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

[Scott SoCal]

No. Every fair legal system works by punishing people according to the laws that existed at the time of the offense. It is a basic concept that assumes people can rationally decide whether they want to offend based on the potential punishment.

There was no WADA code in 1999. There was no provision in 1999 UCI rules for a win being stripped fifteen years after the fact. Tygart has produced an absurd situation where he is applying WADA rules to a time before WADA even existed and years before the UCI signed on to the WADA code (2004). What is more the WADA rules of 2004 are very different than what they are today. Funny enough, the punishment he gave the Garmin riders was the type of punishment that used to be given out in 1998 (a short ban to be served in the off season). That sort of chicanery was done away with not long after riders like Virenque were given their off-season slaps on the wrist.

Is that what happened in cycling? Or any other professional sport?

 

[DirtyWorks]

No. Every fair legal system works by punishing people according to the laws that existed at the time of the offense. It is a basic concept that assumes people can rationally decide whether they want to offend based on the potential punishment.

#1 Sport administration does not have a "legal system." There is no court system, no law enforcement. The sports federations are their own rules enforcement bodies.

#2 Since there is no law enforcement or judicial system, people with sufficient political standing can simply order people to do what they wish. And they do.

 

[BroDeal]

Funny you mention Virenque - he was the first rider I thought of who was sanctioned even though there was no non-analytical finding.

Virenque too was hit before the WADA code was adopted in 2004 - how?

Nope. Virenque maintained his innocence even after teammates and staff confessed, many implicating him. The ASO tried to ban him from the TdF but the UCI ruled against it. There was no sanction until Virenque confessed during a criminal trial. He was then given a nine month suspension that was reduced to 6 and 1/2 months.

 

[Race Radio]

It is comical to hear Lance complain about breaking the rules. While Wonderboy broke every rule in the book USADA broke none

The current WADA code allows for a reduction for "substantial assistance". Currently this can be as little as 6 months but the new code that comes in effect in 2015 allows for a sanction to be eliminated entirely if the assistance is worth it.

Tolling of the SOL was clearly supported in Hellebuyck ruling

https://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

It was also supported by an independent review

WADA said it had an external, independent review of the application of the statute of limitations, and said, "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-will-not-appeal-usada-decision-on-lance-armstrong

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Nope. Virenque maintained his innocence even after teammates and staff confessed, many implicating him. The ASO tried to ban him from the TdF but the UCI ruled against it. There was no sanction until Virenque confessed during a criminal trial. He was then given a nine month suspension that was reduced to 6 and 1/2 months.

Which means it was non-analytical.

 

[Race Radio]

He was then given a nine month suspension

Yup, just as Dr. Masarati wrote. Never tested positive

 

[BroDeal]

I like Tygart's credibility.

I don't. Tygart lied about targeting Armstrong. He would have us believe that his goal was to clean up cycling and Armstrong just happened to be in the way. But we know from Landis that USADA offered a sweetheart deal to rat on Armstrong back in 2007. Tygart should be honest enough to say that Armstrong was the goal. Instead we get a fatuous story about how Tygart intended to treat everyone the same.

People are uncomfortable admitting that Armstrong was right about USADA pursuing him justify its budget and improve its public profile.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't. Tygart lied about targeting Armstrong. He would have us believe that his goal was to clean up cycling and Armstrong just happened to be in the way. But we know from Landis that USADA offered a sweetheart deal to rat on Armstrong back in 2007. Tygart should be honest enough to say that Armstrong was the goal. Instead we get a fatuous story about how Tygart intended to treat everyone the same.

People are uncomfortable admitting that Armstrong was right about USADA pursuing him justify its budget and improve its public profile.

I thought The Dark Knight name was good - but I gotta give you credit BPC. hacking Bros account is your sweetest work yet.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't. Tygart lied about targeting Armstrong. He would have us believe that his goal was to clean up cycling

USADA did not stray from their charter with their Armstrong and Co. sanction.

The WADA standards and USADA's rules make clear their charter is to verify the integrity of athletes, not their federations. They have never reached outside the stated goal of verifying athletic performance.

Feel free to read their documentation. It's well written and pretty clearly defines roles and responsibilities.

I'm not sure what's going on with your posts lately, but something seems different.

 

[MarkvW]

Tygart didn't have much choice in the matter. When Floyd approached him and started spilling the crown jewels of USPS/Discovery cheating, what was he supposed to do? Should he have told Floyd to pound sand?

Blowing Floyd off would have been the American thing to do (if your standard is the United States Olympic Committee, that is), but Tygart chose to do the right thing and pursue an investigation.

To get people to talk, you have to trade for information. All the Posties traded (and got insanely good deals), except Lance. The main reason Lance didn't get any kind of deal was because Lance was still hiding behind all of his lies. Those lies persisted throughout the entire process--from presentation of charges, past Arbitration, and CAS Appeal (both of which Armstrong spurned).

Should Lance have gotten a sweet deal--even though he remained a massive liar? I don't see why. He was a central hub in a (for cycling) huge doping conspiracy. He utterly deserved a lifetime ban.

Lance fought USADA in 2 ways: (1) the stupid federal court case; and (2) his last ditch plea for help from his buddy McQuaid. Did those sleazy tactics entitle him to a deal? I don't think so.

Lance didn't fight USADA in the Arbitration. He might have been able to win on the SOL issue, but he didn't even try. What right does he have to say that the process was unfair when he didn't even participate? It's not like he couldn't afford to participate--at the time he was soaking up his cancer and endorsement money.

Lance's pitch today is that he deserves a deal even though he never told the truth to USADA and never participated in the antidoping process. The real question isn't whether or not Lance v3.0 (the whiny version) was harshly treated--the real question is whether or not cycling has a role for a dope distributing fraud and lying cheat. It doesn't look like a close question. Cycling, and all sport, is way better off without Lance, than with him. Anybody who trusts Lance to complete clean is an absolute moron.

In the world of Lance, the doping ringleader should get a deal that is roughly the same as the deal that his underlings get, because in the world of Lance, the ringleader is not one bit more responsible than his underlings. That might work, in the world of Lance, but it shouldn't work in the world of decent people.

 

[Scott SoCal]

USADA did not stray from their charter with their Armstrong and Co. sanction.

The WADA standards and USADA's rules make clear their charter is to verify the integrity of athletes, not their federations. They have never reached outside the stated goal of verifying athletic performance.

Feel free to read their documentation. It's well written and pretty clearly defines roles and responsibilities.

I'm not sure what's going on with your posts lately, but something seems different.

It's BroDeals turn to be the contrarian.

I do agree with Tilford on a couple of things. But, in the end Lance dug his own grave and in many respects is still digging it.

If he's getting any advice it's either all wrong or he's just not listening.

I get the reasons, but ultimately he deserves what he gets no matter what did or didn't happen to the others.

 

[MarkvW]

USADA did not stray from their charter with their Armstrong and Co. sanction.

The WADA standards and USADA's rules make clear their charter is to verify the integrity of athletes, not their federations. They have never reached outside the stated goal of verifying athletic performance.

Feel free to read their documentation. It's well written and pretty clearly defines roles and responsibilities.

I'm not sure what's going on with your posts lately, but something seems different.

The "stray from the charter" argument was a part of Lance's battle to wrest his case away from USADA and into the friendly hands of McQuaid.

 

[frenchfry]

Armstrong used his consequent resources in an all out attempt to destroy USADA by any means possible. He used his cancer charity to lobby legislators with the objective to have them dismantle USADA.

Now he is claiming that he has been treated unfairly!!!

Make me laugh (old timers version of LOL).

 

[poupou]

Armstrong used his consequent resources in an all out attempt to destroy USADA by any means possible. He used his cancer charity to lobby legislators with the objective to have them dismantle USADA.

Now he is claiming that he has been treated unfairly!!!

Make me laugh (old timers version of LOL).

I fully agree.

Lance has played evil, and lost. He doesn't change. No need to give him a favour.

 

[ebandit]

way to go

Armstrong is right. He was treated unfairly. When Armstrong did not contest the charges, USADA used that as an opportunity to unload on him with both barrels. The sanction was unprecedented.

you're right bro..............usada did good

Mark L

 

[Stingray34]

Lance seems to be claiming he was 'just another doper' to Tilford. He complains about Crawford being a Trafficker, and he was. But so was Lance. For a lot longer than Crawford. That's a life ban right there.

So, did Crawford also run teams, destroy people's careers, make gazillions, pay off Hein and have Zorzoli haul his rivals to his UCI desk and give them the great warning off? Did Crawford litigate with USADA and attempt block every conceivable avenue of justice?

Nope. If Tilford was on the ball, or a real journalist who isn't intimidated, he would've put that to him.

The longer Lance is in denial, the longer his pain will persist.

The game is lost, Lance. The horse you're flogging is dead. You may be some kind of idiot, but the rest of us aren't.

 

[86TDFWinner]

You do realise that after LA responded to USADA through his lawyers, then USADA charged him which included that they could seek a lifetime ban which is in the charging letter - that is why LA ran to Federal Court.

LA had his chance, where others sat down and assisted LA did not - yet you think he deserves the same as them? Every legal system I can think of works the same way - cop a plea, get a deal, fight it and you lose.

Yep, they even said in Wheelmen, Wonderboy showed up for his meeting with USADA an hour and a half late. When USADA wouldn't give him what he wanted(a slap on the wrist), Wonderboy threw a fit, and said something along the lines of" You don't hold the keys to my redemption" and basically told Tygert to FO.

 

[Alpe73]

Interesting article and tilford is usually spot on with his observations.

Yep, usually ... but his observation/comparison of aspirations of football fans vs cycling fans is inaccurate and misleading.

 

[Alpe73]

I just don't understand why people simply don't:

1) Hang up on Armstrong.
2) Refuse his calls in the first place.
3) Just tell him to f'ck off.

Of course you understand. C'mon, man.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Of course you understand. C'mon, man.

You were really busy around Christmas 2012. Guessing that a lonely Christmas gave you time to create numerous sockpuppet accounts? You are a sad, menally ill troll.

 

[Alpe73]

Yup. Lifetime ban in charging letter. WADA code, written by Armstrong agent Stapleton, clearly allows 6 months for cooperation.

Yep ... colossal error in judgment, bluff calling and arrogance on Lance's part.

Interesting ... that issue of the 'offer' of a deal. How credible are the rumors that Lance could have copped a deal that would have yielded him 6 months and 5 jerseys hanging on the wall?

If true (the deal offer), what does this/USADA say about the rigor of Lance's doping, coercion of doping, in comparison to those who testified against him and in comparison to guys like Frankie A?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Yep ... colossal error in judgment, bluff calling and arrogance on Lance's part.

Interesting ... that issue of the 'offer' of a deal. How credible are the rumors that Lance could have copped a deal that would have yielded him 6 months and 5 jerseys hanging on the wall?

If true (the deal offer), what does this/USADA say about the rigor of Lance's doping, coercion of doping, in comparison to those who testified against him and in comparison to guys like Frankie A?

How credible are the rumors that Lance could have copped a deal that would have yielded him 6 months and 5 jerseys hanging on the wall?

Boring.

If true (the deal offer), what does this/USADA say about the rigor of Lance's doping, coercion of doping, in comparison to those who testified against him and in comparison to guys like Frankie A?

It says that Lance was banned for life. How's that for rigor?

 

[Alpe73]

Lance seems to be claiming he was 'just another doper' to Tilford. He complains about Crawford being a Trafficker, and he was. But so was Lance. For a lot longer than Crawford. That's a life ban right there.

Fair enough, if true.

Then why was USADA considering a deal offer to Armstrong that would see him getting a 6 month ban and holding on to 5 MJs? Or is that 'sweet deal' talk just rumor?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fair enough, if true.

Then why was USADA considering a deal offer to Armstrong that would see him getting a 6 month ban and holding on to 5 MJs? Or is that 'sweet deal' talk just rumor?

Can you point out where USADA ever said anything about giving LA a six month deal?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Can you point out where USADA ever said anything about giving LA a six month deal?

Interesting how this fantasy is dreamt up and put out there.

BPC's tactics are boring. Surely we can all agree on that.