd's name on the same list as Lance:

    http://www.usada.org/sanctions/
    Got it. If your name is Tyler or Floyd, don't test +. Name my kid George if you think he might be interested in cycling.

  67. #67
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    It will be in the news, in the papers and on the forums.
    Yep.. Little people like Jeff Novitzky or USADA chief will stroke their ego and boost their career, and drug use in the rest of the forest will continue unabashed.

    There is a lot of truth to the Broken Windows theory. To clean up crime - keeping the overall environment clean is key. Going after online drug distributors for example. It will be a greater deterrent for some high school kid in a search of a scholarship not being able to easily order testosterone online then watching some tenuous and biased prosecution of a prominent retired athlete.

  68. #68
    Crazed Country Rebel
    Reputation: iheartbicycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    I do not understand the American neurosis that causes us to want to tear down our heroes at all costs.

    Of course I don't condone cheating and want the sport to be clean.

    But how will this do that?
    Yah, I'm pretty sure the nazi's never acted this way towards teddy merx.
    Stupid, but sometimes witty. Occasionally brilliant. Slow and fat though.

    Mike Vandeman Sucks Dong

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    301
    so what is the alternative? tell USADA to not do their job, ignore all the evidence and let Lance get away with cheating? does that give everyone warm and fuzzy feelings?
    something about the west coast...it makes me wanna ride

  70. #70
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    so what is the alternative? tell USADA to not do their job, ignore all the evidence and let Lance get away with cheating? does that give everyone warm and fuzzy feelings?
    The alternative is for them to actually do their job and improve testing of competing athletes. Nobody benefits from a witch hunt of Lance, but USADA's chief ego.

  71. #71
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    How Presumptuous

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Nobody benefits from a witch hunt of Lance, but USADA's chief ego.
    How presumptuous.

    Here's something you might want to consider:

    Report: Armstrong Warned Before All Doping Controls | Cyclingnews.com

    And this:

    Armstrong: Mixed Reactions At USA Pro Challenge | Cyclingnews.com

    Take careful note of what Ben Jaques-Maynes said.

    For that ever dwindling cabal of Armstrong apologists this about covers it:

    Last edited by jms; 08-25-2012 at 04:48 PM.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  72. #72
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    How presumptuous.
    I do not think so.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    12
    Lance in my mind is still and American hero and it sucks that anybody would want to change that.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    so what is the alternative? tell USADA to not do their job, ignore all the evidence and let Lance get away with cheating? does that give everyone warm and fuzzy feelings?
    So, if I'm a 20 year old getting into racing and I see that they just popped a guy 10 years after he won 7 Tour de France's, that's supposed to deter me from doping? I would probably try and win the 7 tours and make tens of millions of dollars first and then worry about it. If they consistently applied the rules to domestiques, young riders, old riders and everyone else in the peleton I might think twice about it.
    Last edited by EBrider; 08-25-2012 at 06:14 PM.

  75. #75
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    Or

    Quote Originally Posted by EBrider View Post
    So, if I'm a 20 year old getting into racing and I see that they just popped a guy 10 years after he won 7 Tour de France's, that's supposed to deter me from doping? I would probably try and win the 7 tours first and then worry about it. If they consistently applied the rules to domestiques, young riders, old riders and everyone else in the peleton I might think twice about it.
    As a 20 Y.O. just getting in to racing, I think I'd worry about this

    AFLD claims Armstrong was regularly tipped off about tests

    and wonder what chance I'd have against people and organizations this venal.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    As a 20 Y.O. just getting in to racing, I think I'd worry about this

    AFLD claims Armstrong was regularly tipped off about tests

    and wonder what chance I'd have against people and organizations like this.
    Been going on for years, didn't start with Lance. The way it works for an elite rider, but you need to get there first.

  77. #77
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by EBrider View Post
    Been going on for years, didn't start with Lance. The way it works for an elite rider, but you need to get there first.
    Really?

    For LeMond? For Hampsten? For Christopher Bassons?
    My Favorite Peeps:

  78. #78
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    Really?

    For LeMond? For Hampsten? For Christopher Bassons?
    Good article here, addressing some of those questions:

    Lance Armstrong doping case by USADA needed to be above criticism but too many questions left unanswered - Telegraph

    Quote:
    If USADA do unilaterally strip Armstrong of his title and enforce a world wide ban it will have been done on the basis of absolutely no uncontested positive tests and it will come after a two year Federal investigation from the most feared investigator in his field – Jeff Novitzky – which failed to discover anything he considered worth proceeding with. And Novitzky is not a man who takes 'defeat' lightly
    I agree.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Carl Hungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Nobody benefits from a witch hunt of Lance...
    The truth benefits and it's all I care about.

  80. #80
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Hungus View Post
    The truth benefits and it's all I care about.
    Truth did not change one way or another.

    I do like when known criminals get off on some technicality. Integrity of the system is above vigilante "justice". I do not see anything resembling integrity and consistency here, nor does it serve any noble purpose whatsoever.

  81. #81
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    A Short List

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Truth did not change one way or another.

    I do like when known criminals get off on some technicality. Integrity of the system is above vigilante "justice". I do not see anything resembling integrity and consistency here, nor does it serve any noble purpose whatsoever.
    A short list of people pilloried for exposing the Armstrong Myth that will benefit from the truth coming out:

    The Andreus

    Emma O'Rielly

    Greg Lemond

    Mike Anderson

    Fillipo Simeoni

    Christopher Bassons
    My Favorite Peeps:

  82. #82
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    So far, I agree with everything Axe has said. I find it odd how the only person defending due process is a former commie. And in this case, due process has nothing to do with enemies Armstrong has made or his help in cancer awareness.

    So the USADA wants to strip his titles based on evidence that they will get around to releasing at some point? Wait.. I think there's an emoticon for that.



    What will be interesting to see is whether the UCI finds the USADA's amount of "evidence" compelling enough to actually remove the titles.

    With that said, now would be a good time for me to announce my new "Strava Invalidation Services" (TM). Want to keep your KOM? Or just feeling spiteful towards someone else? For only a small sum, I will go and accuse them of cheating, whether it be a motor hidden in the frame, drugs, GPS track editing, etc. I will get them banned and their times removed. * So that you can remain the winnar! Accepting cash or paypal. PM for details.

    *Technically, I can only "recommend" their runs to be invalidated. Results subject to the discretion of Strava and not guaranteed.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bigfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,470
    [QUOTE=beanbag;9628305]
    So the USADA wants to strip his titles based on evidence that they will get around to releasing at some point?/QUOTE]

    USADA has been very clear on the release of their files. Five days from the date of their sanction against Lance. Thursday is going to be a very interesting day.
    "Yeah, Humboldt County is way the %#@* up there, but worth it!"

  84. #84
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    A short list of people pilloried for exposing the Armstrong Myth that will benefit from the truth coming out:
    ....{some random folks}
    Except for a hearty dose of schadenfreude I do not see how they benefit either.

  85. #85
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfoot View Post

    USADA has been very clear on the release of their files. Five days from the date of their sanction against Lance. Thursday is going to be a very interesting day.
    The order is still inverted.

  86. #86
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    The order is still inverted.
    Just curious: for the witness testimony - who takes the deposition for USADA, and under what authority? Are they under penalty of perjury there?

    It is still all screwed up. I could understand federal agents going after Bonds or Clements for perjury (and even there, what a silly failure all that was, that accomplished not a thing, judging by the recent events).

  87. #87
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    As far as I am aware, this whole thing is outside of the legal system (given that the US has dropped their case against Armstrong). So "due process" and "perjury" are not really applicable and the USADA and UCI can do whatever they want.

  88. #88
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    As far as I am aware, this whole thing is outside of the legal system (given that the US has dropped their case against Armstrong). So "due process" and "perjury" are not really applicable and the USADA and UCI can do whatever they want.

    Interesting. Was looking for some information about this and one place mentioned that USADA is actually a private corporation - was paid by USOC some $3.5M for its services, and their big desire is to become the body overseeing professional sports (where the real money is).

    If it’s going to act like law-enforcement, it should be held to the same standards, would not you think?

    (For the record - I do believe that Lance doped. And people he competed against doped. But it is USADA's modus operandi that bothers me much more. Their mission should be to supervise testing and handle testing results, not conduct criminal investigations.)

  89. #89
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post

    If it’s going to act like law-enforcement, it should be held to the same standards, would not you think?
    Combining judge, jury, and executor into one is more cost effective and expedient.

  90. #90
    Paper or plastic?
    Reputation: zorg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    9,631
    At least USADA made the French happy.
    Faster is not always better, but it's always more fun

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    Really?

    For LeMond? For Hampsten? For Christopher Bassons?
    I would like to think not, but the U.S. national team took blood doping to a new level in 1984. Considering several of those riders that doped rode for 7-11, as did Hampsten for at least part of his career, it certainly wouldn't be a shocker. Epogen took doping to an entirely new level in the 1990's, but the idea wasn't new and most of the accusations regarding Armstrong relate to transfusions rather than Epo.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...9061/index.htm

  92. #92
    MTBR Member since 2001...
    Reputation: shadowsports's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    95
    Its complete crap. Lance is a champion.
    '11 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Comp
    '08 GT Force 3
    ****
    Giant
    Moto
    Trek
    Others

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    In general, it's hard for us to be objective about Lance. He is either:
    - our hero
    - the one that got us interested in cycling
    - we're in awe of the money raised for cancer.
    Well, none of the above, for various reasons. I certainly think Lance is guilty as charged. On the other hand, I think I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes. In that era, to beat the best in the world, you pretty much had to play the game the way it was played.

    For some reason Chris Rock comes to mind...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zmyb5mEKiY

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    There is so much carnage from this.

    ...
    Loser = The inspiration that if one has cancer, not only can they beat it, but they can kick-ass afterwards
    This type of argument (the idea that anything bad for Lance is bad for cancer victims) is fairly patronizing to cancer victims. It is possible to a) simultaneously appreciate what Lance overcame and take motivation and inspiration from it, and b) also appreciate that he (by all appearances) broke the rules, made his money, got his glory, but ultimately still has to play by the rules, and the game is not over.

  95. #95
    Clyde on a mission!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    719
    The interesting thing will be how the UCI reacts. If UCI accepts USADA's "anonymous eyewitness reports" as the truth rather than those 500 clean drug tests the UCI administered over a decade, they are also admitting that their drug testing system is completely worthless.

    My money is on the UCI telling the USADA to bugger off once the USADA puts in the official request to have Lance stripped of his victories. I'm betting that UCI will tell USADA that until the USADA produces some hard evidence that the UCI testing methods are flawed, the UCI will choose to rely on the testing done and declare Lance clean.

    I really can't see the UCI accepting that Lance somehow should have been able to cheat the UCI testing system consistently for more than a decade, UCI is going to fight the USADA's decision once USADA formally requests UCI to strip Lance.

  96. #96
    grinder
    Reputation: nordy643's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Sandrenseren View Post
    until the USADA produces some hard evidence that the UCI testing methods are flawed, the UCI will choose to rely on the testing done and declare Lance clean
    You would think, right? Hopefully that's what happens, but I am not confident that it will. USADA and UCI don't really have accountability checks if they hand out convictions based on refutable evidence, unlike our judicial system.

  97. #97
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    It's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better for Lance. That's what I said two years ago. That is still true today.

    At least he's still rich and not in jail.

    fc

  98. #98
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    It's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better for Lance. That's what I said two years ago. That is still true today.

    At least he's still rich and not in jail.

    fc
    Interesting how his sponsors have chosen to stand by him during this time...usually someone under this amount of public scrutiny is dropped pretty quickly.

    So what would they hit him with for jail time? Monetary fraud? I know Landis was hit with fraud related to funding his legal defense, and he avoided jail by agreeing to pay back all of the "donations."

  99. #99
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    Interesting how his sponsors have chosen to stand by him during this time...usually someone under this amount of public scrutiny is dropped pretty quickly.

    So what would they hit him with for jail time? Monetary fraud? I know Landis was hit with fraud related to funding his legal defense, and he avoided jail by agreeing to pay back all of the "donations."
    The sponsors will all go away. They cycling community is now split what to think of him and the non-cycling public are now generally negative.

    I hear this Thursday is a big day as a lot of the evidence will be released. As far as jail, I'm more referring to famous people getting down and out and losing their path (like the cast of Diff'rent Strokes).

    But there is deep trouble too.
    "The U.S. Postal Service gave tens of millions in sponsorship dollars to Armstrong’s teams, and the government may yet try to claw that taxpayer money back. Armstrong is one of the defendants in a whistleblower lawsuit that Landis filed in 2010 under the False Claims Act, a law that allows the Justice Department’s civil division to join plaintiffs in lawsuits that allege a defendant defrauded the U.S. government.

    Armstrong may also face litigation from SCA Promotions, a Texas company that paid him a $7.5 million performance bonus in 2006 after a bitter arbitration fight. The company’s attorney notified Armstrong earlier this summer that the firm would seek to claw that money back if he was stripped of his titles. "

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/lance-armstrong-stripped-tour-de-france-titles-lifetime-ban-olympic-sports-drops-doping-appeal-article-1.1143295#ixzz24mESpFGV"

  100. #100
    Lusus Naturae
    Reputation: NoBalance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post

    But there is deep trouble too.
    "The U.S. Postal Service gave tens of millions in sponsorship dollars to Armstrong’s teams, and the government may yet try to claw that taxpayer money back. Armstrong is one of the defendants in a whistleblower lawsuit that Landis filed in 2010 under the False Claims Act, a law that allows the Justice Department’s civil division to join plaintiffs in lawsuits that allege a defendant defrauded the U.S. government.

    Armstrong may also face litigation from SCA Promotions, a Texas company that paid him a $7.5 million performance bonus in 2006 after a bitter arbitration fight. The company’s attorney notified Armstrong earlier this summer that the firm would seek to claw that money back if he was stripped of his titles. "

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/lance-armstrong-stripped-tour-de-france-titles-lifetime-ban-olympic-sports-drops-doping-appeal-article-1.1143295#ixzz24mESpFGV"
    Didn't these companies and the postal service, make big money from his successes? That would be pretty f*cked up to get all this advertisement from all of his wins, then turn around and try and get money back?

    HOnestly doubt any companies will try to get their money back. This is ALL about whether or not he keeps the records, at this point.

  101. #101
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    It's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better for Lance. That's what I said two years ago. That is still true today.

    At least he's still rich and not in jail.
    Schadenfreude much?

    I find it hard to root for USADA here. My common sense of what constitutes a crime, or a fraud, and what constitutes due and fair process do not let me.

    Never cared at all about Armstrong (or for road cycling for that matter).

  102. #102
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    Wouldn't be surprised if the Feds go after him though (the post office fraud).
    They already did.

  103. #103
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    Thought the Post Office stuff was still ongoing? Haven't heard anything about the results yet.
    To my knowledge all that was dropped. Will be interesting to see if USADA's evidence is based on what they dug up there - and was not good enough to proceed on a criminal level - which would be all shades of wrong IMO.

  104. #104
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    How presumptuous.

    Here's something you might want to consider:

    Report: Armstrong Warned Before All Doping Controls | Cyclingnews.com
    Related to this, is why didn't Armstrong fail the HCG test in the summer 1996 cycling season, before it was sky-high in a hospital test when he was diagnosed with cancer in Oct?

    HCG is a natural hormone, which is used by dopers in synthetic form, to boost testosterone production. It has been part of the standard doping test regimen since the early 1990's.

    High HCG is also, coincidentally, one of the primary indicators of testicular cancer. The book 'From Lance to Landis' deals with this incident extensively. According to doctors quoted in the book, Lance's HCG should have been steadily growing for several months leading up to the Oct hospital test. If the UCI had flagged high HCG in Lance's results much earlier, his cancer could have been caught in the very early stages.

    In fact, other athletes like Jake Gibb (volleyball Olympian) have gone through this exact scenario and credit the anti-doping authorities with actually saving their lives.

    From cancer to Olympics, twice, for US beach volleyball star Jake Gibb - News | FOX Sports on MSN

    UCI has never been able to answer why they didn't find high HCG. In addition, if I was Lance, and this happened to me (and I was clean), I would be very publicly holding the UCI to account for not catching my cancer earlier, but I have not been able to find any story or evidence that Lance ever did this.

    This is more evidence that the UCI had (potentially has to this day) little real interest in finding all the dopers because the very survival of their sport hangs in the balance.

    More on HCG
    HCG - Human Chorionic Gonadotropin - Anabolic Steroids

  105. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: EBrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    To my knowledge all that was dropped. Will be interesting to see if USADA's evidence is based on what they dug up there - and was not good enough to proceed on a criminal level - which would be all shades of wrong IMO.
    I think it is the other way around. USADA saw all the evidence the Feds collected. It wasn't enough to prove anything in court, but USADA thought it was enough for them and brought the charges.

  106. #106
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by EBrider View Post
    USADA saw all the evidence the Feds collected.
    That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly what is very, very troubling. Nobody is supposed to have access to any such material - grand jury testimony, investigation results - that did not result in an indictment and a trial, where any such evidence is made public. A private company - USADA, or any other - should not be able to use law enforcement for their own, private fishing expeditions.

  107. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories
    [Edit] Oops. Posted in a wrong browser. I didn't have a chance to read the article yet, but saw in the bullet points that it seems to try to address some common arguments/questions many of us have and wanted to post the link here for others as well as myself when I do find time later to digest the information. -- mudworm ~
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  108. #108
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by mudncrud View Post
    The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories
    [Edit] Oops. Posted in a wrong browser. I didn't have a chance to read the article yet, but saw in the bullet points that it seems to try to address some common arguments/questions many of us have and wanted to post the link here for others as well as myself when I do find time later to digest the information. -- mudworm ~
    That is a good article, but interesting that it discounts Lances "never failed a test" due to drugs advance faster than tests keep up, then points out the quality of the biological passort system in solving that problem... then promptly ignores that Lance was in that system during his "comeback" years.

    P

    Here is more info on the Biological Passport - important to know as it does a vastly better job of testing. And is what is cleaning up the sport now:
    "Many believe that the athlete passport provides an excellent alternative to ensure fairness in elite sports. While a new drug test must be developed and validated for each new drug, the main advantage of the athlete passport is that it is based on the stability of the physiology of the human being." - if an athlete's (red blood cells, plasma, testosterone, etc) values spike = positive test for doping. Totally independent of whatever drug is used.

    Biological passport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by Mr.P; 08-28-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerfectZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,274
    Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't.

    But the idea that a private organization can take evidence gathered by a federal prosecutor (if that is what happened) and then pursue some kind of extralegal inquisition against you is even more troubling.

  110. #110
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly what is very, very troubling. Nobody is supposed to have access to any such material - grand jury testimony, investigation results - that did not result in an indictment and a trial, where any such evidence is made public. A private company - USADA, or any other - should not be able to use law enforcement for their own, private fishing expeditions.
    I agree. So while I am 50% sure Lance doped, I can't cross over to full commitment as the USADA process is so out of context to core American values of justice. Tho it might not be a court of law, I still believe in innocence before proven guilty. And crazy stuff like sealing grand jury documents.

    Hiding the evidence has done no good for the USADA's cause.

    I hope they come out with what they have this Thursday like Francois alluded to.

    I'm not inclined to hang a guy based on "we have some (mystery) people that are saying (mystery) things" - and I am not even much of a Lance fan.

    P

  111. #111
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    That is a good article, but interesting that it discounts Lances "never failed a test" due to drugs advance faster than tests keep up, then points out the quality of the biological passort system in solving that problem... then promptly ignores that Lance was in that system during his "comeback" years.
    The "drugs advance faster than tests" argument is erroneous. Drugs aren't invented without assays to go along with them to detect their presence. A more realistic argument is that USADA and other official bodies were ignorant of the proper assays (e.g. "behind the times") or were unable to afford them.

    The biological passport idea seems a little flawed unless they have a solid metric for distinguishing between artificial and natural training-related physiological changes. Also very subjective.

  112. #112
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    The "drugs advance faster than tests" argument is erroneous. Drugs aren't invented without assays to go along with them to detect their presence. A more realistic argument is that USADA and other official bodies were ignorant of the proper assays (e.g. "behind the times") or were unable to afford them.
    Didn't know that, thanks for the insight.

    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    The biological passport idea seems a little flawed unless they have a solid metric for distinguishing between artificial and natural training-related physiological changes. Also very subjective.
    Not perfect, yes. But quality of the test is enough that the Biological Passport is credited for "slowing down the peloton" in recent years.

    P

  113. #113
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    The biological passport idea seems a little flawed unless they have a solid metric for distinguishing between artificial and natural training-related physiological changes. Also very subjective.
    It was good enough to nab Landis and Contador with analytical positives (which is when no real arguments about what constitutes due and fair process can really be made, only arguments about scientific validity of the test, which is usually alright.)

  114. #114
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    The "drugs advance faster than tests" argument is erroneous. Drugs aren't invented without assays to go along with them to detect their presence. A more realistic argument is that USADA and other official bodies were ignorant of the proper assays (e.g. "behind the times") or were unable to afford them
    For pharmaceuticals like medical EPO and therapeutic testosterone, yes, but, dopers now are using newer compounds developed specifically to beat tests, not for medical use.

    Conte/BALCO/Bonds/Marion Jones are the most publicized examples but there are many more. This is why most athletes fail not based on testing positive for specific known compounds, but rather in a threshold or ratio test for regular bodily substances like the T/E, or CIR.

    These tests often have very high thresholds because they measure naturally occurring substances in the body, anti doping authorities deem false positives to be far worse than false negatives, and humans have wide natural fluctuation in these, so the threshold for failure is so high any reasonable person would say its clear doping well before your T/E reaches 4:1. We know what is statistically inhuman for all these compounds, because they were tested for years for other medical reasons, giving us years of reliable data on what is the 99% or 99.999% distribution of highest T/E ratio or other hormone or chemical level. And, magically, athletes in many sports routinely test right up to these already inhuman thresholds.

    Landis, Melky Cabrera, Colon all failed T/E and the CIR, no known substance was found. Bonds and Jones never failed. The chemistry of creating new compounds, and new masking agents, is getting cheaper every day.

    If it was as simple as reading the published makeup of every medical drug (say, C18 H26 O2 for deca durabolin) and doing a mass spectroscopy test to find it, they wouldn't even need the T/E test or the CIR any more.


    Edit: I have removed hematocrit testing from this argument, because I re-researched hematocrit testing and found that 50% isn't inhumanly high, this test doesn't fall in the 'too high to matter' category.

    But I stand by the statement that this test is not very conclusive either positively or negatively, further undermining the veracity of testing in general and challenging the argument that tests can keep up with drugs, masking agents, and red-blood cell boosting techniques. They would not need a hematocrit test at all if they could somehow detect self-transfusion, and also somehow had perfect known compound tests for all forms of blood-cell boosters.

    BLOOD TESTING FOR PROFESSIONAL CYCLISTS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping:
    "The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), for example, imposes a 15-day suspension from racing on any male athlete found to have an HCT above 50% and hemoglobin concentration above 17 grams per deciliter (g/dL). A few athletes naturally have high red blood cell concentrations (polycythemia), which they must demonstrate through a series of consistently high hematocrit and hemoglobin results over an extended period of time."
    Last edited by Procter; 08-28-2012 at 12:26 PM.

  115. #115
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by ddprocter View Post
    For pharmaceuticals like medical EPO and therapeutic testosterone, yes, but, dopers now are using newer compounds developed specifically to beat tests, not for medical use.
    I don't buy it. I've worked in medical research a long time (including at an assay development company) and as far as I know, all research compounds have a corresponding assay. They need it to determine efficacy (PK, PD, etc.) even if it's not FDA-approved or legal in this country. Once a compound is invented, the corresponding assay is created as well.

    This is completely different than the threshold issue you are discussing. That is solved more by the "passport" than anything else.

    As I said before, governing bodies just don't know what the compounds are, or what assays to use. And full-panel testing would likely be cost-prohibitive. It would have to include multiple antibody-based ELISAs, mass spec and gas chromatography.

    The argument that athletes are using "undetectable" compounds is inherently misleading. But I suppose the consistent monitoring via the "passport" method would be the safest, most cost-effective bet. Unfortunately it has been in practice since 2008 and look at how effective it's been thus far.

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    That is a good article, but interesting that it discounts Lances "never failed a test" due to drugs advance faster than tests keep up, then points out the quality of the biological passort system in solving that problem... then promptly ignores that Lance was in that system during his "comeback" years.

    P
    I guess its just an interesting coincidence that LA never won a Tour during the time he was subject to the passport.
    something about the west coast...it makes me wanna ride

  117. #117
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    I guess its just an interesting coincidence that LA never won a Tour during the time he was subject to the passport.
    Sure, he lost to his teammate, who went on to win another tour...oh, wait.

  118. #118
    > /dev/null 2&>1
    Reputation: Procter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jtmartino View Post
    I don't buy it. I've worked in medical research a long time (including at an assay development company) and as far as I know, all research compounds have a corresponding assay. They need it to determine efficacy (PK, PD, etc.) even if it's not FDA-approved or legal in this country. Once a compound is invented, the corresponding assay is created as well.

    This is completely different than the threshold issue you are discussing. That is solved more by the "passport" than anything else.

    As I said before, governing bodies just don't know what the compounds are, or what assays to use. And full-panel testing would likely be cost-prohibitive. It would have to include multiple antibody-based ELISAs, mass spec and gas chromatography.

    The argument that athletes are using "undetectable" compounds is inherently misleading. But I suppose the consistent monitoring via the "passport" method would be the safest, most cost-effective bet. Unfortunately it has been in practice since 2008 and look at how effective it's been thus far.
    I don't know anything about the antibody method, but a relatively portable mass spectroscopy unit can run can look for hundreds of known compounds in a single run. I seriously don't think its cost prohibitive for organizations like UCI and MLB (who's budgets are in the millions), but I could be wrong. If its any indication, the most expensive mass spectrometer in eBay's lab equipment category is $84K, and the average seems to be $5-$10K. Point is, labs are already using these, its a sunk cost. It might be costly to translate the assay for an existing drug or compound into a valid test, with a med/large-scale study of test subjects for a valid control. But, I really have no idea. We do know they already test for hundreds of compounds.

    mass spectrometer | eBay


    Anyways regardless of the cost of adding an additional compound to the test, completely new, undetectable designer steroids definitely DO happen: THG (Balco's 'the clear'), produced by chemist Patrick Arnold, who also is credited with developing androstenedione (found in the 30's, resurrected, first marketed as a supplement, later banned), as well as resurrecting several other steroids from 1960's studies that never made it to the clinical trials stage,

    There is a good treatment of the Balco incident here from the handbook of pharmacology, see pdf page 169.

    Doping in Sports (Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology)

    He covers a bunch of the well know anabolic steroids and their molecular compounds, as well as previously unknown THG (which was yes, created from scratch by chemist Patrick Arnold, with no previous pharmaceutical trial or research by any drug company, hence no assay).

    If you have access to a DB of published assays (I don't know how structured the documentation is) I would be curious whether the other compounds Arnold resurrected from the 60's had a published assay:

    Norboletone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Desoxymethyltestosterone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Either way, my point about threshold testing is that, to me, its evidence they don't trust the 'known compounds' tests. To you, its evidence they are lazy and just not tracking down the assay for every possible compound. Balco is one example where there was definitely no assay or other pharmaceutical material on it whatsoever. But, I'd buy that this is an anomaly until I can find others.

    I think the truth is somewhere in the middle and the point is the tests are behind the dopers for a combination of all the above reasons - quickly dissipating compounds, and sometimes undetectable compounds (whether created from scratch like THG, or created from previous 1960's drugs, or whatever) force authorities to fall back on various natural substance threshold testing, which are flawed because thresholds must be either inhumanly high (many std dev from the avg), or, humanly high (say, ~3 std dev from the average like the hematocrit threshold at ~50), are therefore prone to false positive, inconclusive, and vulnerable to challenge ("I'm innocent, I have genetically high red-blood cell counts")

  119. #119
    Hi.
    Reputation: jtmartino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,860
    Quote Originally Posted by ddprocter View Post

    To you, its evidence they are lazy and just not tracking down the assay for every possible compound. Balco is one example where there was definitely no assay or other pharmaceutical material on it whatsoever. But, I'd buy that this is an anomaly until I can find others.
    No, that's not at all what I'm saying. And technology has changed a lot since 2003, when the THG assay was created.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,902
    the thing that bothers me here is the same thing bothering some others...that the process for the usada is a 'guilty until proven innocent' one, and that sort of stinks imo. also, at the end of the day what has been done here is to lower the bar for taking titles away, since la is to my knowledge the first athlete to be stripped of major titles or records without actually failing a drug test.

    did he dope? i don't know, but i guess he probably did, but without hard evidence i think taking the titles away 'taints' the outcome.

    that being said, my wife's cousin is a sports physician specializing in drugs in sport and is one of the world experts on the subject..so much so that he was one of the three doctors who looked at the evidence before the usada decided to move forward on la...and his assertion (he cannot tell me the details) is that the evidence, while circumstantial, was pretty compelling.

    the whole thing is too bad...they could have let the titles stand since he didn't fail a test and banned him going forward, or some other compromise....that sort of outcome imo would have been better.

  121. #121
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    Not So

    Quote Originally Posted by cohenfive View Post
    the thing that bothers me here is the same thing bothering some others...that the process for the usada is a 'guilty until proven innocent' one, and that sort of stinks imo.
    Not so, Armstrong ha[s]d an opportunity to defend himself against USADA's charges in the arbitration hearing.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  122. #122
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    Not so, Armstrong ha[s]d an opportunity to defend himself against USADA's charges in the arbitration hearing.
    I wouldn't want to go into that arbitration hearing and I haven't doped since high school

    USADA still have yet to release any evidence - how does one defend ones self? This is the problem we are having here. USADA went to the public and said "Lance is guilty of doping... because we said so..." It's almost like the USADA is cheating, to catch a cheater.

    If the USADA would just release some detailed evidence to substantiate their claims, we could all climb on the bus.

    P
    Last edited by Mr.P; 08-30-2012 at 08:49 AM.

  123. #123
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    Not so, Armstrong ha[s]d an opportunity to defend himself against USADA's charges in the arbitration hearing.
    Those hearings are not designed for anything resembling a fair defense against a "non-analytical positive". Standard of proof is non-existing. Are witnesses even under oath?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    If the USADA would just release some evidence to substantiate their claims, we could all climb on the bus.
    And how would we validate any such evidence? They can say anything without any consequences whatsoever if they or their witnesses actually lied, for whatever reason. If they stole some of the federal investigation results - who confronted it?

    The only evidence we could trust would be a scientific test, like against Landis or Contador. Would be interesting to see if they got any of that.

    Look, I do believe that Lance doped during those years. But I do believe in a fair process even more.

  124. #124
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    And how would we validate any such evidence? They can say anything without any consequences whatsoever if they or their witnesses actually lied, for whatever reason. If they stole some of the federal investigation results - who confronted it?

    The only evidence we could trust would be a scientific test, like against Landis or Contador. Would be interesting to see if they got any of that.

    Look, I do believe that Lance doped during those years. But I do believe in a fair process even more.
    I agree on all points. When the Biological Passport system started, Lance was considered borderline, suspect but not enough publicly accuse. I believe they have since re-reviewed it, and - I think - have retested old samples. (all this info coming through 3rd parties like Dick Pound).

    Makes me wonder if USADA have testing evidence that he doped, but got the evidence outside it's own rules - nulifying punishment - so they do it in the court of public opinion.

    That is speculation, but that is what we get with no quality information.

    P

  125. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation: chairthruster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    794
    So where are these frigging USADA reports?

  126. #126
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Another perspective



    P
    Last edited by Mr.P; 08-31-2012 at 10:34 AM.

  127. #127
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,476

    Did USADA just blink???

    [QUOTE=Bigfoot;9628336]
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    So the USADA wants to strip his titles based on evidence that they will get around to releasing at some point?/QUOTE]

    USADA has been very clear on the release of their files. Five days from the date of their sanction against Lance. Thursday is going to be a very interesting day.
    I haven't seen any release of files; was the Thursday time frame incorrect or did USADA decide that releasing the files may not bode well for them?

    Perhaps Lance's lawyers are beginning to lick their libel lips...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    187
    Reading through the thread, I've seen mention that USADA doesnt have any authority over much. Lance has been keeping in shape by racing XTerra Triathlons and marathons etc... I wonder if they'll try to block him from entering these as well...

  129. #129
    grinder
    Reputation: nordy643's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    181
    I doubt they have the ability to bar him from triathlons/marathons, but hey - this a government agency we're talking about so they sky's the limit...

    Where's the best place to get good updates on the situation?

  130. #130
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by nordy643 View Post
    I doubt they have the ability to bar him from triathlons/marathons, but hey - this a government agency we're talking about so they sky's the limit...

    From what I understood it is a private non-profit with a contract from USOC. Not sure how it all works.

  131. #131
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Not sure how it all works.
    Indeed.

    Pay close attention over the next few weeks. Here's a little light reading for your continuing education:

    Tyler Hamilton on Lance Armstrong: The Secret Is Out | Books | OutsideOnline.com

    Daniel Coyle is a very thorough and reputable writer. "Lance Armstrong's War" is one of the better books @ cycling that I've read.

    And you might want to look this over too:

    Mike Anderson on His Life as Lance Armstrong's Personal Assistant - Page 1 | Road Biking | OutsideOnline.com
    My Favorite Peeps:

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    269
    Armstrong is a druggie, he got busted! End of story!

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by normonster View Post
    Reading through the thread, I've seen mention that USADA doesnt have any authority over much. Lance has been keeping in shape by racing XTerra Triathlons and marathons etc... I wonder if they'll try to block him from entering these as well...
    Code:
    A lifetime ban, as described in the World Anti-Doping Code, 
    bars Armstrong “from participating in any activity or competition organized 
    by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory,” 
    the USADA statement continued.
    Blocking? Sounds nefarious. The USADA has a website. The agency has authority. Please don't succumb to the spin coming from Texas.

    World Anti-Doping Agency
    hxxp:// www dot wada-ama dot org/

    A Guide to the World Anti-Doping Code - Cambridge University Press
    hxxp://www dot cambridge dot org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1174330/?site_locale=en_GB

    The good news is that LA is on the short list. Not too many cheaters, really.
    hxxp://www dot usada dot org/sanctions/

    Good to know the sport is otherwise clean.

  134. #134
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    195

  135. #135
    Mtn View, CA
    Reputation: gddyap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    481
    He could compete in non-sanctioned events but they'll likely be small.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

  136. #136
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by gddyap View Post
    ..but they'll likely be small.
    ..and fun.

  137. #137
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720

    Did USADA use grand jury material?

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    That is exactly what I said, and that is exactly what is very, very troubling. Nobody is supposed to have access to any such material - grand jury testimony, investigation results - that did not result in an indictment and a trial, where any such evidence is made public. A private company - USADA, or any other - should not be able to use law enforcement for their own, private fishing expeditions.
    Absolutely correct. If that is really what occurred here, it is very troubling and threatening to civil liberties in general.

    There are two or maybe even three sets of rules that matter here. First and most important are the grand jury rules. Grand juries investigate in secret, both to make sure the investigation is not impeded and equally important, to protect witnesses and investigation targets from threats and the unwarranted taint of scandal. Where an investigation closes with no charges, the testimony taken by the grand jury is required to remain secret, period. It can be released only in limited circumstances (e.g., with permission of a federal judge to another grand jury, to another government agency, but only if they also are subject to the secrecy requirement).

    Violation of the grand jury secrecy rule during or after an investigation is punishable as a criminal contempt of court. (E.g., Victor Conte's lawyer went to prison for disclosing transcripts from the BALCO grand jury, including Barry Bonds' testimony, to a reporter while the grand jury was still investigating. The lawyer properly received the evidence because his own client had been indicted, but he was required to keep it secret and use it only to defend his client.)

    Why is this important? To protect against the awesome power of the grand jury. The grand jury process allows prosecutors to investigate possible crimes and command people to testify before the grand jury, all without making a decision whether there has been any crime and whether anyone should be charged. The grand jury is a sitting group of private citizens that investigates possible crimes and uses the power of the courts to collect evidence and testimony. The grand jurors decide what subjects to investigate, which witnesses should be subpoenaed to testify, what documents should be collected from whom, and whether anyone should be charged. The process is led and guided by DOJ prosecutors (Assistant U.S. Attorneys) who make "recommendations" to the grand jurors at each step along the way that are usually (but not always) approved by the grand jurors.

    A federal grand jury has enormous power. It can force anyone to testify before law enforcement officers, about anything. The only way in most cases for a witness to avoid a grand jury subpoena is by exercising his/her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The grand jury can then eliminate this right by giving the witness immunity from prosecution based on the testimony -- in that case, the witness simply must testify or go to jail, potentially for years. (See, e.g., Greg Anderson, who went to jail for over a year for refusing to testify before the Barry Bonds grand jury). The secrecy rules help protect against the government's use of this great power for any reason other than its purpose to enforce the law.

    Here, federal prosecutors and a grand jury investigated, apparently spending millions of taxpayer dollars in the process, and decided based on all the evidence not to bring any charges of any kind against Lance Armstrong. As a result, the testimony collected by the grand jury led nowhere, and should remain secret.

    Note that the purpose of the secrecy rule applies differently when the government does bring charges. In that case, the evidence is provided to the defendant and his/her lawyer, and some or all of it may come out in court, if necessary to the defense. Evidence about others that the grand jury investigated remains secret unless disclosure in court is necessary to defend the defendant. (See the Victor Conte case noted above.)

    Also, the grand jury secrecy rules do not prohibit a witness from telling others what he or she said to the grand jury. The rules do not "cover up" evidence, because anyone else can go and try to gather that same evidence, and any witnesses have the same ability to disclose publicly what they said or what documents they provided that they had prior to the grand jury investigating. The rules merely prohibit those who are or become part of the process (e.g., judges, court reporters, prosecutors, those receiving copies of other people's testimony, and the grand jurors themselves) from breaching the secrecy that is necessary to protect the investigative process and to avoid the gross misuse of government power that would result from its disclosure to those who would seek to try someone in the court of public opinion when the grand jury decides not to prosecute.

    Second, keep in mind that the grand jury rules don't apply to information collected by investigatos outside the grand jury process. This includes information provided voluntarily and without a subpoena to a law enforcement officer. Department of Justice procedures followed by its investigators (FBI, ATF, etc.) and prosecutors strictly prohibit disclosure of facts gathered in a closed investigation to a non-government agency -- information may be shared with other government enforcement agencies that are assisting in a federal investigation, and to state law enforcement personnel investigating state crimes, but that is about it.

    Third, assuming another government agency (e.g., FDA, where Jeff Novitsky works) was part of the closed investigation of Lance Armstrong (I don't know whether this is the case but assume so) and worked with the prosecutors who decided there was no case to bring, then the procedures of that agency would also apply. That agency would also be prohibited from disclosing any grand jury material that it received, and its own procedures would generally prohibit further disclosure of facts gathered by investigators.

    The basic problem here is that USADA is a private company. It describes itself as a "non-profit, non-governmental agency." It was created by the USOC to be an "independent" entity as a way to address criticisms that the USOC was doing a terrible job of ensuring fair competition and preventing doping. The USADA has power only because USOC and other sports organizations and athletes competing under their rules agree to give it power, which they can also take away, at least in theory, and replace USADA with some other anti-doping regime. But if USADA gets the same access to secret grand jury material as do prosecutors, then the entire grand jury process, which exists solely to enforce federal criminal law, can become perverted and abused to promote public scandal or private ends.

    We have a free country in large part because our system is loaded with protections against the abuse of government power. Out of control federal prosecutors or investigators are supervised and can be fired by the relevant US Attorney, or by the Attorney General or other agency head, who in turn can be fired by the President. If a federal judge abuses his or her power, he or she can be overruled by higher courts (which reverse lower court decisions every day) or impeached by Congress (rare, but it does happen). But "We, the People" have no power to control a private company that is not itself violating any laws. So that private company must not be deputized as a "private law enforcement agency" and given access to grand jury material.

    I would be surprised and very disturbed if USADA actually received access somehow to information from the federal investigation of Lance Armstrong. I don't know for a fact, but I would assume and hope that USADA conducted its own, private investigation and used its private sanctioning power (not the power of a grand jury) to gather evidence and cudgel witnesses into providing evidence. Abusive, it may have been, but if so at least it wasn't an abuse of government power.

    I hope we will learn more about this. USADA's power over sport is scary, because there appears to be no real ability to prevent it from getting out of control.

    A related and very intriguing question is how or why the USADA has any right or authority to investigate doping related to the Tour de France or otherwise outside Olympic/USOC competition, including races that occurred before USADA even existed. Why should USADA have the independent ability to disqualify a Tour de France winner when the organizations that control the Tour and its anti-doping rules haven't agreed that they are bound by whatever USADA decides? This is why UCI is challenging USADA's authority. I don't know much about it (yet), but this is an interesting issue that I will look into when I have some spare time. Presumably, Armstrong agreed at some point that his Tour de France competition would be subject to USADA rules, but that doesn't explain why USADA can claim the power to decide who was the real winner of the Tour from 1999-2005.

  138. #138
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by nordy643 View Post
    I doubt they have the ability to bar him from triathlons/marathons, but hey - this a government agency we're talking about so they sky's the limit...
    This is not correct. USADA is not a government agency, which is a big part of the problem here. What gives it the power to control sport? Who can control them if they go nuts? Only the USADA Board of Directors, and whoever elects them. I am pretty sure that Lance Armstrong didn't get a vote in electing the USADA Board, but who did?

    I believe USA Cycling has agreed to be bound by USADA determinations, which explains why Armstrong will be banned from USA Cycling sanctioned events. Has UCI also agreed to be bound by USADA determinations?

  139. #139
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by PerfectZero View Post
    Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't.

    But the idea that a private organization can take evidence gathered by a federal prosecutor (if that is what happened) and then pursue some kind of extralegal inquisition against you is even more troubling.
    Bingo! The ends don't justify the means. If we lose our principles, we lose everything.

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    I don't get the idea that the process is known to be flawed from the get go like many people seem to be convinced of. Say they went to arbitration. Lance's lawyers can't cross examine people giving testimony against Lance? Really?

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    USADA's power over sport is scary, because there appears to be no real ability to prevent it from getting out of control.
    As I understand it, Congress and/or the USOC and/or USA Cycling and/or whoever else pays or grants authority to USADA could simply decide not renew their contracts with USADA, and somebody else could come along (Kinder Gentler Doping Control, Inc) and get the contract.

  142. #142
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720

    The process

    Update -- according to a BBC story yesterday, "USADA has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case."

    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    I don't get the idea that the process is known to be flawed from the get go like many people seem to be convinced of. Say they went to arbitration. Lance's lawyers can't cross examine people giving testimony against Lance? Really?
    The problem is that the playing field is so uneven and therefore unfair. Armstrong had to decide how to respond to charges without knowing who are the witnesses against him and the private arbitration process would afford him little or no opportunity to find out what the witnesses against him received in exchange for their promises to testify against him. Meanwhile, USADA was able to use its sanctioning power to extract statements from people, locking them in to testifying consistently with those statements, and Armstrong had no ability to coerce anyone to jump to his defense. It is one thing when government prosecutors do this, because they are answerable to the people and have a legal duty to do the right thing, and what they do is supervised by the courts and elected officials. But it is all the more frightening when a private company answerable to no one uses such tactics.

    Armstrong has been beset with disloyal employees and friends who have gladly accepted his money and then looked for ways to ensure that they could personally benefit even more from his fame and accomplishments. Even disgruntled former close confidantes seem to have no proof of anything. Read the absolute garbage from his former assistant/bike mechanic Anderson that is in Outside magazine, whose main complaint appears to be that Armstrong didn't pay him off when their relationship soured.

    I have no idea whether Armstrong doped or not. Certainly many stories suggest that he did, just as his denials and 500+ negative tests suggest he did not. But that isn't the point. The process has to be fair, or else any innocent person could be railroaded.

    There is also, of course, the related question why USADA is doing all of this. How is it helpful to USADA's mission or a good use of its resources to try to destroy Lance Armstrong so many years after he retired from professional cycling and remains an inspiration to millions? It is a travesty.

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    The process has to be fair, or else any innocent person could be railroaded.
    I agree, I just don't see the inherent unfairness in the system. Surely Lance's lawyers would have been able to point out that witnesses against him had obtained deals for their testimony, and the arbiter(s) would have taken that into account in weighing the testimony.

    There is also, of course, the related question why USADA is doing all of this. How is it helpful to USADA's mission or a good use of its resources to try to destroy Lance Armstrong so many years after he retired from professional cycling and remains an inspiration to millions? It is a travesty.
    On the contrary, if they have credible evidence of a doping conspiracy, then NOT pursuing it sends the following message: if you are big enough, famous enough, rich enough, and/or successful enough at rallying public support for your cause by cleverly wrapping yourself in a flag of anti-cancer heroism, then we don't go after you. The message to athletes is then clear: here is how to put together a get out of jail free program for yourself.

    The correct message is that if there is evidence of a doping conspiracy and the statute of limitations has not expired, then we will come after you, no matter who you are. It is *more* important to go after big targets than to go after more obscure athletes.
    Last edited by gxglass; 09-01-2012 at 04:04 PM. Reason: fix typo

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Jfloren View Post
    Read the absolute garbage from his former assistant/bike mechanic Anderson that is in Outside magazine, whose main complaint appears to be that Armstrong didn't pay him off when their relationship soured.
    I read the piece. I have to say, it sounds more plausible than anything Lance says these days. His main problem is that, like most people, he didn't assume his erstwhile friend would completely turn against him (sign an NDA??) when his employment ended; he didn't get things in writing; etc. All easy mistakes to make.

  145. #145
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    Preponderance of Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    I read the piece. I have to say, it sounds more plausible than anything Lance says these days. His main problem is that, like most people, he didn't assume his erstwhile friend would completely turn against him (sign an NDA??) when his employment ended; he didn't get things in writing; etc. All easy mistakes to make.
    Agree.

    Keep in mind it was Fabiani, Armstrong's lawyer speaking for him in the rebuttal of Anderson's Outside article, Lance, apparently, wasn't up to the challenge. It's also not the only instance of Armstrong attempting to nuke someone's life that he perceives as a threat. The Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, Emma O'Rielly, and Greg LeMond have received similar treatment. The preponderance of the evidence would suggest Anderson is cleaving closer to the truth than Lance.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  146. #146
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    Keep in mind it was Fabiani, Armstrong's lawyer speaking for him in the rebuttal of Anderson's Outside article, Lance, apparently, wasn't up to the challenge. It's also not the only instance of Armstrong attempting to nuke someone's life that he perceives as a threat. The Andreus, Landis, Hamilton, Emma O'Rielly, and Greg LeMond have received similar treatment. The preponderance of the evidence would suggest Anderson is cleaving closer to the truth than Lance.
    We all know that Armstrong is a grade A assmunch.

    Problem is with USADA chief being grade A+ - and in position of authority to boot.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    We all know that Armstrong is a grade A assmunch.

    Problem is with USADA chief being grade A+ - and in position of authority to boot.
    Well no, the arbitration panel would have been the ultimate authority. Who are they, a bunch of retired judges, I assume? They have no dog in this fight. You keep asserting that the procedure is a sham. What is the evidence for this? Personally, I was looking forward to reading their judgment (assuming a written one would have been produced). Now, sadly, there won't be one, and everyone will be left to form their own opinions.

  148. #148
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    Well no, the arbitration panel would have been the ultimate authority. Who are they, a bunch of retired judges, I assume? They have no dog in this fight.
    The arbitration panel are the same ones who brought the charges.

    Sounds fair, right?

    See why a lot of us, who are not big fans of Armstrong, have problems with this.

    P

  149. #149
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    You're mistaken

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    The arbitration panel are the same ones who brought the charges.

    Sounds fair, right?

    See why a lot of us, who are not big fans of Armstrong, have problems with this.

    P
    You're mistaken. The Arbitration Panel is not composed of anyone bringing the charges.
    My Favorite Peeps:

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    11
    I don't need to see a failed drug test to know LA was doping. Just watch his performances during those Tours. He was literally like a machine. After he retired most all of his main rivals as well as teammates were popped for doping. Why is that? They had the talent while he was racing but after he left they all needed some help??? And as for his former teammates accepting "deals" for their testimony or being coerced to go along with the accusations/charges.??? If no foul was committed why on earth would they be ruining their own legacies by admitting to something they didn't do??? Bruyneel once said that Contador was the best climber he had ever seen. Funny how these days Contador looks very vulnerable/human compared to what he did just a few years ago and compared to how LA looked during his Tour wins. When LA would attack on a mountain stage his attacks seemed to last for nearly the entire F'ing mountain. The attacks put in the last 2-3yrs by the GC leaders bare no resemblance to those Tours. The attacks are short and the riders actually look fatigued.

    Bottom line: LA was a cheat and actually, I'm fine with that. He was just playing the game IMO. What I have a problem with is the guy has no character. Everyone "including LA" has persecuted Landis and "rightfully so" BUT at least Landis came out and said he lied and that yes he doped. I don't think LA will ever do that. He doesn't have the character to do it. Also the stories I've read about how he treated/mistreated his fellow racers make me think the guy is just a huge ****** of a person. The fact that he beat cancer doesn't make him a good person. It makes him lucky! I'm happy for anyone who does. My sister has been fighting that demon for the last 2+ years and ,while we are all trying to stay optimistic, things aren't looking so promising.

    Not even sure what the point of my post was anymore.

    LA, THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!! That's the only way he will ever win me back as a fan! Own up guy!

  151. #151
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    You're mistaken. The Arbitration Panel is not composed of anyone bringing the charges.
    Indeed. Their buddies instead.

  152. #152
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    You keep asserting that the procedure is a sham. What is the evidence for this?
    Did you bother to read what is going on?

    I think I have a better standard for evidence they that procedure has.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Did you bother to read what is going on?
    Actually, yeah, I did. One of Lance's claims in his lawsuit was that his due process rights were being violated. The judge wrote that this claim is "without merit", reasserted the general validity of the arbitration system, pointed out Lance's further avenues of appeal (CAS and Swiss court), and dismissed the claim.

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    201
    The whole system is a joke!!

    The riders need the dope to excel, and the sanctions/regulatory orgs need the turmoil for their funding.

    Remove the money from any sport, and you will see a group of individuals who only love the game.

    Until then, all sports are corrupt to some degree!!!
    Last edited by JRS73; 09-02-2012 at 09:50 AM.

  155. #155
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    Actually, yeah, I did. One of Lance's claims in his lawsuit was that his due process rights were being violated. The judge wrote that this claim is "without merit", reasserted the general validity of the arbitration system, pointed out Lance's further avenues of appeal (CAS and Swiss court), and dismissed the claim.
    Judge stated that he has no jurisdiction in a dispute between private parties and their arbitration system. That does not make that system fair or honest or proper.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Judge stated that he has no jurisdiction in a dispute between private parties and their arbitration system. That does not make that system fair or honest or proper.
    IMO the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 should be repealed.

  157. #157
    jms
    jms is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    3,229

    Hilarious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe View Post
    Indeed. Their buddies instead.
    Hilarious Axe.

    As close as it gets to anybody's "buddies" being involved in the arbitration decision is that
    Armstrong's lawyer helped craft the current rules used in the process.

    Anything else?
    My Favorite Peeps:

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126

    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by gxglass View Post
    Actually, yeah, I did. One of Lance's claims in his lawsuit was that his due process rights were being violated. The judge wrote that this claim is "without merit", reasserted the general validity of the arbitration system, pointed out Lance's further avenues of appeal (CAS and Swiss court), and dismissed the claim.
    To my knowledge, what you wrote is accurate as far as it goes, but I think you left out a key point. My understanding is the judge questioned the neutrality of the specific arbitration process. My take on that is the judge was saying he didn't have jurisdiction, but he questioned the fairness and neutrality of the process.

  159. #159
    J-Flo
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,720

    The Real Reasons Why Armstrong's Lawsuit Was Dismissed

    Armstrong's lawsuit against USADA was dismissed based on legal doctrines that prevent the courts from interfering with private arbitration proceedings. The court made clear that it had serious concerns about the process, but simply could not interfere. (To address a few posts above, it also found that the USADA arbitration rules satisfied basic fairness concerns, assuming they were applied in a reasonable manner. Among other things, the arbitrator would be selected according to rules designed to ensure he/she (or they, if a panel of three was used) were neutral and unbiased. However, Armstrong simply would not have any real opportunity to take "discovery" (e.g., to try to prove his argument that witnesses had been intimidated against him) and would not have access to USADA's files).

    Here are a few quotes of interest from the court's decision:


    (Referring to USADA's complaint against Armstrong) : This "charging document" is so vague and unhelpful it would not pass muster in any court in the United States. The Court is assured, however, that Armstrong will be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him in a timely fashion prior to arbitration, and proceeds under the assumption this will actually occur. Indeed, the Court has serious doubts whether USADA's arbitration procedures would comport with due process if Armstrong were not to receive such notice sufficiently in advance of his arbitration to allow him to prepare a defense.


    In other words, the court took USADA's word that it would give Armstrong a fair opportunity to respond to the specific evidence/charges.


    USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives. Ultimately, however, the subjective motivations of the parties cannot control the Court's due process analysis, or give this Court jurisdiction over claims Congress and Armstrong have decided should be resolved through arbitration.


    Judge Sparks went on to explain that Congress authorized the creation of the USOC through the Sports Act, and USOC recognized USA Cycling as the national governing body (NGB) for cycling and required USA Cycling and its members and athletes to comply with the USADA protocol and USADA's arbitration procedures. That was the end of the matter as far as the court was concerned:


    Congress intended for eligibility questions to be decided through arbitration, rather than federal lawsuits. Whether or not this was a good choice is, of course, debatable—but it is not this Court's place to judge the wisdom of Congress's enactments, so long as they are constitutional.


    Federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules, to the immediate and irreparable harm of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff has no other available remedy. To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.


    The judge then found no such extraordinary circumstances existed, because it was not clear that USADA had violated its own rules, and was unclear whether any arbitration would occur at all given the dispute between USADA and USA Cycling and UCI regarding whether USADA had jurisdiction, and because Armstrong hadn't lost the case yet and therefore didn't yet have a compelling case that he was unfairly deprived of his rights. In other words, Armstrong could not seek judicial relief for being railroaded until he "exhausted his internal remedies" and the railroading was complete.


    The Court thus concludes it cannot consider Armstrong's remaining claims at this time.


    The court decided that USADA had the power to force Armstrong into arbitration because Armstrong had agreed to abide by USA Cycling rules, which in turn (after 2004) incorporated the USADA protocol, which in turn required arbitration. Because the USADA arbitration rules require the arbitrator to decide jurisdiction issues, all of Armstrong's challenges to USADA's authority -- including his argument that UCI had authority not USADA, and his argument that USADA could not bring charges more than 8 years old under WADC and USADA rules -- were matters that Armstrong had to challenge in arbitration and could not bring in court.


    The court concluded that the apparent unfairness of the charges were not matters that it could redress, and Armstrong would have to challenge them (if at all) through arbitration:


    Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including—incredibly—several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC.


    The court finished with a powerful and clear conclusion, which obviously condemns USADA:


    As the Court has indicated, there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI' s equally evident desire not to proceed against him. Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum. The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceedings—a wrinkle which does not change the Court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this Court.


    The events in USADA's charging letter date back fourteen years, span a multitude of international competitions, and involve not only five non-citizens of the United States who were never licensed in this country, but also one of the most well-known figures in the history of cycling. As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal—the regulation and promotion of cycling. However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts.

  160. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    Well, obviously we read the same decision. The dismissal of Lance's due process claim was not just that the law & precedent say that arbitration is called for in this situation. A person generally can't claim that arbitration might potentially be unfair and be granted preemptive relief, or whatever it might be called. IIRC the judge also pointed out that the arbitrators would be free to weigh witness testimony given lack of discovery regarding their putative USADA plea deals. Actually I can't remember if he pointed that out and I'm not going to dig out the quote if he did, because frankly, it should be obvious that any intelligent arbitrator is going to duly weigh testimony that may well have been given in exchange with an agreement for a reduced penalty. The judge clearly does not disbelieve in the existence of intelligent arbitrators. And, significantly, the judge noted Lance's clear avenues of appeal, next stop being CAS, and the willingness of the latter to take this type of case. Basically, he appears to have no problem with this type of situation going to arbitration.

    Clearly the judge is a bit mystified at the larger picture, e.g. the disagreement between USADA and UCI, and the delay in bringing the case, and he is not entirely sympathetic to USADA's motives. It's nothing new for judges to express healthy scepticism regarding prosecutors. On all of the important points, however, he affirmed that Lance's due process rights are essentially intact.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pimp-Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    119
    Who Effin cares anymore. LA get's stripped of his titles, those who were runner ups will get those titles. Then they will be persecuted and lose those titles as well and it will go on and on.

    The point is that LA will still be known as the person who won 7 TDF because no one, well at least myself, don't know who were the runner ups those 7 times anyway.

    The point is it will always be seen as a witch hunt. Again, at least for me.

    The point is wether or not Livestrong actually gives money to cure cancer at least they bring up awareness. Which I think is a lot better than those like the USADA who don't do $hit

    Finally, I see all these as a waste of tax payers money.

    So fcuk it and fcuk USADA for being a pest and wasting our money.

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    281
    I think that it is fitting that a morally degenerate pimp, someone with no regard for anything but $, is so supportive of Lance. Of course a pimp sees nothing wrong with the Livestrong organization that lines LA's pockets and does minimal actual cancer research. In fact, a pimp revels in such skankiness.

    Yes, the glowing pimp endorsement really shows what LA is all about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pimp-Al View Post
    Who Effin cares anymore. LA get's stripped of his titles, those who were runner ups will get those titles. Then they will be persecuted and lose those titles as well and it will go on and on.

    The point is that LA will still be known as the person who won 7 TDF because no one, well at least myself, don't know who were the runner ups those 7 times anyway.

    The point is it will always be seen as a witch hunt. Again, at least for me.

    The point is wether or not Livestrong actually gives money to cure cancer at least they bring up awareness. Which I think is a lot better than those like the USADA who don't do $hit

    Finally, I see all these as a waste of tax payers money.

    So fcuk it and fcuk USADA for being a pest and wasting our money.

  163. #163
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    You're mistaken. The Arbitration Panel is not composed of anyone bringing the charges.
    You are correct, I misinformed.

    From Judge Sparks decision:
    "'On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,'' Sparks wrote. ''This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it."

    P

  164. #164
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    Quote Originally Posted by chudaman View Post
    I think that it is fitting that a morally degenerate pimp, someone with no regard for anything but $, is so supportive of Lance. Of course a pimp sees nothing wrong with the Livestrong organization that lines LA's pockets and does minimal actual cancer research. In fact, a pimp revels in such skankiness.

    Yes, the glowing pimp endorsement really shows what LA is all about.
    Nice attack there ace.

    fc

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Pimp-Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by chudaman View Post
    I think that it is fitting that a morally degenerate pimp, someone with no regard for anything but $, is so supportive of Lance. Of course a pimp sees nothing wrong with the Livestrong organization that lines LA's pockets and does minimal actual cancer research. In fact, a pimp revels in such skankiness.

    Yes, the glowing pimp endorsement really shows what LA is all about.


    The pimp, don't care, the pimp don't give a $hit.

    So, where my money

  166. #166
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Bump for USADA releasing evidence. Hello?

  167. #167
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,476

    USADA is waiting...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    If the USADA did release any evidence, I'd like to see a link to the data.
    ...until they finish reading Tyler Hamilton's book!

    FWIW VeloNews has an interesting interview with Hamilton and his co-author here Exclusive: Q&A with ‘The Secret Race’ authors

    Not sounding too good for ol' Lance...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  168. #168
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    ...until they finish reading Tyler Hamilton's book!

    FWIW VeloNews has an interesting interview with Hamilton and his co-author here Exclusive: Q&A with ‘The Secret Race’ authors

    Not sounding too good for ol' Lance...
    Yes, what "the twin" has to say is pretty damning. But then few of us are stating Lance's innocence.

    We have problems with the USADA officially saying Lance is a doper, and stripping him of all his titles... because they say so. It's insulting to our sense of justice.

    Tyler has provided more information than the USADA.

    P

  169. #169
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by jms View Post
    As close as it gets to anybody's "buddies" being involved in the arbitration decision is that
    Armstrong's lawyer helped craft the current rules used in the process.

    Anything else?
    No, I am not inclined to argue with anybody who thinks the end justifies the means. I have made my point, and I have seen no reason whatsoever to change my view.

  170. #170
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,429
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post
    ...until they finish reading Tyler Hamilton's book!

    FWIW VeloNews has an interesting interview with Hamilton and his co-author here Exclusive: Q&A with ‘The Secret Race’ authors

    Not sounding too good for ol' Lance...
    There was another interesting book recently: "Positively False: The Real Story of How I Won the Tour de France".

    P.S. LOL @ anonymous puppets.
    Last edited by Axe; 09-06-2012 at 01:18 AM.

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    301
    did anyone catch this? If true, it should satisfy those of you who need another positive test.

    Report: USADA In Possession Of Positive Armstrong Samples | Cyclingnews.com
    something about the west coast...it makes me wanna ride

  172. #172
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    4,126
    Quote Originally Posted by uncreative View Post
    did anyone catch this? If true, it should satisfy those of you who need another positive test.

    Report: USADA In Possession Of Positive Armstrong Samples | Cyclingnews.com
    Thanks. I think someone posted up that link earlier. Thing is, it is still in the realm of "they say they have evidence..." Kinda feels like they are stringing us along

  173. #173
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Jonathan Vaughters just listed active Garmin riders Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie and Tom Danielson as having doped during their careers.

    Some of them were conspicuously left off the team for the Olympics this year.

    Where this gets interesting, is what the USADA is going to do with that info? Clean now, but dirty past, investigate? test old samples? strip titles? Reaching into the past is like a slippery slope. Does USADA "witch hunt" (Lance's words) one guy? Or do they apply a consistent standard of enforcement?

    Vaughters outs Garmin riders for past doping in online forum

    P
    Last edited by Mr.P; 09-06-2012 at 03:51 PM.

  174. #174
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    This drama has a lot more episodes... a lot more. It's about to get a whole lot worse.

    Here's the good news. You don't have to let it interrupt a single one of your rides or corrupt your passion for riding.

    fc

  175. #175
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    114
    In case anyone missed this. Pretty good rant. Some interesting comments too.

    Vaughters Outs Danielson

    You don't have to let it interrupt a single one of your rides or corrupt your passion for riding.
    +1

  176. #176
    Let's Ride!
    Reputation: digthemlows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    793
    My inlaws are very invovled in Ironman and both help to run the main race (they live in Kona) and we were talking about it last night........He can't compete in the Ironman either and Ironman Corp donated 2 million to his NonProfit ........ won't see that money............too bad, it would have been great to see him compete ......
    Master of Nothing, but dammit if I don't try..............

  177. #177
    Slowest Rider
    Reputation: BigLarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    5,184
    Regrettably, I believe Lance doped - at low levels. I've listened very carefully to Lance's statements and, oddly, I've never heard him directly deny that he doped. Rather, he points to the number of tests he's passed, the unfairness of the system, and also aggressively flames the accusers.

    On the other hand, the majority of evidence is from former acquaintances who suspect he was doping from their own indirect inferences of what they see or heard Lance say - sort of weak for enforcement purposes IMO. Still, it's highly suspicious, giving a sense that LA may indeed have been doping at low enough levels and smart enough to not fail the test limits.

    In spite of this, the USADA is really going overboard. Eliminating doping from sports is a worthy goal. But at some point you got to cut it off. Going back over a decade, and based on others testimony of possible wrongs? Testing decade old samples with modern techniques with questionable results? Will anyone in the world stand up to this perfection?

    Will they ever find a rider somewhere down in the ranks who hasn't doped in any way, and can accept this title. Or maybe the new winner appears clean because they weren't in the top rung to get tested after the race. Maybe their blood, if found, needs to be tested too, and maybe all their life long acquaintances, friend or foe, can spill their suspicions too...

    When it's over, will we ever really know who's won in any sport any more? By this example, we should start checking all sports stars and teams throughout history for drugs and other offenses in the same detail. And interview anyone related for their suspicions. While at it, let's check the video on every possible wrong umpire call on any football, basketball, and baseball game. Let's continuously thrash to revoke and reissue the medals, rings, and trophies to the real winners, once history is completely reviewed and rewritten again and again and again to perfection.

    Will this really help the sports? Will we really care? Will we enjoy sports more? Will anyone ever know who wins?

    If the goal is really to reduce doping, I feel they should instead do the best job possible at the time with the best testing using the best science, lab, and procedures available. Then have a couple years limit on any charges. Afterwards, let our champions remain champions.
    Last edited by BigLarry; 09-06-2012 at 10:56 PM.
    It's not slow, it's doing more MTB time.

  178. #178
    I'm a "she".
    Reputation: mudworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    In spite of this, the USADA is really going overboard.... By this example, we should start checking all sports stars and teams throughout history for drugs and other offenses in the same detail. And interview anyone related for their suspicions. While at it, let's check the video on every possible wrong umpire call on any football, basketball, and baseball game. Let's continuously thrash to revoke and reissue the medals, rings, and trophies to the real winners, once history is completely reviewed and rewritten again and again and again to perfection.
    Look who is going overboard here?

    I could have cared less if this episode never happened, but since it happened, I think it's for the good. I don't see it as getting at Armstrong or even about passing the trophies down to the deserving riders; it's about deterring future doping because it sends out following signals:
    - nobody is too good to be caught and punished.
    - your doping may not be caught today based on today's technology, but it may still be caught years down the road. And when caught, the punishment will be just as severe.

    I don't think doping will disappear because of it, but at least, it will make the guilty think not just about the consequences now, but also about the future.
    Inch by inch, I will get there...
    ride reports | tracks | photos
    Green Chiclets are my favorite candy.

  179. #179
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,946
    Quote Originally Posted by mudworm View Post

    I could have cared less if this episode never happened, but since it happened, I think it's for the good. I don't see it as getting at Armstrong or even about passing the trophies down to the deserving riders; it's about deterring future doping because it sends out following signals:
    - nobody is too good to be caught and punished.
    - your doping may not be caught today based on today's technology, but it may still be caught years down the road. And when caught, the punishment will be just as severe.
    The only things I learned from this are that
    1) apparently you can dope or use drugs, and pass tests
    2) the only way to get busted is to have others rat on you retroactively

    IMHO not a good message or deterrent at all

  180. #180
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,721

    Good job!

    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    this drama has a lot more episodes... A lot more. It's about to get a whole lot worse.

    Here's the good news. You don't have to let it interrupt a single one of your rides or corrupt your passion for riding.

    Fc
    word!!!

  181. #181
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,721
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLarry View Post
    Regrettably, I believe Lance doped - at low levels. I've listened very carefully to Lance's statements and, oddly, I've never heard him directly deny that he doped. Rather, he points to the number of tests he's passed, the unfairness of the system, and also aggressively flames the accusers.

    On the other hand, the majority of evidence is from former acquaintances who suspect he was doping from their own indirect inferences of what they see or heard Lance say - sort of weak for enforcement purposes IMO. Still, it's highly suspicious, giving a sense that LA may indeed have been doping at low enough levels and smart enough to not fail the test limits.

    In spite of this, the USADA is really going overboard. Eliminating doping from sports is a worthy goal. But at some point you got to cut it off. Going back over a decade, and based on others testimony of possible wrongs? Testing decade old samples with modern techniques with questionable results? Will anyone in the world stand up to this perfection?

    Will they ever find a rider somewhere down in the ranks who hasn't doped in any way, and can accept this title. Or maybe the new winner appears clean because they weren't in the top rung to get tested after the race. Maybe their blood, if found, needs to be tested too, and maybe all their life long acquaintances, friend or foe, can spill their suspicions too...

    When it's over, will we ever really know who's won in any sport any more? By this example, we should start checking all sports stars and teams throughout history for drugs and other offenses in the same detail. And interview anyone related for their suspicions. While at it, let's check the video on every possible wrong umpire call on any football, basketball, and baseball game. Let's continuously thrash to revoke and reissue the medals, rings, and trophies to the real winners, once history is completely reviewed and rewritten again and again and again to perfection.

    Will this really help the sports? Will we really care? Will we enjoy sports more? Will anyone ever know who wins?

    If the goal is really to reduce doping, I feel they should instead do the best job possible at the time with the best testing using the best science, lab, and procedures available. Then have a couple years limit on any charges. Afterwards, let our champions remain champions.

    - I'm afraid you're being waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too realistic there Larry.
    You did leave Soccer out of the mix. Those guy's are super dirty....

  182. #182
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    I was interested in reading Tyler Hamilton's book but maybe reading reviews of it may be easier.

    The Gavia Files (Commentary: Tyler Hamilton and The Secret Race)

    ze book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Rac...tyler+hamilton

    fc

  183. #183
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    For those waiting, I think it's here:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sp....html?hp&_r=1&

    fc

  184. #184
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    170

  185. #185
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ElHombre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    668

    If you don't want to spend $ on Tyler's book...

    ... this covers most of it, and a lot more.

    Reasoned decision

  186. #186
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    662

    statement from Levi

    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  187. #187
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    Levi too????????????????

  188. #188
    Bedwards Of The West
    Reputation: CommuterBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,451
    I just had a brilliant idea. If I was Lance Armstrong, I'd just legally change my name to a blank space...that way all the race titles and record books would still be accurate.
    You have no excuse for driving to work
    (unless you don't have studded tires)
    (no excuse for that either)

  189. #189
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849

  190. #190
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    170
    I was with Levi until this part

    "I could have come forward sooner. But would that have accomplished anything—other than to end my career? One rider coming forward and telling his story in the face of cycling's code of silence would not have fixed a problem that was institutional."

  191. #191
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ElHombre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Thanks - wasn't aware that there was an equivalent here of the Clinic. Or I should say, over on roadbikereview, since we all know mountain bikers don't dope (except with beer)

  192. #192
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr.P View Post
    Yes, what "the twin" has to say is pretty damning. But then few of us are stating Lance's innocence.

    We have problems with the USADA officially saying Lance is a doper, and stripping him of all his titles... because they say so. It's insulting to our sense of justice.

    Tyler has provided more information than the USADA.

    P
    Lance refused arbitration when he walked away. At the point the USDA's hands are tied. The USDA offered leniency but Lance refused so the USDA threatened hardball and followed through. Lance then cried foul.
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  193. #193
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripes View Post
    If the USADA did release any evidence, I'd like to see a link to the data.
    The USDA cannot release evidence.
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  194. #194
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    804
    Someone sent the link to the USADA report.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.document...-armstrong.pdf

    It's pretty long.

  195. #195
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    459
    Must hear: Tygart, Herman, Ford discuss Armstrong on ESPN

    Lance Armstrong counsel Tim Herman, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart and ESPN senior writer Bonnie Ford and legal analyst Lester Munson appeared on the sports network’s “Outside the Lines” program Wednesday afternoon.

    In an audio podcast of the program, Tygart outlined the USADA case against Lance Armstrong. Afterwards, Herman disputed the agency’s “Reasoned Decision,” claiming that the adjudication process for athletes was unfairly biased.

    “The process is completely rigged. I don’t care what Travis Tygart says,” said Herman. “Christians dealing with the lions in Rome had a better record than athletes dealing with USADA. It’s a rigged system.”

    Ford and Munson, who worked as an attorney for 18 years, addressed the case following Herman’s appearance on the program. Munson went so far as to call evidence that Armstrong tampered with witnesses as “powerful” and questioned the decision of the U.S. attorney to drop the federal investigation of Armstrong in February without pressing charges.

    “My impression is that the three different categories of evidence that USADA is presenting here — the eyewitness accounts/affidavits of riders and team staff members, scientific evidence that includes mainly interpretation of data from old tests from the last 10 or 12 years, and financial documents — taken together, this is an incredibly, incredibly compelling case,” said Ford. “In fact, I would go so far as to say that anyone who dismisses all three of those categories of evidence and ignores the way they overlap and intersect over the last 14 to 16 years, anyone that doesn’t accept that Lance Armstrong crossed the line doesn’t want to know.”

    “If you look at this evidence, if you look at these details, this is a much better report and an investigation far superior to the Mitchell Report, which looked into doping in baseball,” said Munson. “This is really good stuff that the USADA has put together; I am tremendously impressed.”

    “There is no doubt in my mind that this is a very fair investigation,” Munson continued. “It has a wonderful integrity to it. To me, reading this evidence, it makes me wonder what was going through the mind of the United States attorney Andre Birotte when he somehow concluded that he would not pursue a criminal case against Lance Armstrong.”
    Here's to sweat in your eye.

  196. #196
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Levi too????????????????
    I think we can pretty safely assume that if you were a professional road cyclist in the past 15 (20? forever?) years and you've had any measure of success, you were doping.

    I don't approve of what Levi did, but I'm not going to write him off completely. It's possible to like some of the things that someone's done, and not like some of the other things they've done. But I'm biased; I have friends who are friends with Levi. I certainly don't get the impression that he was anywhere near as motivated by doping as Lance was... the more I read, and the more Lance talks, the less I think of him. The vindictiveness with which he's conducted himself recently has just been unseemly. (also, dude dumped Sheryl Crow.)

    Frankly, at this point, it's one thing for older guys like Levi and Hincapie to admit to past doping, and their changed ways. What about the younger pros? What do the Schleck bros, Wiggins, Cancellara, et al. have to say about all this? Are we just in the midst of some giant Catholic confession about past sins, or are we going to see a Protestant-style reformation of the sport? (ok, that's a little hyperbolic.)

    [email protected]#$%^, I'm glad I ride a mountain bike.
    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  197. #197
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    All the confessions seem like agreed upon talking points;

    - had a dream to ride pro
    - started clean
    - if I wanted to live the dream - had to dope
    - doped (vague) time ago
    - now clean (vague) since
    - coming forward now to clean up the sport

    Here are Danielson's, Vande Velde's, & Zabriskie's confessions:
    Garmin-Sharp responds to USADA case with rider statements

    P
    Last edited by Mr.P; 10-10-2012 at 09:14 PM.

  198. #198
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    170
    Mr.P - WTF are you talking about?

    You make Big Bird sick.

  199. #199
    I dig trails!
    Reputation: Mr.P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    5,562
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDweeb View Post
    Mr.P - WTF are you talking about?

    You make Big Bird sick.
    Sorry was using the example as a tactic (as in: "say it enough times it must be true" tactics); should not have mentioned politics; removed

    P

  200. #200
    fc
    fc is offline
    head minion Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    33,849
    When do we get the missing confession?

    fc

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.