Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

[Bicycle]

Does anyone know how large the pool of arbitors is and who is on it?

 

[LauraLyn]

Does anyone know how large the pool of arbitors is and who is on it?

The arbitration procedure followed by USADA involves making use of arbitrators from a list provided by the American Arbitration Association.

"In sports disputes, arbitrators are selected from a list maintained by the organization providing the arbitration services. The arbitrators will be further sub-categorized on the basis of their experience in particular sport arbitrations. Many arbitrators may be lawyers, but not exclusively so; in sports arbitrations involving financial issues, the arbitrator may have a financial background."

http://www.faqs.org/sports-science/A-Ba-and-timeline/American-Arbitration-Association-AAA.html

From the list the charged athlete would choose one arbitrator, the USADA another, and those two chosen arbitrators would select the third. All from the list. (I think you knew this, apologies.)

Arbitration could have been made difficult by Lance: See the following for some potential complexities (in connection with a different field of arbitration):

http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/

 

[LauraLyn]

I am very surprise too.

The only real worthy bit from the fat's mouth is met with a wall of silence..

I was inclined to think that was the uci freebie to usada to indicate a turn the position...but when I recall it coming of fats mouth, then I realize it could been a drunken slur

Yes, McQuaid is turning. Has turned. But it wasn't free. There'll be a reckoning.

 

[Sofa Rider]

We need proof, the evidence, the dirty truth

After having lurked in here for a few weeks I finally decided to join the forum. So please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm a regular guy from Denmark who loves road racing and I've been following it for decades. Mostly on tv, but lately on the net as well.

I followed all of those tdf's that Lance won, as well as many other races he's been in. And I've always been suspicious of him. But I don't know for sure if he was doped, even after reading most of the posts in here. We need to see the evidence that USADA claim that they have before we can finally judge him.

So, even if the proof isn't public yet, I am sure that LA cheated, but some of the conspiracy allegations in here are too crazy to for me to believe in. Like this thing of UCI having a "Golden Boy" (LA). It's too far out for me, although it could be true...you never know.

What I do know for sure is that LA is an a**hole. The way he treated other people, his arrogance, the stupid myth he created about himself. I can't wait to see the evidence!

 

[DirtyWorks]

....some of the conspiracy allegations in here are too crazy to for me to believe in. Like this thing of UCI having a "Golden Boy" (LA). It's too far out for me, although it could be true...you never know.

Welcome.

The uci that pat and hein represent is well and truly corrupt. Perhaps the best place to start as an example is World Cycling Promotions. How many race organizers get a slot on the elite calendar for a race that's never been run?

That's not even a tip of a metaphorical iceberg. It's more like an ice cube off the tip of an iceberg.

 

[trailrunner]

So, even if the proof isn't public yet, I am sure that LA cheated, but some of the conspiracy allegations in here are too crazy to for me to believe in. Like this thing of UCI having a "Golden Boy" (LA). It's too far out for me, although it could be true...you never know.

There's growing evidence, or at least stories, that he called the cycling officials on other riders that he didn't like, for one reason or the other. If everyone was doping, then it would be pretty easy to choose any one of them to do a (not so) random test on them, they turn up positive, and then they're gone - and that's one less problem that LA has to worry about. It's entirely plausible to me. And favoring LA is also plausible. Hollywood could not write a better story about someone coming back from cancer, getting shunned by his French team, signing with a ragtag US team, and winning the TdF. Those seven years had a tremendously positive impact on the bike industry, at least in the US, and that rising tide lifted a lot of boats, including the UCI.

 

[Sofa Rider]

Welcome.

The uci that pat and hein represent is well and truly corrupt. Perhaps the best place to start as an example is World Cycling Promotions. How many race organizers get a slot on the elite calendar for a race that's never been run?

That's not even a tip of a metaphorical iceberg. It's more like an ice cube off the tip of an iceberg.

Thank you for the welcome!

I don't doubt that the UCI is run by corrupt people, but if it's true that they have been able to pull this "Golden Boy" thing off and kept it a secret...it's like science fiction or UFO mania to me. I am fascinated by it, but I can't believe in it. Just like in all the conspiracy theories about 9/11...
But I am sure that if we could see below the top of many iceberg's, we would all be shocked!

 

[Sofa Rider]

There's growing evidence, or at least stories, that he called the cycling officials on other riders that he didn't like, for one reason or the other. If everyone was doping, then it would be pretty easy to choose any one of them to do a (not so) random test on them, they turn up positive, and then they're gone - and that's one less problem that LA has to worry about. It's entirely plausible to me. And favoring LA is also plausible. Hollywood could not write a better story about someone coming back from cancer, getting shunned by his French team, signing with a ragtag US team, and winning the TdF. Those seven years had a tremendously positive impact on the bike industry, at least in the US, and that rising tide lifted a lot of boats, including the UCI.

I can't disagree on this!

 

[MarkvW]

I can't disagree on this!

Look at it from another perspective. If the riders know that Lance is snitching them off, and the UCI is listening to Lance, then the peloton is going to be even more fearful of Lance, the patron. That fear is going to further distort race-time behavior.

 

[BroDeal]

Look at it from another perspective. If the riders know that Lance is snitching them off, and the UCI is listening to Lance, then the peloton is going to be even more fearful of Lance, the patron. That fear is going to further distort race-time behavior.

Usually in social groups that have a form of omerta, someone ratting on others not under pressure to save themselves but purely voluntarily, like Armstrong did, is an extreme offense. Can Ricco be that much of a dooshnozzle that riders universally revile him while saying nothing about Armstrong, who committed a far graver offense? There is something strange going on there.

 

[LauraLyn]

After having lurked in here for a few weeks I finally decided to join the forum. So please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm a regular guy from Denmark who loves road racing and I've been following it for decades. Mostly on tv, but lately on the net as well.

I followed all of those tdf's that Lance won, as well as many other races he's been in. And I've always been suspicious of him. But I don't know for sure if he was doped, even after reading most of the posts in here. We need to see the evidence that USADA claim that they have before we can finally judge him.

So, even if the proof isn't public yet, I am sure that LA cheated, but some of the conspiracy allegations in here are too crazy to for me to believe in. Like this thing of UCI having a "Golden Boy" (LA). It's too far out for me, although it could be true...you never know.

What I do know for sure is that LA is an a**hole. The way he treated other people, his arrogance, the stupid myth he created about himself. I can't wait to see the evidence!

. . . I don't doubt that the UCI is run by corrupt people, but if it's true that they have been able to pull this "Golden Boy" thing off and kept it a secret...it's like science fiction or UFO mania to me. I am fascinated by it, but I can't believe in it. Just like in all the conspiracy theories about 9/11...
But I am sure that if we could see below the top of many iceberg's, we would all be shocked!

Hi. Nice to have you here.

It is good to ask the critical and challenging questions. Indeed, no one outside the USADA has "seen the evidence." If we ever will "see the evidence" against Lance is indeed a question. Lance's decision not to go to arbitration meant that the USADA did not need to present the evidence to support its decision and the sanctions that follow.

Keep in mind that an independent committee did review the evidence before the charging letter was sent to Lance and the five others. So there was a (limited) review of the evidence by an independent group.

The question is: Do we need to see the evidence. If your neighbor is convicted in a court room for burglary, unless you attend the court hearing, you will never see the evidence. Likely though, unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise, you will believe that your neighbor committed the crime and the punishment is "just."

This is no difference in the case of Lance Armstrong. He was found guilty by the authorities of doping in drugs, and he was found guilty by the rules he agreed to (and his own coach even helped to write).

Further, for many people Lance's actions have not been those of an innocent person. And his behavior, as you also suggest, does not reflect the kind of character we believe in. In addition, there are convincing public testimonies from teammates and others that suggest the USADA's case is correct. I think this is the fundamental foundation upon which people accept the USADA's case, and for me it is a sufficient foundation.

Regarding "conspiracy theories" and the UCI. Given that the USADA's position appears much more believable and acceptable to that of Lance's, then we are in the position to ask ourselves how this was possible. We have seen a great deal of testimony from other riders, as well as suggestions from others working next to the parcours, that suggests the involvement of the UCI. We also have seen the behavior of Pat McQuaid and the very condemning letter from USADA council Brock, suggesting that at the very least there is a conflict of interest. Again, we do not "see evidence."

The point is, given that Lance doped. . . and doped and doped . . . for years. How could he possibly have gotten away with it? Especially when he seemed to be even brash about it at times with people he trusted. And why is doping so rampant in cycling?

So raising questions about the UCI appears to be more than fair. It is needed. But we also need people like you challenging us to think and look deeper.

You take a risk by reading all this and now participating in the conversation, I think. It will become much more difficult to enjoy the spectacle of cycling on TV if you become so suspicious as some of us here. And I can perfectly understand your hesitancy to find out that the fiction was more real than what the TV showed and that indeed, even in cycling, there are likely to be some UFOs.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

The question is: Do we need to see the evidence.

That's actually a good question, and there's actually an interesting double-entendre there.

I guess that the actual legal answer to that is complex when you get down to it, but the basic answer is that, yes, once settled, the USADA file -or the essence of it- should be available for public review. Then again, we are talking of an anti-doping procedure ,"sports justice" and those doesn't necessarily seem to follow the same guidelines than "normal" justice.

Do "public" means "making the case to the public opinion"? That's another question entirely, one that have some possible nasty implications: PR is not justice, and while I certainly thinks LA had it coming to him, I would actually say that there's a kernel of truth in some of the critics about the "exceptional" nature of that case. USADA went the PR way, I feel. Maybe because that is how Armstrong rolls... but should they fail to deliver on the evidence they have been teasing (I hope not), they will have a serious mess in their hands.

 

[MarkvW]

After having lurked in here for a few weeks I finally decided to join the forum. So please allow me to introduce myself.
I'm a regular guy from Denmark who loves road racing and I've been following it for decades. Mostly on tv, but lately on the net as well.

I followed all of those tdf's that Lance won, as well as many other races he's been in. And I've always been suspicious of him. But I don't know for sure if he was doped, even after reading most of the posts in here. We need to see the evidence that USADA claim that they have before we can finally judge him.

So, even if the proof isn't public yet, I am sure that LA cheated, but some of the conspiracy allegations in here are too crazy to for me to believe in. Like this thing of UCI having a "Golden Boy" (LA). It's too far out for me, although it could be true...you never know.

What I do know for sure is that LA is an a**hole. The way he treated other people, his arrogance, the stupid myth he created about himself. I can't wait to see the evidence!

(1) The recent reports of the "advance warning" of tests that LA got. Source: A member of the AFLD.

(2) Sylvia Schenck saying that she has no idea where the "Lance Armstrong donation" money went? We know Lance and Hein say that the money was for a sysmex, but when a former officer of the UCI says that there was no accountability for the money? (a) There's no accountability for the money? (b) The conflict of interest is obvious.

These two examples are the obvious ones. They supplement a lot of other, weaker, examples.

There are some ridiculous corruption conspiracy theories here, and I am very skeptical, but I am convinced that something is very, very rotten in the UCI.

 

[LauraLyn]

That's actually a good question, and there's actually an interesting double-entendre there.

I guess that the actual legal answer to that is complex when you get down to it, but the basic answer is that, yes, once settled, the USADA file -or the essence of it- should be available for public review. Then again, we are talking of an anti-doping procedure ,"sports justice" and those doesn't necessarily seem to follow the same guidelines than "normal" justice.

Do "public" means "making the case to the public opinion"? That's another question entirely, one that have some possible nasty implications: PR is not justice, and while I certainly thinks LA had it coming to him, I would actually say that there's a kernel of truth in some of the critics about the "exceptional" nature of that case. USADA went the PR way, I feel. Maybe because that is how Armstrong rolls... but should they fail to deliver on the evidence they have been teasing (I hope not), they will have a serious mess in their hands.

Regarding the double speak:

1. When has a prosecutor ever released a file to the public after a decision has been made, in France or in the US? In a strict sense, we will never see the evidence against Lance Armstrong. The closest we could get is if one of the three remaining (Bruyneel, Celaya, Marti) do indeed go ahead with arbitration - and one of the three decides for a public hearing. I seriously doubt any will go ahead with arbitration in their case and the chance that they will opt to make it public is close to zero, I suggest (with the possible exception of Marti - who may have a bone to pick). Even then, we will not see evidence directly against Armstrong, but only evidence that implicates Armstrong.

2. I disagree that the USADA has in any way carried out a PR campaign against Armstrong. This certainly wasn't Vance vs. Strauss-Kahn in any way. I think they stuck with their legal case, and provided really a very minimum amount of statements to the public. Indeed, their restraint was exceptional. (And I think this only further demonstrate how committed they are to stopping doping in sports and not just nailing one dope.) From what I have seen of USADA, I am not worried about a mess. Armstrong, on the other hand, does make me worry that he will make an even bigger mess of things himself. But in this case, it is also not really a "worry" of mine.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Usually in social groups that have a form of omerta, someone ratting on others not under pressure to save themselves but purely voluntarily, like Armstrong did, is an extreme offense. Can Ricco be that much of a dooshnozzle that riders universally revile him while saying nothing about Armstrong, who committed a far graver offense? There is something strange going on there.

Agreed whilst Lance is definitely a bad guy, I'm not convinced by this part of the story.

Lance is the bully and the ring leader but I'm not sure he's a snitch, classically those aren't common shared character traits.

If Lance had ratted me out in the circumstances described then I'd find it worse than if I found him in my bed with my wife and I would have nothing sympathetic to say about him in my book.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . There are some ridiculous corruption conspiracy theories here, and I am very skeptical, but I am convinced that something is very, very rotten in the UCI.

Keep in mind that Ferrari, del Moral, and Armstrong have all been already convicted of "conspiracy." The conspiracy is certainly bigger than the three of them. UCI does appear to be a good contender for another party, and there are good reasons to believe other persons and organizations were involved.

I wouldn't take lightly the seriousness of the findings.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

When has a prosecutor ever released a file to the public after a decision has been made, in France or in the US?

Yeah, legal bores me
I'll try to rephrase that more correctly, because I was indeed vague and what I meant to say came across as a mistake.

What I had in mind was a public hearing, where the evidence is presented. I may be mistaken but generally minutes from the trial would/should be available as well.
Of course, the investigation is otherwise supposed to be secret and would no trial of any kind occur, access would be stricly limited to the concerned authorities.

It is true that so far in the Armstrong case, no trial of sorts is planned. There's still Bruyneel though. Also wouldn't be too surprised, if Armstrong is exposed as a total fraud, that several conventional lawsuits (civil at least) may follow. But IANAL, so take this with a massive pinch of salt.

I disagree that the USADA has in any way carried out a PR campaign against Armstrong.

Their letter ended up in the press, and I would expect their "reasoned decision" to be as well. So either those documents are confidential, and I do not see who else apart USADA would benefit from their disclosure, or they are public.
Some members of the USADA did comment in the press. Not blaming them, sometimes it was a direct response to attacks... but Tygart himself clearly hinted at some of his (new) evidence, mentioning positive tests and dates. To me this is a PR game. That was a way to call LA bluff, to tease the audience... This not a crass smear campaign they run, but I would say the USADA is trying to impose his storytelling to the case.

I would be very surprised if the core of the evidence didn't end up public sooner than later, the public opinion will not be satisfied by a mere "Yeah well, guilty as sin. Case closed".
I would expect details of the tests mentioned. The name of the witnesses will have to come out as well, if only because they will probably face some sort of sanction, thus what is held against them should also be announced, giving a rough idea of their testimonies. From there, any journalist worth its salt should be able to corroborate, confirm & obtain the stories.

 

[LauraLyn]

Yeah, legal bores me
I'll try to rephrase that more correctly, because I was indeed vague and what I meant to say came across as a mistake.

What I had in mind was a public hearing, where the evidence is presented. I may be mistaken but generally minutes from the trial would/should be available as well.
Of course, the investigation is otherwise supposed to be secret and would no trial of any kind occur, access would be stricly limited to the concerned authorities.

It is true that so far in the Armstrong case, no trial of sorts is planned. There's still Bruyneel though. Also wouldn't be too surprised, if Armstrong is exposed as a total fraud, that several conventional lawsuits (civil at least) may follow. But IANAL, so take this with a massive pinch of salt.



Their letter ended up in the press, and I would expect their "reasoned decision" to be as well. So either those documents are confidential, and I do not see who else apart USADA would benefit from their disclosure, or they are public.
Some members of the USADA did comment in the press. Not blaming them, sometimes it was a direct response to attacks... but Tygart himself clearly hinted at some of his (new) evidence, mentioning positive tests and dates. To me this is a PR game. That was a way to call LA bluff, to tease the audience... This not a crass smear campaign they run, but I would say the USADA is trying to impose his storytelling to the case.

I would be very surprised if the core of the evidence didn't end up public sooner than later, the public opinion will not be satisfied by a mere "Yeah well, guilty as sin. Case closed".
I would expect details of the tests mentioned. The name of the witnesses will have to come out as well, if only because they will probably face some sort of sanction, thus what is held against them should also be announced, giving a rough idea of their testimonies. From there, any journalist worth its salt should be able to corroborate, confirm & obtain the stories.

Agree, the legal stuff is boring.

I did understand what you were getting at. But be careful with this "evidence" talk. It mostly comes from Lance's PRs and USADA does need to respond a bit.

I was surprised to see Tygart say the evidence would be made public. The charging letter was leaked. My bet is that it came from Armstrong's camp. The "reasoned decision" will also likely see the light of day.

I see what the USADA has done as being more about "accountability" than about "PR." But I think you have something of a point here.

The best PR for the USADA has certainly been Lance Armstrong. Now everyone knows who USADA is. And they are showing leadership, beyond any other organization in the world regarding doping.

We haven't yet seen a major contribution from a journalist to this story.

 

[ThisFrenchGuy]

I think the media is waiting for the reasoned decision to leak.
I would be very surprised that l'Equipe, french media (Le Monde), and some American outlets (SI did do some pieces on Armstrong and doping) would not pursue the full story once the procedure will have run its course (probably when the reasoned decision hits). I think l'Equipe will not let pass a major opportunity to gloat on how they are vindicated, and it would allow ASO to re-brand -once more!- the 2013 Tour as the start of a new clean era.

For the USADA letter, I was indeed speculating. Maybe I missed something but it would strike me as odd that Armstrong would leak it when he ultimately evaded arbitration. The lesser is made public, the better for him.

But who knows? Maybe the leak was just proper journalism without any prior intent from any party to put it out there.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Tyler Hamilton will be giving another interview tonight on Australian TV. He will be on '7:30' on ABC.

 

[LauraLyn]

I think the media is waiting for the reasoned decision to leak.
I would be very surprised that l'Equipe, french media (Le Monde), and some American outlets (SI did do some pieces on Armstrong and doping) would not pursue the full story once the procedure will have run its course (probably when the reasoned decision hits). I think l'Equipe will not let pass a major opportunity to gloat on how they are vindicated, and it would allow ASO to re-brand -once more!- the 2013 Tour as the start of a new clean era.

For the USADA letter, I was indeed speculating. Maybe I missed something but it would strike me as odd that Armstrong would leak it when he ultimately evaded arbitration. The lesser is made public, the better for him.

But who knows? Maybe the leak was just proper journalism without any prior intent from any party to put it out there.

Agree. L'Équipe is ready to pounce. And to be fair, l'Équipe did do some serious investigative journalism on Lance's doping that did help prepare the ground for the USADA case. And SI stuck its neck out a number of times on Lance, and it too might want some of the gloating light. And Le Monde will provide the French with the intellectual panacea they need to get through this.

Two things about that the USADA charging letter: 1. Armstrong leaked it. 2. USADA knew he would leak it (and wrote it the way they did for public consumption. And yes, number 2 was mean, but also brilliant.

Why did Lance leak it and why did USADA know he would: because that is Lance - to go on the counter-attack with all his hubris, to be mean, to bully, and to believe he can scare off everyone. The USADA letter had enough to make the charges and enough to question the charges. Lance made the gamble (convinced he would win). USADA made the strategy (and won).

If you want to believe that it was an "investigative journalist" shuffling around in Armstrong's attorneys' garbage that "discovered" this great secret, go ahead. But if that is indeed the way it happened, be sure that it was on top of the pile of garbage with a big sign saying: "investigative journalist, look here -->."

 

[LauraLyn]

Agreed whilst Lance is definitely a bad guy, I'm not convinced by this part of the story.

Lance is the bully and the ring leader but I'm not sure he's a snitch, classically those aren't common shared character traits.

If Lance had ratted me out in the circumstances described then I'd find it worse than if I found him in my bed with my wife and I would have nothing sympathetic to say about him in my book.

"Snitching" may be the least condemning of this bully and ring leader's character traits. Remember, "nothing short of murder."

About the wife thing, suppose you found him in bed with someone else's wife, would you still have something sympathetic to say about him in your book? (Forewarning: Think carefully how you answer this.)

 

[sairyder]

Tyler Hamilton will be giving another interview tonight on Australian TV. He will be on '7:30' on ABC.

Hi ALL

First Post after a few years reading and getting an education here in the Clinic Forum

Hoping the 7 30 report will finally provide some more in-depth commentary on doping in cycling and the seeming role of the UCI in covering it up. The media has been very shy about getting into this story here in Australia especially the cycling journalists. Can't figure it out really. The journalists writing about it at any depth are more general sport journalists.

I did do my bit and contact Phil Bates (one of the UCI guys in Australia) but it was in vain really - he just gave me a point by point rejection of the USADA Armstrong charges that could have been written by Lance himself - it would have been laughable if it wasn't so serious.

I did my best and wrote back with a point by point response using links i had learned about here but sadly no response - just silence.

Anyway heres hoping for a better account tonight.

 

[LauraLyn]

Hi ALL

First Post after a few years reading and getting an education here in the Clinic Forum

Hoping the 7 30 report will finally provide some more in-depth commentary on doping in cycling and the seeming role of the UCI in covering it up. The media has been very shy about getting into this story here in Australia especially the cycling journalists. Can't figure it out really. The journalists writing about it at any depth are more general sport journalists.

I did do my bit and contact Phil Bates (one of the UCI guys in Australia) but it was in vain really - he just gave me a point by point rejection of the USADA Armstrong charges that could have been written by Lance himself - it would have been laughable if it wasn't so serious.

I did my best and wrote back with a point by point response using links i had learned about here but sadly no response - just silence.

Anyway heres hoping for a better account tonight.

Welcome.

Bates is a character: He sits on the UCI Disciplinary Board but believes the fans are the ones who should judge Armstrong.

Good you made the effort to write to him. You might still get an "I told you so moment" out of it, for what it's worth.

Anyway, we will be curious to hear what he says this evening Down-under.

 

[Bratam]

Good on you sairider. I agree with your comments as I am in Australia as well and looking at the headlines. PM me Mr Bates' details and I will give him a few cold hard facts as well. I will explain to him that the evidence against Lance was so overwhelming that Lance chose not to fight it. I will also explain to him how disappointing it was to learn that Lance stole prize money, sponsorship money, endorsements and fame from clean, honest riders. Not to mention the millions of fans he misled.