WADA Code allows for "sweetheart" deals
DAOTEC said:
This is what USADA has to offer
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Lance Armstrong's attorneys say the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency is offering cyclists a ''sweetheart deal'' if they testify or provide evidence that the seven-time Tour de France winner cheated by doping.
If those riders have been caught doping, the deal from USADA could result in a reduced ban from competition and other incentives, attorney Tim Herman told The Associated Press on Monday.
Federal investigators in Los Angeles are looking at cheating in professional cycling and have shown interest in Armstrong since former teammate and 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis alleged this spring that Armstrong and others took performance-enhancing drugs, which Armstrong strongly denies.
In 2007, Landis said USADA offered him a similar deal to finger Armstrong. At the time, Landis called the offer ''offensive'' and did not provide evidence against Armstrong.
USADA spokeswoman Erin Hannan said the agency could not comment in detail about an investigation.
''Our effort in any investigation is a search for the truth, nothing more and nothing less,'' Hannan said. ''On behalf of clean athletes, we will fairly and thoroughly evaluate all evidence of doping to reveal the truth. When the process results in credible evidence of doping, clean athletes can rest assured we will take appropriate action under the rules established by federal law.''
USADA has a history of reducing penalties for athletes who provide evidence of doping violations by other athletes, but asking for information about specific athletes is not allowed under the agency's rules.
Armstrong's attorneys say USADA's current offer is for riders to talk to federal investigator Jeff Novitzky, who could then give the information to USADA. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Presumably, the alleged deal would only be worthwhile for riders who are still competing or young enough to return to competition if a ban was lifted.
''USADA is promising riders a sweetheart deal if they can produce anything harmful on Armstrong,'' Herman said. ''A rider who has doped, they tell them, 'If you can finger Armstrong, we'll get out the eraser ... and everything is cool.'''
Herman said he could not disclose which rider or riders have been offered a deal.
Landis implicated at least 16 other people in various doping acts, including longtime Armstrong confidant George Hincapie, Armstrong's current Team Radioshack teammate Levi Leipheimer and another elite American rider, Dave Zabriskie.
Tyler Hamilton, who rode in support of Armstrong on the U.S. Postal Service team in 1999 and 2000 reportedly has been subpoenaed.
Hamilton won the 2004 Olympic gold medal in the time trial in Athens, but failed a test for blood doping afterward and eventually served a two-year suspension.
Hamilton returned to racing and won the 2008 U.S. road championship, but retired last spring after admitting that he took an antidepressant that contained the banned steroid DHEA. He was officially banned from cycling for eight years.
In 2007, Landis said USADA general counsel Travis Tygart approached his attorney shortly after learning of Landis' positive doping test during the Tour.
Herman questioned whether USADA could legally offer such an incentive for testimony.
In a 2007 letter to the U.S. Olympic Committee, which contracted with USADA, Herman claimed that, as a private entity, USADA's deal offer is similar to bribery.
Herman said Monday he would raise the some concern with federal investigators.
At USADA, Hannan said the agency considers all athletes ''innocent until and unless proven otherwise through the established legal process. Attempts to sensationalize or exploit either the process or the athletes are a disservice to fair play, due process, and to those who love clean sport.'' (New York Times)
See, this is an intentional mis-characterization of the process by Lance's attorney. There's nothing that prevents USADA from inviting athletes suspected of doping to reveal not just their own story, but the details of others' doping that they observed or were aware of.
Serious attempt to muddy the waters by Lance.
Just as
Dan Staite was apparently targeted for testing by UKAD as a result of 3rd party information, former teammates of Lance Armstrong might choose to provide evidence against him to USADA, or to a government agency, in hopes of seeing their own potential liability reduced.
In fact, this is clearly articulated by WADA, and is described in the Code as follows:
10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations
An Anti-Doping Organization with results
management responsibility for an anti-doping
rule violation may, prior to a final appellate
decision under Article 13 or the expiration of
the time to appeal,
suspend a part of the
period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual
case where the Athlete or other Person has
provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-
Doping Organization, criminal authority or
professional disciplinary body which results in
the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or
establishing an anti-doping rule violation by
another Person or which results in a criminal
or disciplinary body discovering or establishing
a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person.
After a final appellate decision under Article 13 or the
expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping
Organization may only suspend a part of the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
with the approval of WADA and the applicable
International Federation. The extent to which
the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended shall be based on the
seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation
committed by the Athlete or other Person
and the significance of the Substantial
Assistance provided by the Athlete or other
Person to the effort to eliminate doping in
sport. No more than three-quarters of the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended. If the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime,
the non-suspended period under this section
must be no less than eight (8) years. If the
Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part
of the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility under this Article, the Anti-
Doping Organization shall promptly provide a
written justification for its decision to each
Anti-Doping Organization having a right to
appeal the decision. If the Anti-Doping
Organization subsequently reinstates any part of
Article 2.8 is involved and whether the
violation involved a substance or
method which is not readily detectible
in Testing. The maximum suspension
of the Ineligibility period shall only be
applied in very exceptional cases. An
additional factor to be considered in
connection with the seriousness of
the anti-doping rule violation is any
performance-enhancing benefit
which the Person providing
Substantial Assistance may be likely
to still enjoy. As a general matter, the
earlier in the results management
process the Substantial Assistance is
provided, the greater the percentage
of the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility may be suspended.
If the Athlete or other Person who
is asserted to have committed an
anti-doping rule violation claims
the suspended period of Ineligibility because the
Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the
Substantial Assistance which was anticipated,
the Athlete or other Person may appeal the
reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.