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

[Stingray34]

This article is recently from the Atlantic online.

Titled 'All Bullies are Narcissists' it focus on the actions of, oh, guess who.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/all-bullies-are-narcissists/281407/

All pretty obvious really.

 

[Merckx index]

My original point (and it was directed at a much wider audience than just the participants here. Anyone who writes about this topic reads The Clinic, whether they admit to it or not) was that the suggestion that Armstrong's harsh penalty was due to things outside of USADA's jurisdiction was simply false. I'm not clear as to how you are suggesting otherwise. Or are you?

Armstrong was charged with a series of violations that the others in the Reasoned Decision were not. That, to me, is the key as to why the penalties between he and "them" differed so much. Do we agree on that?

Thanks. Seriously.

No, I'm not suggesting the harsher penalty was justified or rationalized by USADA because of actions LA took outside of racing, though in an earlier post I did suggest that some here in the Clinic seem to be viewing the decision in that way. But I do and did understand that your original post was meant to show that LA's anti-doping violations, per se, justified a harsher penalty, without any reference to the way he treated others, the cancer shield, etc. Certainly we agree on this.

What I'm disagreeing with is that LA's anti-doping violations justified or demanded a lifetime ban. As I said before, the parts of the reasoned decision or charging letter you posted explain why a harsher penalty is appropriate; they do not explain why a lifetime ban is.

No doubt everything that USADA accused LA of doing could be interpreted as justifying a lifetime ban. But to repeat, Tygart's own words indicate he was not thinking in those terms. You don't publicly state that someone who cooperates could have gotten a ban of about three years (2004 and 2005 invalidated; maybe a year ban going forward) if non-cooperation means a lifetime ban. The gap between cooperating and non-cooperating simply is not that great. And to repeat further, I think the lifetime ban was originally intended as a bargaining position. USADA anticipated a legal battle, with the possibility of a settlement. In that situation, it's natural to stake out an extreme position.

 

[rhubroma]

Well I think when you not only consider his untoward resistance, but in addition culling support from US senators in a malicious defamatory propagandistic campaign against your accuser and the lawful agency he represents, intimidation of witnesses, a useless lawsuit against the federal government, exploitation of a charity fund and an instrumental use of the sick as a shield against indictment, to say nothing of Mafioso style death threats; then I rally can't see how anyone can feel that he didn't get what was coming to him, or what was indeed justified.

From a legal standpoint, in any case, evidently USADA had every authority to ban LA for life, otherwise his well-paid lawyers would have already found a way to get the sentence overturned: whether by appealing to WADA or CAS. That this has not been done, leads me to presume that all the rest is just pettifogging speculation and chatter. LA, afterall, has always been exceptional right down to the bitter end, for which their is great irony in the outcome of his predicament.

At any rate given the way LA habitually fought his enemies, with a ruthlessness and unscrupulousness befitting of the big boss he was, perhaps any leniency Travis and USADA may have initially felt was appropriate to concede him, after such dealings was rejected in favor of no clemency and maximum punishment. That this was within their discretion and authority can only be assumed until otherwise legally overturned. All the rest is drivel.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't know, and you don't seem to be explaining it either.

Seriously, only a fool would suggest that you aren't one of the more intelligent posters on this forum. You'll have to take my word that I am not trolling you. But I'm not following along here.

My original point (and it was directed at a much wider audience than just the participants here. Anyone who writes about this topic reads The Clinic, whether they admit to it or not) was that the suggestion that Armstrong's harsh penalty was due to things outside of USADA's jurisdiction was simply false. I'm not clear as to how you are suggesting otherwise. Or are you?

It's not my intention to vortex this topic into the ground. I'm just not clear on what your position is. Maybe someone else needs to chime in on either side of this for a different perspective.

Armstrong was charged with a series of violations that the others in the Reasoned Decision were not. That, to me, is the key as to why the penalties between he and "them" differed so much. Do we agree on that?

Thanks. Seriously.

IMO, USADA knew they were going into a big fight with Armstrong and they loaded up every potentially valid charge that they could. They knew it was going to be a war and they were going to fight that war with every possible advantage that they could.

Then, after Lance's abortive effort in Federal Court, and after learning that his erstwhile buddy McQuaid wouldn't/couldn't help him, Lance just up and quit. USADA expected negotiation and/or war, and they got a sudden surrender. USADA was left with a mega-ton of thermonuclear charges, so they had little choice but to flatten Lance.

Now, people question whether or not USADA overkilled Lance. It's a valid question.

This isn't about legalisms. Legally, Lance quit--he's done. This is about fairness.

I hope that Lance will be stuck with the ban. He abused USADA in Federal Court and tried to use UCI pressure to invalidate the USADA proceedings. But I know that my hopes are in vain: Lance's ban will be relaxed and he will be given an opportunity to live out the last leg of the Rise-Fall-Redemption Myth. It's inevitable....

 

[IndianCyclist]

No doubt everything that USADA accused LA of doing could be interpreted as justifying a lifetime ban. But to repeat, Tygart's own words indicate he was not thinking in those terms. You don't publicly state that someone who cooperates could have gotten a ban of about three years (2004 and 2005 invalidated; maybe a year ban going forward) if non-cooperation means a lifetime ban. The gap between cooperating and non-cooperating simply is not that great. And to repeat further, I think the lifetime ban was originally intended as a bargaining position. USADA anticipated a legal battle, with the possibility of a settlement. In that situation, it's natural to stake out an extreme position.

I think what you are saying may very well be true. but taking the case of Levi

Leipheimer incriminated his former teammate Lance Armstrong and then accepted a 6-month ban from September 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013 and was stripped of all race results from June 1, 1999 to July 30, 2006, and July 7 to July 29, 2007

He got punished the maximum after LA. if leniency was in the agenda why was it not applied to Levi. What about the SOL? Which is why even if LA had confessed he would have received a far severe penalty than what is being said in the aftermath. All previous results would be null & void but he would have been free to compete after 1-2 years

 

[Nicko.]

...
What I'm disagreeing with is that LA's anti-doping violations justified or demanded a lifetime ban. As I said before, the parts of the reasoned decision or charging letter you posted explain why a harsher penalty is appropriate; they do not explain why a lifetime ban is.
...

Your position is that the rules don't support a lifetime ban (?)
Well, what is your idea of an appropriate ban for his lifetime achievements?

Well I think when you not only consider his untoward resistance, but in addition culling support from US senators in a malicious defamatory propagandistic campaign against your accuser and the lawful agency he represents, intimidation of witnesses, a useless lawsuit against the federal government, exploitation of a charity fund and an instrumental use of the sick as a shield against indictment, to say nothing of Mafioso style death threats; then I rally can't see how anyone can feel that he didn't get what was coming to him, or what was indeed justified.
...

Your position is that the rules should mandate a lifetime ban (?)
I'm with you.

Rider A dopes, rider B doesn't:
A get's $fame & $glory, B get's out and can't complain.
First world problem, right? The unfair treatment of B is not an issue since A is winning on a level field

Rider A and also-ran rider C are caught and banned:
A get's banned for life, C get's 6 months.
This is major violation of the universal rights of fairness since A was clearly better than C on the level field and cheated fairly. Call in the Human Rights squadron and make sure A get's a reduction while C get's proportionally slapped on the wrist.

Let us all be on the alert for unfair punishment of cheating white male bicycle riders...

I say, ban cheaters harder.
First strike, hit them where it hurts ($$$). No professional activity for 4 years.
Second strike, root them out of professional sports forever.
Third strike, life time ban from the amateur ranks forever.

 

[ebandit]

forgetful

whatever! however the crucial point is that lance chose NOT to defend his position accepting the USADA reasoned decision

rather too late to complain later of harsh treatment

Mark L

 

[Stingray34]

whatever! however the crucial point is that lance chose NOT to defend his position accepting the USADA reasoned decision

rather too late to complain later of harsh treatment

Mark L

Exactly. Why are posters formerly committed to LA getting his comeuppance so attracted to the minutiae of whether his life ban is warranted or not?

I guess the off-season really sux if you're not interested in cross.

 

[trailrunner]

Exactly. Why are posters formerly committed to LA getting his comeuppance so attracted to the minutiae of whether his life ban is warranted or not?

Why? Because people are now talking about whether he should be allowed to participate in triathlons, now or in the near future, or in general if his sentence should be reduced. That is negotiable, theoretically at least.

 

[veganrob]

whatever! however the crucial point is that lance chose NOT to defend his position accepting the USADA reasoned decision

rather too late to complain later of harsh treatment

Mark L

Yep. Lance knew he could not win so he quit. Now he is trying to play the victim for sympathy. He should get the same as he showed to others. None.

 

[attila]

So, basically, once suspension is served, LA can gear up to dominate 55+ master's racing?
;-)

 

[Stingray34]

TT and the WADA code makes it clear that the time for LA to shoot his bolt has passed. It's a case of truth in sentencing: there will be no grassy knoll revelations.

 

[veganrob]

So, basically, once suspension is served, LA can gear up to dominate 55+ master's racing?
;-)

He wouldn't be the first one to do that

 

[aphronesis]

Exactly. Why are posters formerly committed to LA getting his comeuppance so attracted to the minutiae of whether his life ban is warranted or not?

I guess the off-season really sux if you're not interested in cross.

Because they're people who want to believe they live in a somewhat rational and productive society, rather than a merely passive, enthusiastic and vengeful one. Spectatorial if you like.

It's clear to many that these are hard concepts to grasp (and the extrapolation of their denial or repression is a bit frightening to say the least) but to deny the basic points--let's not say dumb obviousness--of the argument is churlish at best and more than childish toward the worst.

 

[Stingray34]

Because they're people who want to believe they live in a somewhat rational and productive society, rather than a merely passive, enthusiastic and vengeful one. Spectatorial if you like.

It's clear to many that these are hard concepts to grasp (and the extrapolation of their denial or repression is a bit frightening to say the least) but to deny the basic points--let's not say dumb obviousness--of the argument is churlish at best and more than childish toward the worst.

I'd like to respond, but I'm watching sport and too full of beer. In fact, it's after five and I'm kicking back with Lance as we speak.

 

[aphronesis]

I'd like to respond, but I'm watching sport and too full of beer. In fact, it's after five and I'm kicking back with Lance as we speak.

Exactly. So don't waste time with puerile questions to which you know the answers. (Even if the issue goes a little beyond that....). I'd like to think for you, but it's Saturday and I'm not full of coffee yet....

 

[Stingray34]

Exactly. So don't waste time with puerile questions to which you know the answers.

Would that be the known knowns or the unknown knowns that I know? I guess I forgot to remember to forget.

 

[aphronesis]

Would that be the known knowns or the unknown knowns that I know? I guess I forgot to remember to forget.

As I said upthread, can't handle the deep without more coffee.

You asked why (the more intelligent) posters aren't posting the same tripe three to five years in. I gave you an answer. Best I could do at this point is hope you're drinking good beer with the sports.

But my hopes aren't high.

 

[Stingray34]

As I said upthread, can't handle the deep without more coffee.

You asked why (the more intelligent) posters aren't posting the same tripe three to five years in. I gave you an answer. Best I could do at this point is hope you're drinking good beer with the sports.

But my hopes aren't high.

Hey, don't you criticise Anheusser-Busch! I just split my Michelob.

 

[aphronesis]

Hey, don't you criticise Anheusser-Busch! I just split my Michelob.

Oh, sorry. Hope it came in a box so you have something to work with, but a bag might be more appropriate here.

 

[Stingray34]

Oh, sorry. Hope it came in a box so you have something to work with.

Arrrggghhhhhhh! That's it!

I've had enough of you sophistimicated interwebs guys.

I'm heading down to RadioShack to get some parts for my CB radio.

Then, I'm gonna kick back wit ma soul mate and listen to Journey on my dual cassette deck.

And I'm gonna neck those Ultras until Lance wears yellow once again in my dreams.

 

[aphronesis]

Arrrggghhhhhhh! That's it!

I've had enough of you sophistimicated interwebs guys.

I'm heading down to RadioShack to get some parts for my CB radio.

Then, I'm gonna kick back wit ma soul mate and listen to Journey on my dual cassette deck.

And I'm gonna neck those Ultras until Lance wears yellow once again in my dreams.

Got nothing to do with Lance brother. But you keep clinging to the dream.

 

[Stingray34]

Got nothing to do with Lance brother. But you keep clinging to the dream.

You bet, bro!

"Just a city boy/Raised in South Plano/He took a midnite train to a life time ban"

Lance is, like, the Neil Schon of cycling: a bit of a joke.

 

[aphronesis]

You bet, bro!

"Just a city boy/Raised in South Plano/He took a midnite train to a life time ban"

Lance is, like, the Neil Schon of cycling: a bit of a joke.

No idea what you're talking about. Best you crack another Michelob.

 

[Stingray34]

No idea what you're talking about. Best you crack another Michelob.

Hey Man, don't spoil my light-beer buzz.

I'm in a reverie with Steve Perry wearing a big yellow shirt...in fact, seven yellow shirts.

"A choad in a smoky room/A smell of wine and cheap perfume/For a smile they can share the night at the Yell-ow Rose"

Lance will be vindicated.

Don't Stop...Believin'