Lessons from USADA vs Jenkins- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334

    Lessons from USADA vs Jenkins

    I was looking for more information on the USADA and its authority as well as its investigation into atheletes and I came upon these two, one obviously led to the other

    California lawmakers demand investigation of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency - latimes.com



    I found this article especially interesting, and since the USADA is in the spotlight at this time it is worthy to note that it is indeed almost impossible to beat, even by a law professor and his students.


    http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-re...%20Article.pdf


    I realize most are unwilling to read the article in its entirety, so the I find of course the mos interesting being a solution to the problem
    IX. BIG PICTURE REMEDY
    The story of USADA v. Jenkins reveals a system created by a monopoly that wields power without sufficient restriction or balance. The systemís current flaws can be addressed by adopting the above specific suggestions. However, as much as athletes would like to be optimistic, those suggestions are not likely to be adopted or sustained until the monopolyís powers are countervailed in one of three ways:
    (1) The legal fiction that sustains the monopoly, namely the theory of voluntary association, is replaced with a legal doctrine that recognizes the monopolistic power of sports governing bodies; or
    (2) An athletesí union with genuine bargaining power is organized, perhaps starting with United States based union organized under U.S. Labor Law; or
    (3) A court finds that USADA (and potentially other National Anti-Doping Organizations) is a state actor and that participation in sports is a property right that can only be taken away through constitutionally restrained methods.
    .

    People will ask what does this have to do with cycling? absolutely everything since this is a body professional cyclists have to deal with.

  2. #2
    I'm SUCH a square....
    Reputation: bigpedaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,952
    OK, wasn't aware of the Jenkins case, been in a bit of a cave for a few years.... Those details make me agree that USADA needs SERIOUS restraint.

    Honestly, the article that referred to Armstrong's "loss" of the TDF titles is accurate; USADA has no authority there. UCI/ASO are responsible for the Tour, and it's 100% up to them.

    I have to seriously question the means by which USADA even gets involved, even at the pro level. What mechanism 'automatically' puts them in a position to approve/sanction an event? Is it sponsor insurance carriers, the USCF (or whatever it is now), or what?

    Simple and straightforward -- arbitration isn't good enough; the 51% proof standard of civil court should be enough to validate/deny a race result, but simple arbitration is too loose for that.

    What has happened to the idea of ETHICS? DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, and let the cards fall where they will. It's NOT ABOUT "I have to win this dispute", it's about "what is right and true."

    "Win at any cost" GOT us WADA and USADA; now, they're using it, as well. Perpetuation of the problem, not resolution of it.
    A bike is the only drug with no bad side effects....

  3. #3
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    I was looking for more information on the USADA and its authority as well as its investigation into atheletes and I came upon these two, one obviously led to the other

    California lawmakers demand investigation of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency - latimes.com



    I found this article especially interesting, and since the USADA is in the spotlight at this time it is worthy to note that it is indeed almost impossible to beat, even by a law professor and his students.


    http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-re...%20Article.pdf


    I realize most are unwilling to read the article in its entirety, so the I find of course the mos interesting being a solution to the problem
    IX. BIG PICTURE REMEDY
    The story of USADA v. Jenkins reveals a system created by a monopoly that wields power without sufficient restriction or balance. The system’s current flaws can be addressed by adopting the above specific suggestions. However, as much as athletes would like to be optimistic, those suggestions are not likely to be adopted or sustained until the monopoly’s powers are countervailed in one of three ways:
    (1) The legal fiction that sustains the monopoly, namely the theory of voluntary association, is replaced with a legal doctrine that recognizes the monopolistic power of sports governing bodies; or
    (2) An athletes’ union with genuine bargaining power is organized, perhaps starting with United States based union organized under U.S. Labor Law; or
    (3) A court finds that USADA (and potentially other National Anti-Doping Organizations) is a state actor and that participation in sports is a property right that can only be taken away through constitutionally restrained methods.
    .

    People will ask what does this have to do with cycling? absolutely everything since this is a body professional cyclists have to deal with.
    After reading the long story - my conclusion is that Jenkins doped, but won her appeal on technicality.

    A sample was tested properly. B sample was tested by the same person using different method. Both tests were positive.

    Same person should not have done both tests according to rules.

    Jenkins won based on this technicality - and that is quite fine and the way it should be.

    However - based on this read - it is my opinion that she doped. Even the experts from the lab were of the opinion that the fact that the same person tested both samples does not affect the validity of the test.

    They are the experts completely away from USADA and USA government. Why wouldn't I trust them.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Signature

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    48
    If the USA would withdraw from WADA then USADA wouldn't even have a reason to exist and Lance could keep everything. Problem solved.

  5. #5
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,104
    Quote Originally Posted by placebo-X View Post
    If the USA would withdraw from WADA then USADA wouldn't even have a reason to exist and Lance could keep everything. Problem solved.
    That would make all USA athletes ineligible to compete at most if not all high level competitions throughout the world.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Signature

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    That would make all USA athletes ineligible to compete at most if not all high level competitions throughout the world.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    First not sure how you come to teh conclusion Jenkins was doping if the testing procedure was not done properly one should always error in the side of innocence.

    Second he USADA is not the end all, all that is needed is reform or an organization which can do testing in order to meet world standards, that really is not all that difficult.

  7. #7
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Cherry picking one case to try to make a blanket statement. Fail.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    Cherry picking one case to try to make a blanket statement. Fail.
    You didnt bother reading either of the articles did you?

    And kudo's for rolling around with your quick quips as usual, do you have anything to add to the discussion or well, as usual not?

  9. #9
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    First not sure how you come to teh conclusion Jenkins was doping if the testing procedure was not done properly one should always error in the side of innocence.
    Did you read the complete document?

    The error was purely procedural. Did not affect the outcome of the test. Actually, the lab technician tested A and B samples using DIFFERENT certified procedures and both procedures yielded positive test.

    The only error was that the same lab technician can not be performing both tests by rule. That is the technicality that got Jenkins off the hook. Testing procedure had nothing to do with USADA at all. It was done in Europe.

    Second he USADA is not the end all, all that is needed is reform or an organization which can do testing in order to meet world standards, that really is not all that difficult.
    USADA did not do the testing in this case, based on what I read.

    However, any organization can be changed and / or reformed. I just don't understand what would change.

    All these doped athletes crying foul are pretty pathetic. My respect goes to those that are clean.


    And third, if the USA merely decided to not have such an organization it has so much big money sponsors and athletes the rest of the world would eventually have to change its standards as well.
    You really think this is the case? Wow.

    Why would the rest of the world change their standards just because USA don't like them?

    By the way - what is wrong with "standards".

    My opinion is that "standards" should be enforced even more vigorously with life time bans the first time.

    Once a cheater - always a cheater.

    Just my opinion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Signature

  10. #10
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    You didnt bother reading either of the articles did you?

    And kudo's for rolling around with your quick quips as usual, do you have anything to add to the discussion or well, as usual not?




    You already got your ass handed to you in the other thread,

    http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discu...ts-812889.html

    You started this one over sour grapes. I stand by the original post, you are cherry picking one case in an attempt to make a blanket statement all because you could not support your argument with facts and attempted to do it with political rhetoric. Again you fail, but stooping to these tactics is how you roll. Baffle them with your bullsh!t when you cannot support your position with facts. This thread is no more than a weak troll and one can only hope that it is treated as such and will be deleted.
    Last edited by AZ; 09-16-2012 at 08:24 AM.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    You already got your ass handed to you in the other thread,

    http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discu...ts-812889.html

    You started this one over sour grapes. I stand by the original post, you are cherry picking one case in an attempt to make a blanket statement all because you could not support your argument with facts and attempted to do it with political rhetoric. Again you fail, but stooping to these tactics is how you roll. Baffle them with your bullsh!t when you cannot support your position with facts. This thread is no more than a weak troll and one can only hope that it is treated as such and will be deleted.
    LOL ok yea whatever I am supporting my position with facts which I consistently do, but wait, your version of facts is well if most people think one way, that must be factual!!! lol

    I do find it entertaining when you say I cherry pick the facts considering the legacy of the USADA, lol.
    dude again, contribute to this thread or quit trolling.
    Buh bye. ,

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Its this simple, If you do not like someone you can do two things, 1 you can put them on ignore, and 2. you can avoid threads they post on. I personally cannot stand you so I avoid your threads, such as your ass kissing "The Best thread" rather than to try to bring the forum down and only have a select few buddies to converse with, which is what you seem to want.

  13. #13
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    Its this simple, If you do not like someone you can do two things, 1 you can put them on ignore, and 2. you can avoid threads they post on. I personally cannot stand you so I avoid your threads, such as your ass kissing "who is great thread" rather than to try to bring the forum down and only have a select few buddies to converse with, which is what you seem to want.



    You have the option of bad posting me if you don't like me calling you out on your bullsh!t. Like this thread. Why don't you educate us on the "legacy of USADA", without a copy and paste from Wiki?

  14. #14
    banned
    Reputation: roadie scum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by UNAPOSTER View Post
    LOL ok yea whatever I am supporting my position with facts which I consistently do, but wait, your version of facts is well if most people think one way, that must be factual!!! lol

    I do find it entertaining when you say I cherry pick the facts considering the legacy of the USADA, lol.
    dude again, contribute to this thread or quit trolling.
    Buh bye. ,



    You haven't posted a clear fact since your walgoose thread when you first joined. You were trolling then and you are now. Your anti government slant to every post you make precludes you from objectivity. Just because you believe does not make you right. You remind me of Ted Kazinski, I'm going to start refferinf to you as the "Unaposter", the similarities are un-natural. Would you two be related?

  15. #15
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    I was looking for more information on the USADA and its authority as well as its investigation into atheletes and I came upon these two, one obviously led to the other

    California lawmakers demand investigation of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency - latimes.com
    From your recent posts and your link to the L.A. Times article above it's clear that you are willing to flip flop between these two opposing views to suit whatever purpose you need;

    1) Your supposition that USADA is at risk of government influence because a portion of their annual funding originates from government sources.

    Vs.

    2) Your support attempts at interference by government representatives in the proceedings of USADA cases against specific athletes, in which USADA is holding their ground on merits of case and resisting attempts at external political influence.

    See this reference link below to an Associated Press article detailing inappropriate lobbying of government representatives by Lance Armstrong Foundation (i.e. Livestrong) seeking to influence USADA's proceedings and standing;

    INFLUENCE GAME: Cyclist's allies turn to Congress | World news | The Guardian

    With the more recent item from the CA state senators from your article link, the senator Michael Rubio who is fronting the effort, actually has a Livestrong banner on his twitter profile photo.

    Livestrong actually contributed $1.5 million to a California ballot measure in June 2012 that aimed to raise the state tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1, which supported the efforts of Rubio and the other state senators at that time. Now Rubio and those state senators decide that want to take up the cause against USADA (claiming it has nothing to do with the Armstrong case) just a couple of months later? Something smells here, and it's called back room political dealings. USADA is the underdog here fighting against the influence of big government, and big money.

    You can't have it both ways Blurr.

    This doesn't even begin to address that Rubio claims his letter that he had signed by the other state senators was based on another L.A. Times article he read about the USADA case against Armstrong. What kind of incompetent state senator has 22 of his peers sign a letter trying to initiate an investigation based on a newspaper article? If they took any time to research, they would have learned that a case in U.S. Federal Court was already just completed, dealing with the validity of USADA's investigation and potential sanction of Armstrong. The federal court judge took over a month to examine details from a constitutional perspective (which he is infinitely better equipped to do than a state senator) and deemed that the USADA case should proceed, and Armstrong's case should be dismissed. Concerns from the judge were;

    1) Lack of information about the USADA witnesses in the charging letter ; but he accepted USADA's position that it was to prevent witness intimidation, and was confident that the identity of witnesses would come at an appropriate time later in the arbitration hearing.

    2) Due process ; which he noted was different than might be applied to a criminal case but also acknowledged was sufficient within the proposed arbitration hearing that Armstrong's team would have adequate due process if Armstrong chose to contest through the hearing.

    3) Confusion over why USADA/WADA/UCI/USAC weren't on the same page. Can't blame the judge for not understanding the internal politics of the sport at the global level with only a short period of time to learn about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    I found this article especially interesting, and since the USADA is in the spotlight at this time it is worthy to note that it is indeed almost impossible to beat, even by a law professor and his students.

    http://law.pepperdine.edu/dispute-re...%20Article.pdf
    I'm trusting that you realize that the law journal article you link above was written by the athlete's own legal team? See frequent references of "we" in the article from the author in reference to the legal efforts It's an interesting article (thanks or posting it), but hardly from an unbiased source. Of course the article is taking a position against USADA, since it a summary of their legal defense strategy.

    Hundreds of athletes have been sanctioned by USADA over its history. Of those hundreds, 60 have challenged the USADA charges, with a 58-2 won-lost record going to USADA. I think it's commendable that USADA, with its very limited funding, is intelligent enough only to proceed in cases where they believe evidence is airtight, instead of wasting their own resources or consuming those of the legal system without sufficient cause.

    As described above, a U.S. federal judge in a very high profile case concluded that the USADA process was robust enough from a legal perspective to allow it to proceed against Armstrong.

  16. #16
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Some definitions just in case anyone is not familiar with the acronyms;

    USAC = U.S.A. Cycling
    USADA = U.S. Anti Doping Agency
    USOC = U.S. Olympic Committee
    UCI = Union Cycliste Internationale
    WADA = World Anti Doping Agency
    IOC = International Olympic Committee

    Quote Originally Posted by bigpedaler View Post
    Honestly, the article that referred to Armstrong's "loss" of the TDF titles is accurate; USADA has no authority there. UCI/ASO are responsible for the Tour, and it's 100% up to them.
    That's sort of true, but not quite. USADA certainly does have the authority to issue a sanction for the stripping of Armstrong's TdF titles. The UCI is a signatory to the WADA code, under which they agreed to uphold sanctions issued by national anti doping agencies. UCI can choose to challenge, but they risk being expelled as an Olympic sport if they break the contract to abide by the WADA code which they have already agreed to. Expulsion from Olympics will mean the withdrawal of millions of dollars of annual funding to USAC from the USOC, which would gut the USAC and their activities in support of competitive cycling.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigpedaler View Post
    I have to seriously question the means by which USADA even gets involved, even at the pro level. What mechanism 'automatically' puts them in a position to approve/sanction an event? Is it sponsor insurance carriers, the USCF (or whatever it is now), or what?
    UCI/USAC/WADA/USADA/ICO/USOC are all closely intertwined in various contractual agreements, including adherence to the WADA code, and the performance of national anti doping agencies such as USADA. USADA isn't interjecting in any way that hasn't already been mutually agreed upon by all the parties involved, albeit in a fairly complex series of cascading multi party contracts. All of the various organizations involved are fully aware of their relations and obligations to one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by bigpedaler View Post
    Simple and straightforward -- arbitration isn't good enough; the 51% proof standard of civil court should be enough to validate/deny a race result, but simple arbitration is too loose for that.
    Can you describe the deficiencies with legal resolution by arbitration? The rules and process of the American Arbitration Assocation are generally accepted as being very legally robust, and resolve thousands of cases each year, some of which have a huge financial interest and very powerful players involved. This isn't some dude flipping a coin. By definition, with a typical three person arbitration panel - all AAA approved, usually lawyers themselves - yields a two thirds outcome, which is better than the 51% you describe for the civil proof standard. Yes, I understand not direct apples and oranges comparing these two different numbers.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    From your recent posts and your link to the L.A. Times article above it's clear that you are willing to flip flop between these two opposing views to suit whatever purpose you need;

    1) Your supposition that USADA is at risk of government influence because a portion of their annual funding originates from government sources.

    Vs.

    2) Your support attempts at interference by government representatives in the proceedings of USADA cases against specific athletes, in which USADA is holding their ground on merits of case and resisting attempts at external political influence.

    See this reference link below to an Associated Press article detailing inappropriate lobbying of government representatives by Lance Armstrong Foundation (i.e. Livestrong) seeking to influence USADA's proceedings and standing;

    INFLUENCE GAME: Cyclist's allies turn to Congress | World news | The Guardian

    With the more recent item from the CA state senators from your article link, the senator Michael Rubio who is fronting the effort, actually has a Livestrong banner on his twitter profile photo.

    Livestrong actually contributed $1.5 million to a California ballot measure in June 2012 that aimed to raise the state tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1, which supported the efforts of Rubio and the other state senators at that time. Now Rubio and those state senators decide that want to take up the cause against USADA (claiming it has nothing to do with the Armstrong case) just a couple of months later? Something smells here, and it's called back room political dealings. USADA is the underdog here fighting against the influence of big government, and big money.

    You can't have it both ways Blurr.

    This doesn't even begin to address that Rubio claims his letter that he had signed by the other state senators was based on another L.A. Times article he read about the USADA case against Armstrong. What kind of incompetent state senator has 22 of his peers sign a letter trying to initiate an investigation based on a newspaper article? If they took any time to research, they would have learned that a case in U.S. Federal Court was already just completed, dealing with the validity of USADA's investigation and potential sanction of Armstrong. The federal court judge took over a month to examine details from a constitutional perspective (which he is infinitely better equipped to do than a state senator) and deemed that the USADA case should proceed, and Armstrong's case should be dismissed. Concerns from the judge were;

    1) Lack of information about the USADA witnesses in the charging letter ; but he accepted USADA's position that it was to prevent witness intimidation, and was confident that the identity of witnesses would come at an appropriate time later in the arbitration hearing.

    2) Due process ; which he noted was different than might be applied to a criminal case but also acknowledged was sufficient within the proposed arbitration hearing that Armstrong's team would have adequate due process if Armstrong chose to contest through the hearing.

    3) Confusion over why USADA/WADA/UCI/USAC weren't on the same page. Can't blame the judge for not understanding the internal politics of the sport at the global level with only a short period of time to learn about it.



    I'm trusting that you realize that the law journal article you link above was written by the athlete's own legal team? See frequent references of "we" in the article from the author in reference to the legal efforts It's an interesting article (thanks or posting it), but hardly from an unbiased source. Of course the article is taking a position against USADA, since it a summary of their legal defense strategy.

    Hundreds of athletes have been sanctioned by USADA over its history. Of those hundreds, 60 have challenged the USADA charges, with a 58-2 won-lost record going to USADA. I think it's commendable that USADA, with its very limited funding, is intelligent enough only to proceed in cases where they believe evidence is airtight, instead of wasting their own resources or consuming those of the legal system without sufficient cause.

    As described above, a U.S. federal judge in a very high profile case concluded that the USADA process was robust enough from a legal perspective to allow it to proceed against Armstrong.
    Never mind, I do appreciate the lengthy responses.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by AZ.MTNS View Post
    You have the option of bad posting me if you don't like me calling you out on your bullsh!t. Like this thread. Why don't you educate us on the "legacy of USADA", without a copy and paste from Wiki?
    I am doing so thus the purpose of the thread, and btw, it wasnt wiki genius click on the link.
    I disagree with circlips opinion, but the man goes out of his way to post up links and any way to back his argument, good for him.

  19. #19
    banned
    Reputation: roadie scum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    773
    I still haven't seen proof of your assertions, ratheer at every turn they have been refuted at every turn by members of this board, refuted with proof I might add. Your last reply about "god" was the best though. I suppose you can support it? Wrong at every turn, does it ever grow tiresome being so wrong and attempting to defend the indefenseable? The "Government" seems to be the scapegoat for all your problems in your miserable life, how about some personnal responsibility instead of blaming the "government" for all your ills.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mojo28246's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by osokolo View Post
    That would make all USA athletes ineligible to compete at most if not all high level competitions throughout the world.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I don't think that it would be a problem. If there's any demand for it, someone will organize other venues to compete. Plus, there are boat load of revenue lost at all of the venues throughout the world if US athletes can not compete. I'd love to see that. Pretty much if the venues would give in and allow US athletes to compete anyway. It's not just about the competition it's also largely about money.

    The statement reminds me of Tiger Woods. USGA threat Tiger to keep his caddy on check and stop wearing shorts. Tiger said what if he doesn't, USGA then said then you won't be playing in USGA event. Tiger then said OK, I'd go play European tour. Well, his caddy gets to wear shorts and Tiger continue to play in the US tour. Nuff said.

    Personally, I don't care who dope or who doesn't it's not a 100% fair game anyways. It's just another business. How about that kid Jeremy Lin he could have easily gone undiscovered.

    One comment about the expert testing the result, I guess it depends on who's pay the bill. I'm not saying that they falsifying the result but the interpretation can tip one way or another. I want to see a clear method and result of testing to eliminate any grey area.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  21. #21
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,104
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo28246 View Post
    I don't think that it would be a problem. If there's any demand for it, someone will organize other venues to compete. Plus, there are boat load of revenue lost at all of the venues throughout the world if US athletes can not compete. I'd love to see that.
    the summer Olympics in Moscow in 1980 went on despite the boycott from USA... you saw it right there...

    i think it'd be pretty ignorant to expect the world to bend when USA has a toothache...

    besides - i do not think USA would every do anything like that...

    Personally, I don't care who dope or who doesn't it's not a 100% fair game anyways. It's just another business. How about that kid Jeremy Lin he could have easily gone undiscovered.
    anti-doping effort is a fight for moral values. as much as we fight other issues that have high moral value to the civilization - doping should be fought with the same vigor...




    One comment about the expert testing the result, I guess it depends on who's pay the bill. I'm not saying that they falsifying the result but the interpretation can tip one way or another. I want to see a clear method and result of testing to eliminate any grey area.

    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    Who pays the bill for anti-doping testing - say in Jenkins case - in Europe and in which way this fact would affect the outcome of the test?

  22. #22
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Blurr View Post
    he story of USADA v. Jenkins reveals a system created by a monopoly that wields power without sufficient restriction or balance. The systemís current flaws can be addressed by adopting the above specific suggestions. However, as much as athletes would like to be optimistic, those suggestions are not likely to be adopted or sustained until the monopolyís powers are countervailed in one of three ways:
    (1) The legal fiction that sustains the monopoly, namely the theory of voluntary association, is replaced with a legal doctrine that recognizes the monopolistic power of sports governing bodies; or
    (2) An athletesí union with genuine bargaining power is organized, perhaps starting with United States based union organized under U.S. Labor Law; or
    (3) A court finds that USADA (and potentially other National Anti-Doping Organizations) is a state actor and that participation in sports is a property right that can only be taken away through constitutionally restrained methods.
    .
    I agree, they shouldn't have a monopoly on the performance enhancing drug tests. You should be able to get your samples pulled and tested by any licensed health care professional. In reading about how they descended on the Florida race and acted in a pushy and arrogant manner I thought later that this is how people operate only when they are the only game in town and people pretty much have to do as they say if they want to play in that sport. Also, given that they have the word "administration" in their name it seems like they wish to be viewed as an "official" government agency to people that don't know any better. How many other private organizations have the word "administration" in their names? So to sum up, organized sport drug testing good, USADA bad.

    Edit: they do call themselves an "agency" not an administration. I thought I read on their own website that it was "administration" but it's not. Mea Culpa.

  23. #23
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by tl1 View Post
    I agree, they shouldn't have a monopoly on the performance enhancing drug tests. You should be able to get your samples pulled and tested by any licensed health care professional.
    Licensed doctors are often the source for the performance enhancing drugs;

    - Pro cycling teams have team doctors
    - Amateurs have doctors prescribing "anti aging" therapy

    Both would represent a conflict of interest if they were also collecting samples.

    As for the sample analysis (testing) a typical lab has neither the strict chain of custody established with the sample collector, nor can they ensure calibrated equipment and procedures in accordance with WADA standards that provide a reasonable amount of consistency for fair determination of test results.

    As for USADA testers being "pushy" I wasn't there so I can't speak to it, but it may be that they weren't any more pushy than - for example - a public transit operator telling someone they need to pay their fare to enter the vehicle, or a educator giving an assignment. They don't ask, they state what you are required to do with the assumption that you have agreed to the requirements of the activity. It's also implied with any of these that the participant does not have to comply. They may also choose to opt of of the activity, with the understanding that it may have consequences e.g. don't get to use transit, don't get a grade or are removed from educational course, don't get to participate in bike race.

    Rules and consequences for breaking rules are concepts that are well understood in society. That's not to say that all rules should be followed just because they are rules. Each individual can choose to express their disagreement with rules when they wish. Sometimes that's the impetus for change.

    In this case, I'll stick to my guns that no change is needed but YMMV.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Blurr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Licensed doctors are often the source for the performance enhancing drugs;

    - Pro cycling teams have team doctors
    - Amateurs have doctors prescribing "anti aging" therapy

    Both would represent a conflict of interest if they were also collecting samples.

    As for the sample analysis (testing) a typical lab has neither the strict chain of custody established with the sample collector, nor can they ensure calibrated equipment and procedures in accordance with WADA standards that provide a reasonable amount of consistency for fair determination of test results.

    As for USADA testers being "pushy" I wasn't there so I can't speak to it, but it may be that they weren't any more pushy than - for example - a public transit operator telling someone they need to pay their fare to enter the vehicle, or a educator giving an assignment. They don't ask, they state what you are required to do with the assumption that you have agreed to the requirements of the activity. It's also implied with any of these that the participant does not have to comply. They may also choose to opt of of the activity, with the understanding that it may have consequences e.g. don't get to use transit, don't get a grade or are removed from educational course, don't get to participate in bike race.

    Rules and consequences for breaking rules are concepts that are well understood in society. That's not to say that all rules should be followed just because they are rules. Each individual can choose to express their disagreement with rules when they wish. Sometimes that's the impetus for change.

    In this case, I'll stick to my guns that no change is needed but YMMV.
    The only people having any consequences to their actions are the Athletes with the USADA doing as they please.

    Edit: they are engaging on witch hunts, they are forcing confessions then using forced confessions against other athletes, how horrible, we are supposed to be a civilized advanced country, yet crap like this is still allowed to go on?
    Take this case, here you have someone who's evidence was tainted do to mishandling, should that have been in the actual court of law it would have been inadmissible, yet for these bozos? GOOD ENOUGH LET THE HANGING BEGIN!!!
    Armstrong? Holy cow he passed all his tests and the hang him, to top it all off they actually go back and have the balls to claim every single win he had was fraudulent, based on what? Thin air? Apparently.
    Marion Jones was harrassed to the point she finally caved, how can that even be conceived in any rational mind as guilt?

    Edit 2: Floyd Landis and Lance Armstrong are heros, and I do not like to use that word, but here you have two men who overcame medical adversity to win the most prestigious cycling event in the world, and what do they get? Dragged into the gutters, landis is a mockery, and armstrong? the jury is still out, but hopefully history will remember him as someone special, who not only kicked a deadly diseases ass, kicked everyone's ass on a cycle, but also and most importantly, gave so many cancer patients hope and the realization they do not have to live a death sentence.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Anonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,797
    Nevar would have happened to Leroy Jenkins.
    Your fear of looking stupid is holding you back.

  26. #26
    sock puppet
    Reputation: osokolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,104
    hmm, following your logic
    Charles Manson is a hero, forced into admission of his guilt...
    whatever brother... time for thread to die...

  27. #27
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Armstrong did not pass all of his test, this has been dis-proven and links provided in all of the other dope threads. It is a myth propagated by Lance and his minions, just like the myth that he has been tested over 500 times. The number is actually less than 150. If he had passed all of his tests the USADA would not have any interest in him. There is not one plausible source to support the assertion, please stop perpetuating the myth.

  28. #28
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Licensed doctors are often the source for the performance enhancing drugs;

    - Pro cycling teams have team doctors
    - Amateurs have doctors prescribing "anti aging" therapy

    Both would represent a conflict of interest if they were also collecting samples.

    As for the sample analysis (testing) a typical lab has neither the strict chain of custody established with the sample collector, nor can they ensure calibrated equipment and procedures in accordance with WADA standards that provide a reasonable amount of consistency for fair determination of test results.
    I'm in favor of a more free market approach, one that does not give one entity a monopoly of power and economics over the entire sport. No doctor or other health care professional is going to jeopardize their license, career and income after all those years of school for the sake of faking drug tests, if they do good riddance. Open the process of anti-doping controls to other bidders. Competition always improves the best competitors while a granted position of power never does. Any questions about improper testing could be overcome by the sports body securely holding a sample themselves and simply requiring certain testing standards. To do otherwise is an abdication of their own responsibility. In fact, almost all professional sports leagues in the USA run their own anti-doping programs. I do think there is value in the testing organization being independent from the sports organization though but do it competitively.

  29. #29
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,774
    I'm still waiting for the lessons learned.

    Outside mag has a nice write up on why lance will never saw he did or didn't enhance his performance. Fair, balanced and above all shows what a mess he has created regardless of what happened as a result of private jet rides to the middle of nowhere.
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.