Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Puckfiend]

Being remorseful would indicate he is sorry for his offences. He is not. He only regrets getting caught. He consistently says "no comeback, no problem". No remorse at all.

Non of the Garmin 6(months) is remorseful other than for getting caught. IMO, the whole reasoned decision can be rightfully construed as a "witch hunt"; but so what? They caught a real witch. Very few here are railing against Wonderboy's lifetime ban. They are more railing against the 6 months winter hiatus for the rest. I just thought it strange that Tygart admits that Lance was "no worse" from a PEDs point of view than the rest.

 

[veganrob]

Non of the Garmin 6(months) is remorseful other than for getting caught. IMO, the whole reasoned decision can be rightfully construed as a "witch hunt"; but so what? They caught a real witch. Very few here are railing against Wonderboy's lifetime ban. They are more railing against the 6 months winter hiatus for the rest. I just thought it strange that Tygart admits that Lance was "no worse" from a PEDs point of view than the rest.

If I am not mistaken, DZ, CVV and TD all came forward. None of them were caught. You could even say the same for RH except for Ras testimony. So not sure what your point is there.
So Lance was no worse from a PED point of view, he was much worse than in many other aspects. Lance had the same deal as the rest, He chose to fight and he lost. End of story.

 

[Merckx index]

A 1 in a million chance he didn't dope is pretty much a slam dunk imo.

Highly recommend you read posts carefully before responding to them.

And if he had have been caught 3 times - would you still disagree with a lifetime ban?

No, but unless he was busted three times in close succession—and the odds of even being busted three times over an entire career are minuscule, as you know—he would not have lost all of his results. Even if the suspension were lifted today, he has effectively been banned from pro cycling for life. So even if he had been busted three separate times, in almost any scenario, he would have more to show for his career than he does now.

Results wise, that is. The money is another issue. But as I said before, I don't think that can be a determinant of the length of a suspension. That has to be addressed in court. In fact, I would turn around and ask you this question: given an either-or choice, which would you rather see: LA forced to give back all his prize money, to the point where most of his net worth was lost, or his lifetime ban maintained? I would much rather see the former. If that happened, I don't see why anyone here should care if he continued to compete in tris.

I look forward to you championing il Cobra's return!

I’d like to see him race again, if he can be trusted not to kill himself. But when his current ban is over, he will have served less time than LA has right now, including retroactive. And Ricco has some results, like a GT podium finish, more than LA can say.

Just a FYI - what RR thinks, or anyone else for that matter (ie their opinion) - doesn't really mean anything to me. I don't pedestalise.

I don't expect you to believe something just because RR claims it, any more than you should expect anyone to believe your opinion of what LA would be without doping. But the arguments RR used, though generally weak (other than the evidence of naturally low HT) apply as much to JU as to LA. It would be pretty hard to argue that Ulle wasn't doping the entire period of LA's (first) comeback.

 

[Puckfiend]

If I am not mistaken, DZ, CVV and TD all came forward. None of them were caught. You could even say the same for RH except for Ras testimony. So not sure what your point is there.
So Lance was no worse from a PED point of view, he was much worse than in many other aspects. Lance had the same deal as the rest, He chose to fight and he lost. End of story.

IIRC, no one "came forward", all were summoned. And how many of those offered to give back their ill gotten gains and titles? They are all, including Armstrong, sorry that they got caught vs. just plain sorry.
No argument though re: Lance. He was much, much worse in other respects.

 

[BroDeal]

If I am not mistaken, DZ, CVV and TD all came forward. None of them were caught. You could even say the same for RH except for Ras testimony. So not sure what your point is there.
So Lance was no worse from a PED point of view, he was much worse than in many other aspects. Lance had the same deal as the rest, He chose to fight and he lost. End of story.

They did not come forward voluntarily. They had JV telling them they would be fired if they did not cooperate. Even so they kept quiet publicly. They still have not said anything publicly than what is in their narrowly focused affidavits.

The only evidence that Armstrong was to be given the same deal is self-interested and after the fact statements by USADA's people, the same people who deny they were targeting Armstrong. Their statements are not credible. The best info we have is that there was no "deal". Armstrong did not know what the sanction would be if he cooperated but JV had been given the nod by insiders that his people would be treated leniently.

JV is the one who looks the worst here. He led everyone to believe he had been working with USADA for years, telling them everything, but it turned out he was stringing them along just like he was stringing the public along until he knew he would suffer no consequences whatsoever. He never gave information about himself or anyone else until he was safe.

 

[veganrob]

IIRC, no one "came forward", all were summoned. And how many of those offered to give back their ill gotten gains and titles? They are all, including Armstrong, sorry that they got caught vs. just plain sorry.
No argument though re: Lance. He was much, much worse in other respects.

So they were summoned. They testified somewhat truthfully, some more than others. And they were only sorry for getting outed. I may get fuzzy on DZ, but the others all no remorse. So what. Lance had the same chance and refused. What is your point?

 

[Puckfiend]

Veganrob,

My point is that I can see the point that Armstrong was singled out, and was the goal all along. In other words, a "witch hunt". And I also have absolutely no problem with that either. I just amused by the people who go apoplectic whenever this is suggested. IMO, Lance got what he deserved. If in the future, WADA, USADA, or whatever acronym wants to reduce that ban, I will be amused at the outrage too.

 

[BroDeal]

Armstrong has been brought down. That is over. What I want to see is the whole sordid mess exposed. I want to hear people publicly talk about Chris Carmichael. Even Greg Strock will not talk about him because of a settlement agreement. I want to hear about Kloden, Sastre, Evans, Rogers, Cancellara, Boonen, Froome, Horner, and such. I want to hear about Fuentes, Ferrari, Lienders, Sassi, Conconi, and such from multiple riders. I want to hear about Riis, Lefevre, Saiz, Ochowitz, Rhis, and such from their former riders. I want to hear multiple accounts of UCI corruption and favoritism. I want to hear about the ASO knowingly accommodating the dopers. I want to hear what cycling journalists were telling riders even as they were reporting the opposite to the public. None of this will come out by trying to identify what riders are worthy of amnesty and which unlucky bastrds are not.

 

[MarkvW]

Armstrong has been brought down. That is over. What I want to see is the whole sordid mess exposed. I want to hear people publicly talk about Chris Carmichael. Even Greg Strock will not talk about him because of a settlement agreement. I want to hear about Kloden, Sastre, Evans, Rogers, Cancellara, Boonen, Froome, Horner, and such. I want to hear about Fuentes, Ferrari, Lienders, Sassi, Conconi, and such from multiple riders. I want to hear about Riis, Lefevre, Saiz, Ochowitz, Rhis, and such from their former riders. I want to hear multiple accounts of UCI corruption and favoritism. I want to hear about the ASO knowingly accommodating the dopers. I want to hear what cycling journalists were telling riders even as they were reporting the opposite to the public. None of this will come out by trying to identify what riders are worthy of amnesty and which unlucky bastrds are not.

I like doping gossip too.

 

[BroDeal]

I like doping gossip too.

It is not gossip if we get corroboration from lots of riders.

 

[MarkvW]

It is not gossip if we get corroboration from lots of riders.

Corroborated and factually correct gossip then. There won't be any further sanctions and consequences for the dopers of that age. Just cycling fans talking about doping, just like we talk about ascent times up the Angliru, the latest stem alloy, or the latest Schleck-Contador interaction.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Armstrong has been brought down. That is over. What I want to see is the whole sordid mess exposed. I want to hear people publicly talk about Chris Carmichael. Even Greg Strock will not talk about him because of a settlement agreement. I want to hear about Kloden, Sastre, Evans, Rogers, Cancellara, Boonen, Froome, Horner, and such. I want to hear about Fuentes, Ferrari, Lienders, Sassi, Conconi, and such from multiple riders. I want to hear about Riis, Lefevre, Saiz, Ochowitz, Rhis, and such from their former riders. I want to hear multiple accounts of UCI corruption and favoritism. I want to hear about the ASO knowingly accommodating the dopers. I want to hear what cycling journalists were telling riders even as they were reporting the opposite to the public. None of this will come out by trying to identify what riders are worthy of amnesty and which unlucky bastrds are not.

Lucky? Armstrong had his chance and thought this mess would be snuffed out like the federal case. Even if he had gotten a two year ban, that would be peanuts compare to Ricco's 12 year ban.

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong has been brought down. That is over. What I want to see is the whole sordid mess exposed. I want to hear people publicly talk about Chris Carmichael. Even Greg Strock will not talk about him because of a settlement agreement. I want to hear about Kloden, Sastre, Evans, Rogers, Cancellara, Boonen, Froome, Horner, and such. I want to hear about Fuentes, Ferrari, Lienders, Sassi, Conconi, and such from multiple riders. I want to hear about Riis, Lefevre, Saiz, Ochowitz, Rhis, and such from their former riders. I want to hear multiple accounts of UCI corruption and favoritism. I want to hear about the ASO knowingly accommodating the dopers. I want to hear what cycling journalists were telling riders even as they were reporting the opposite to the public. None of this will come out by trying to identify what riders are worthy of amnesty and which unlucky bastrds are not.

You forgot Wigans and i agree Armstrong is over apart from his pathetic whinging.

I too want to hear that Travis is going after other teams with the same riders that talked about doping on USPS.

 

[mattghg]

I too want to hear that Travis is going after other teams with the same riders that talked about doping on USPS.

Every so often he drops a hint that he's doing that. Guess there's no way to know right now whether or not this is all BS.

 

[86TDFWinner]

TT says 'It's a little too late" for Wonderboy:

http://news.yahoo.com/armstrongs-urge-tell-little-usada-142748452--spt.html


Here's a great article on Doping and harsher penalties and who's pic is included?


http://news.yahoo.com/world-anti-doping-body-approves-doubling-ban-cheats-095208004.html

 

[thehog]

TT says 'It's a little too late" for Wonderboy:

http://news.yahoo.com/armstrongs-urge-tell-little-usada-142748452--spt.html


Here's a great article on Doping and harsher penalties and who's pic is included?


http://news.yahoo.com/world-anti-doping-body-approves-doubling-ban-cheats-095208004.html

Some Bro on the yahoo article wrote the following comment. I thought it was a very good 'real world' analogy.

Im amazed at how many people here want to give Lance a pass. Let's look at a scenario. Say that at your place of employment there is someone breaking the rules, lying, and cheating. You being the good person you are, report this person to those above you. Suddenly, the person you reported finds out. He sues you. Since he has more resources than you, he uses the legal system to break you financially. He attempts to discredit you and he destroys your career. The ability of you to support your family is jeopardized. But he doesn't stop there. He sends your wife threatening texts to "run don't walk". You see him at a restaurant and he corners you and threatens to ruin your life.

Now are you going to sit back and think, "Oh well no biggie that he tried to ruin me, this dude has done a lot for cancer charity?" I don't think anyone in their right mind would have that response if someone went after them the way Lance went after many people in and out of the sport of cycling.

 

[red_flanders]

^^ I have to ask, quoting yourself again?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Quote:
"Im amazed at how many people here want to give Lance a pass. Let's look at a scenario. Say that at your place of employment there is someone breaking the rules, lying, and cheating. You being the good person you are, report this person to those above you. Suddenly, the person you reported finds out. He sues you. Since he has more resources than you, he uses the legal system to break you financially. He attempts to discredit you and he destroys your career. The ability of you to support your family is jeopardized. But he doesn't stop there. He sends your wife threatening texts to "run don't walk". You see him at a restaurant and he corners you and threatens to ruin your life.

Now are you going to sit back and think, "Oh well no biggie that he tried to ruin me, this dude has done a lot for cancer charity?" I don't think anyone in their right mind would have that response if someone went after them the way Lance went after many people in and out of the sport of cycling."

yeh!! this is excellent.
I'm going to file it away...wish the whole world could read it

thanks hog

 

[Fatclimber]

...

I think enough is enough. Let him compete if he wants to. He isn’t going to return to pro cycling; he can’t compete at that level any more...

He would find a way to thrust himself into the limelight. Remember Horner is one month older than armstrong and weeks ago won a stage race himself, and is looking to race next year. To hell with letting him compete. Keep the lifetime ban.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

He would find a way to thrust himself into the limelight. Remember Horner is one month older than armstrong and weeks ago won a stage race himself, and is looking to race next year. To hell with letting him compete. Keep the lifetime ban.

in some ways it could be kind of fun: Froome, Horner and Armstrong going up against Astana's doped up train....

Riis ready to stick a needle in Contador's arm while driving the team car....

And then poor little Garmin going in with a B-team.

But seriously Armstrong got what he deserved, now we just need to see an expansion and follow through of USADA's anti doping work.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

In the first place, none of us, including LA himself, knows what he would have accomplished without doping. It’s possible you’re right, but if you are, it’s likely other athletes who would have been nobodies without dope also benefited enormously. Ask RR; he seems to think Ullrich and Pantani were in that class. Should Ullrich have all his results stripped and be banned for life? Should Pantani’s results be removed? What about Indurain? You really think he would have won those five Tours without dope?

Maybe LA benefited more from drugs more than any other athlete in history. It's certainly possible, but even if he did, he has also received a much larger penalty than any other athlete in history. I don’t know of any other athlete who has had virtually his entire professional career voided by a doping sanction, do you? AFAIK, this is unprecedented. When you add a lifetime ban going forward on top of that , LA is in a class of punishment that no one else has ever come close to.

If it turns out LA also broke laws, let the federal investigation play out; maybe he will eventually be indicted. And as far as the money he made from doping, much of that will probably be taken from him by these lawsuits. But his punishment for performance enhancement alone—which is all USADA is supposed to be concerned with—surely has been served by all the stripping of titles. USADA is not supposed to be in the business of sanctioning individuals for how they leveraged their success as dopers in their life outside of sport. Many of us may resent the fact that he became so rich and famous through fraudulent means, but there is nothing in the WADA code that says penalties are supposed to be greater when athletes gain more fame from winning.



No it doesn't. It suggests he doped. I'm not saying he didn't, but the scientist who claimed that there was a one in a million possibility that that passport could result without doping never provided any analysis to support that conclusion. The blood values were certainly suspicious, but they were not slam dunk.

Nice, reasonable post.

As you said, the ADAs are to deal with doping. Let them deal with that. With them trying to punish legal/social ******baggery, they're only getting themselves in trouble in terms of being a 'moral police'.

Let the courts deal with that. If all the civil cases go through, they have more that enough on LA to keep him busy for the rest of his life.

 

[MonkeyFace]

Nice, reasonable post.

As you said, the ADAs are to deal with doping. Let them deal with that. With them trying to punish legal/social ******baggery, they're only getting themselves in trouble in terms of being a 'moral police'.

Let the courts deal with that. If all the civil cases go through, they have more that enough on LA to keep him busy for the rest of his life.

Where was the outrage over Ricco's 12 year ban? Also, any agency should have discretion in how it serves out suspensions. A rider that subjugates the rules and encourages/pressures others to do the same in my opinion shouldn't be given the same punishment as Joe Schmoe who used a product to just stay in the pack. A penalty is supposed discourage an action. Not much would be required to discourage Joe Schmoe. To discourage a rider who has made 100+ million doping, takes a little more.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Ask RR; he seems to think Ullrich and Pantani were in that class. Should Ullrich have all his results stripped and be banned for life? Should Pantani’s results be removed? What about Indurain? You really think he would have won those five Tours without dope?

He knows a lot about tailwind but further?

I agree with brodeal's posts downthreat. It is getting a bit ridiculous.

Get them all or not, scapegoats are so Lee Harvey.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Where was the outrage over Ricco's 12 year ban? Also, any agency should have discretion in how it serves out suspensions. A rider that subjugates the rules and encourages/pressures others to do the same in my opinion shouldn't be given the same punishment as Joe Schmoe who used a product to just stay in the pack. A penalty is supposed discourage an action. Not much would be required to discourage Joe Schmoe. To discourage a rider who has made 100+ million doping, takes a little more.

Outrage? 12 years is fine. If LA got 12 years (even with his teammates getting only 6 months) the haters would lose their sh*t. Not enough!

The problem is, agencies do have discretion. That indeed is the problem. National feds get reports from ICI, the feds have the discretion to do what they want with the results. This has f*cked many sports, not just cycling.

An independent ADA should be responsible for testing, and handing out cookie cutter bans. That is all they should do. Regardless is if it's Schmoe or the rich rider you present. You dope? You get caught, you get banned. Your civil actions, however abhorrent, are not part of anti-doping and ADAs should have jack to say about it.

This is the problem UCI testing has created. They CANNOT run the sport and run testing at the same time. Collusion and corruption are only part of the issue. The over reaching expectations of fans for the UCI to be somehow responsible for, and able to punish, the actions of dopers is expecting far too much.

 

[Granville57]

If it turns out LA also broke laws, let the federal investigation play out; maybe he will eventually be indicted. And as far as the money he made from doping, much of that will probably be taken from him by these lawsuits. But his punishment for performance enhancement alone—which is all USADA is supposed to be concerned with—surely has been served by all the stripping of titles. USADA is not supposed to be in the business of sanctioning individuals for how they leveraged their success as dopers in their life outside of sport. Many of us may resent the fact that he became so rich and famous through fraudulent means, but there is nothing in the WADA code that says penalties are supposed to be greater when athletes gain more fame from winning.

FFS, this argument has been gaining WAY too much traction lately by people that should, quite frankly, know better. It's not like USADA didn't provide us all with the details behind their decision, ya' know a REASONED DECISION?

It's all right there. There is absolutely no need to employ short-term memory or selective reading when evaluating exactly what actions USADA took against Armstrong and why. IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE!
-----------------

USADA Reasoned Decision
Page 7

II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned include:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.15
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, 
and/or cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity 
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.

-----------
Further clarification is provided later in the same document:
-----------

Page 146
VI. EVIDENCE OF ARMSTRONG’S EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS

Article 2.8 of the World Anti-Doping Code includes as an anti-doping rule violation, “assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation.”

Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations.

Accordingly, in this section USADA discusses some of the evidence of efforts by Armstrong and his entourage to cover up rule violations, suppress the truth, obstruct or subvert the legal process and thereby encourage doping.
---------

The USADA document then provides the specifics behind this reasoning. It's all right there for everyone to read. No mystery. No behavior on the part of USADA that they are not fully entitled to. None.


Allow me to reiterate a few important and pertinent points in all of the above:

"Aggravating circumstances...justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction."

"Additionally, proof that an athlete “engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation” can be grounds for increasing a sanction. Fraudulent concealment or other efforts to subvert the legal process, such as perjury or witness intimidation can also result in suspension or waiver of the statute of limitations".







"...can be grounds for increasing a sanction."