Point-Counterpoint responses to Armstrong defenses

[Moose McKnuckles]

1. He's "never tested positive."

Neither has Marion Jones, and she admitted to doping for years. Neither did Barry Bonds. Neither did Valverde, Basso, Ullrich.

In fact, Lance did test positive for cortisone in '99, for which he obtained a post-dated TUE. Further, we have the issue of the 6 samples. The allegation is now that he again tested positive in 2001, but that was covered up.

2. This is a waste of taxpayer money.

The stated purpose of the USADA is to investigate doping in sport. Armstrong is still actively competing. Further, the USADA is NOT a government agency. It gets funding, like many other agencies. It gets that funding regardless, so there is no incremental cost. It gets its funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy as well as other grants.

3. They are arbitrarily targeting Armstrong.

Per the USADA letter, Lance was given the same opportunity to talk as other cyclists. He is the only one who refused. If innocent, why refuse an opportunity to set the record straight and end all the investigations?

4. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Nothing happened. Armstrong is not in jail. He's not under house arrest. He's a free man. He has until June 22 to respond to the charges. The WTC, which is a PRIVATE organization, bars any athlete under doping investigation from competing in their events.

5. Those testifying against him are discredited.

No, the only ones against whom that charged can even be plausible are Hamilton and Landis, both of whom have very good reasons to NOT testify against Armstrong. Hincapie was Lance's right-hand man, and the guy Lance called a "brother". Others expected to testify have not had their credibility challenged at all.

6. This is in the past. Why drag this stuff up now?

Many people stood up to Armstrong's lies and bullying and saw their careers and well-being suffer. These people include: Kimmage, both Andreus (especially Betsy), Greg Lemond, David Walsh, among others. These people had the courage to stand up against a well-funded and well-supported alleged doping cheat. They said things that were not popular then, but are borne out by the evidence now. Not acknowledging the truth does a disservice to those who speak out against those who misuse their power and position.

7. He's undergone over 500 tests. He's the most tested athlete ever.

The 500 figure is straight from Armstrong and has not been verified by any organization. In fact, he has undergone fewer than 30 tests by USADA. There is no support to Armstrong's claim that he is the most tested athlete ever.

Furthermore, many of these tests could not detect the specific chemicals and procedures allegedly used. There were no tests for HGH or autologous blood doping. Micro-dosing was virtually impossible to detect. Further, former cyclists and other officials have noted that they were often warned of impending tests, giving them time to use saline solutions to dilute the blood.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Doesn't this belong in the clinic?

 

[red_flanders]

Well done and useful.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Well done and useful.

Thanks. I have seen these arguments from the pro-Lance contingent both here and on comments on news articles. I thought it may help to respond to some of the misconceptions.

 

[Benotti69]

"Lance did test positive for cortisone in '99, for which he obtained a post-dated TUE. "

The most interesting thing about this positive was that he was asked during the tour prior to the positive about doping and his comment was after having cancer that he would never put anything in his body that was not natural....

Good thread.

Also can anyone find Armstrong quote where he looked forward to the USADA investigation and he would fully cooperate etc

 

[pot belge]

So what about "credibility"??

 

[silverrocket]

Good post, but as for point #1 I think that Ullrich and Bonds are not as good of examples as Marion Jones, since she admitted using doping products despite having never tested positive, while the same can't be said for Ullrich and Bonds. Valverde is a bit of a foggy case as well, since he too was only circumstantially linked to OP and continues to deny he doped.

Bjarne Riis and David Millar might be more clear-cut examples, since they never tested positive but later absolutely confessed to using doping products. Tyler Hamilton admitting he cheated to win Olympic gold after not testing positive at that event is another good example, and quite relevant since he is surely central to the USADA case.

 

[BillytheKid]

"Lance did test positive for cortisone in '99, for which he obtained a post-dated TUE. "

The most interesting thing about this positive was that he was asked during the tour prior to the positive about doping and his comment was after having cancer that he would never put anything in his body that was not natural....

Good thread.

Also can anyone find Armstrong quote where he looked forward to the USADA investigation and he would fully cooperate etc

True and untrue, the TUE was validated making it a not positive. Weak, but lawful.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Thanks, but I don't think the debate here is really centered around "did he do it". We're pro cycling fans so are already fully aware that the top teams had programs during the era we're talking about. The questions really are:

What WILL happen?

What do you want to happen?

Why do you want it to happen, or why do you believe it will happen?

 

[The Hitch]

How is Tyler Hamilton discredited if he never tested positive?

 

[MarkvW]

1. He's "never tested positive."

Neither has Marion Jones, and she admitted to doping for years. Neither did Barry Bonds. Neither did Valverde, Basso, Ullrich.

In fact, Lance did test positive for cortisone in '99, for which he obtained a post-dated TUE. Further, we have the issue of the 6 samples. The allegation is now that he again tested positive in 2001, but that was covered up.

2. This is a waste of taxpayer money.

The stated purpose of the USADA is to investigate doping in sport. Armstrong is still actively competing. Further, the USADA is NOT a government agency. It gets funding, like many other agencies. It gets that funding regardless, so there is no incremental cost. It gets its funding from the Office of National Drug Control Policy as well as other grants.

3. They are arbitrarily targeting Armstrong.

Per the USADA letter, Lance was given the same opportunity to talk as other cyclists. He is the only one who refused. If innocent, why refuse an opportunity to set the record straight and end all the investigations?

4. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Nothing happened. Armstrong is not in jail. He's not under house arrest. He's a free man. He has until June 22 to respond to the charges. The WTC, which is a PRIVATE organization, bars any athlete under doping investigation from competing in their events.

5. Those testifying against him are discredited.

No, the only ones against whom that charged can even be plausible are Hamilton and Landis, both of whom have very good reasons to NOT testify against Armstrong. Hincapie was Lance's right-hand man, and the guy Lance called a "brother". Others expected to testify have not had their credibility challenged at all.

I'm not at all sure that Armstrong is going to make a defense.

(1) If he makes a defense he has to lie.
(2) If he makes a defense he has to subject himself to cross-examination by USADA.
(3) The feds will be watching.
(4) If he lies about any material detail, and the feds have evidence that contradicts that lie, then he runs the risk of a perjury prosecution.
(5) USADA won't be asking just general questions. They will also be asking very particular questions (date, time, place kind of stuff).
(6) To prevail, Lance will have to lie in his answers to these very particular questions. Keeping all the lies straight for all that doping over all that time is a difficult task.
(7) Lance's particular problem is that he does not know what the federal government knows about the details of his doping (and I bet they know a lot). If he is not careful with his lies, he could walk right into a perjury prosecution. On cross-examination, he would be walking through a minefield blindfolded.

There is a huge chance that Lance will just eat the USADA sanctions. Why should he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to fight a battle that he is doomed to lose and one that can reopen the risk of a felony prosecution? Furthermore, the ongoing PR hit would be brutal, as well as the emotional toll that fighting would take on him and his family.

I'd bet that Lance won't fight. He's paying lawyers good money and their first responsibility is to keep him out of jail. They'll advise him to stick with the "most tested" mantra and otherwise STFU. That's my prediction.

 

[Velodude]

True and untrue, the TUE was validated making it a not positive. Weak, but lawful.

William:

False and False. You cannot backdate a TUE. But you can backdate a prescription.

It was a backdated prescription which did not satisfy the anti doping rules.

Anti Doping rules are in house rules which require compliance to be issued with and maintain a UCI racing license. They are not laws.

Sloppy journalism, Willy.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I'm not at all sure that Armstrong is going to make a defense.

(1) If he makes a defense he has to lie.
(2) If he makes a defense he has to subject himself to cross-examination by USADA.
(3) The feds will be watching.
(4) If he lies about any material detail, and the feds have evidence that contradicts that lie, then he runs the risk of a perjury prosecution.
(5) USADA won't be asking just general questions. They will also be asking very particular questions (date, time, place kind of stuff).
(6) To prevail, Lance will have to lie in his answers to these very particular questions. Keeping all the lies straight for all that doping over all that time is a difficult task.
(7) Lance's particular problem is that he does not know what the federal government knows about the details of his doping (and I bet they know a lot). If he is not careful with his lies, he could walk right into a perjury prosecution. On cross-examination, he would be walking through a minefield blindfolded.

There is a huge chance that Lance will just eat the USADA sanctions. Why should he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to fight a battle that he is doomed to lose and one that can reopen the risk of a felony prosecution? Furthermore, the ongoing PR hit would be brutal, as well as the emotional toll that fighting would take on him and his family.

I'd bet that Lance won't fight. He's paying lawyers good money and their first responsibility is to keep him out of jail. They'll advise him to stick with the "most tested" mantra and otherwise STFU. That's my prediction.

Reading what friends of mine on Facebook who turn out to be fanboys are saying.. I think you're right.

If he just said something like, "These accusations will never end, I'm tired, I don't want to drag my friends through this, so I'm just going to cooperate", I bet they would all buy it, and most will just say how sad and unfair it was that he got railroaded into giving up his titles (if they even realize that much).

For all the reasons you cite, something like that is probably his best tack.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Reading what friends of mine on Facebook who turn out to be fanboys are saying.. I think you're right.

If he just said something like, "These accusations will never end, I'm tired, I don't want to drag my friends through this, so I'm just going to cooperate", I bet they would all buy it, and most will just say how sad and unfair it was that he got railroaded into giving up his titles (if they even realize that much).

For all the reasons you cite, something like that is probably his best tack.

I think the majority of people who haven't thought about it that much are fanboys. From Lances' point of view the less information that comes out the more people will still believe in him. I think he will cut a deal to only lose the last 2 tours and ride off into the sunset tied with the greatest of the greats at 5.
Not enough as far as I'm concerned, as he was instrumental in making a mockery of the sport (not the only one, I know, but certainly one of the leaders) for about the past 15 years, but what can you do?

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I think the majority of people who haven't thought about it that much are fanboys. From Lances' point of view the less information that comes out the more people will still believe in him. I think he will cut a deal to only lose the last 2 tours and ride off into the sunset tied with the greatest of the greats at 5.
Not enough as far as I'm concerned, as he was instrumental in making a mockery of the sport (not the only one, I know, but certainly one of the leaders) for about the past 15 years, but what can you do?

I think it's both ends of the spectrum. You either don't know anythindtand thinks it's all lies, or you know a lot and thus understand the context of the sport during the era. The sticky area for him is those people who discover what was really going on and get a shock - the sort of middle between the two.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I think the majority of people who haven't thought about it that much are fanboys. From Lances' point of view the less information that comes out the more people will still believe in him. I think he will cut a deal to only lose the last 2 tours and ride off into the sunset tied with the greatest of the greats at 5.
Not enough as far as I'm concerned, as he was instrumental in making a mockery of the sport (not the only one, I know, but certainly one of the leaders) for about the past 15 years, but what can you do?

Indeed. Without Armstrong and Bruyneel, the sport had a chance after the Festina affair. I would say maybe 99.9% of the casual fans, especially the American Lance crowd, know nothing about cycling history, as their knowledge of the sport began in 1999 and ended in 2010, with a vacation between 2006-2008.

They continue with the same old "everyone did it". Except not everyone paid off the UCI. Not everyone employed Ferrari. Not everyone used US taxpayer funds to finance PED purchases. Not everyone chased down Simeoni. Not everyone publicly attacked Lemond, Betsy Andreu, and everyone who questioned the myth.

It's not just that Armstrong doped. It's that he took doping to a new level, a level that virtually destroyed the integrity of the sport.

 

[Merckx index]

There is a huge chance that Lance will just eat the USADA sanctions. Why should he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to fight a battle that he is doomed to lose and one that can reopen the risk of a felony prosecution? Furthermore, the ongoing PR hit would be brutal, as well as the emotional toll that fighting would take on him and his family.

I'd bet that Lance won't fight. He's paying lawyers good money and their first responsibility is to keep him out of jail. They'll advise him to stick with the "most tested" mantra and otherwise STFU. That's my prediction.

I think he will cut a deal to only lose the last 2 tours and ride off into the sunset tied with the greatest of the greats at 5.

I've been thinking along the same lines. At the very least, if he loses the hearing, I really think he would not appeal to CAS.

A deal allowing him to keep the 99-03 titles might actually be easy to make. I think USADA will have trouble getting past the 8 year SOL using the Hellebuyck precedent. What is the false testimony under oath they are going to use, SCA? Maybe, but it seems to me there is enough question there that USADA might be willing not to pursue it if they can just get two of the TDF titles vacated without the time, effort and money involved in a hearing. I know a lot of people think that's not enough, but given how many charges he has beaten for so long, it would be perceived by USADA as a great victory.

On the other hand, I don't think it's all about his TDF legacy. I think not being able to compete in triathlons would hit him almost as hard as losing a couple of TDF titles. If USADA can make this aggravating circumstances stick, LA will never be able to compete in triathlons again. He learned fairly soon after his first retirement that he really missed competition. He is going to be one miserable camper if he has to be idle. I think he'd be willing to make a major concession to get that suspension lifted at some point. Maybe he would insist on that as part of a deal in which he kept five TDF titles. If USADA insisted on a lifetime suspension, I think LA might be much more inclined to fight the charges.

Also, Bruyneel's role in this complicates matters. Since his livelihood is at stake, I imagine he would want to fight the charges. But he can hardly do so without involving LA. If LA makes a deal admitting some guilt, that indirectly implicates Bruyneel. Implicating Bruyneel might even be part of the deal. Conversely, for Bruyneel to insist on his innocence implies that LA is innocent, too. They are pretty closely tied together here. I think JB would make his own deal if he can avoid a lifetime suspension, but the new rules about DSs seem to make that problematic.

 

[mewmewmew13]

W/r to what you just said Merckx Index,

"On the other hand, I don't think it's all about his TDF legacy. I think not being able to compete in triathlons would hit him almost as hard as losing a couple of TDF titles. If USADA can make this aggravating circumstances stick, LA will never be able to compete in triathlons again. He learned fairly soon after his first retirement that he really missed competition. He is going to be one miserable camper if he has to be idle. I think he'd be willing to make a major concession to get that suspension lifted at some point, maybe even another TDF title. "

I think this is a rational assessment of where his options lie. He's definitely in a hard spot right now...but god knows his expensive lawyers will find every knot and loop that they can to get their money machine up and running asap.

 

[BroDeal]

I've been thinking along the same lines. At the very least, if he loses the hearing, I really think he would not appeal to CAS.

A deal allowing him to keep the 99-03 titles might actually be easy to make. I think USADA will have trouble getting past the 8 year SOL using the Hellebuyck precedent. What is the false testimony under oath they are going to use, SCA? Maybe, but it seems to me there is enough question there that USADA might be willing not to pursue it if they can just get two of the TDF titles vacated without the time, effort and money involved in a hearing. I know a lot of people think that's not enough, but given how many charges he has beaten for so long, it would be perceived by USADA as a great victory.

On the other hand, I don't think it's all about his TDF legacy. I think not being able to compete in triathlons would hit him almost as hard as losing a couple of TDF titles. If USADA can make this aggravating circumstances stick, LA will never be able to compete in triathlons again. He learned fairly soon after his first retirement that he really missed competition. He is going to be one miserable camper if he has to be idle. I think he'd be willing to make a major concession to get that suspension lifted at some point. Maybe he would insist on that as part of a deal in which he kept five TDF titles. If USADA insisted on a lifetime suspension, I think LA might be much more inclined to fight the charges.

Also, Bruyneel's role in this complicates matters. Since his livelihood is at stake, I imagine he would want to fight the charges. But he can hardly do so without involving LA. If LA makes a deal admitting some guilt, that indirectly implicates Bruyneel. Implicating Bruyneel might even be part of the deal. Conversely, for Bruyneel to insist on his innocence implies that LA is innocent, too. They are pretty closely tied together here. I think JB would make his own deal if he can avoid a lifetime suspension, but the new rules about DSs seem to make that problematic.

The impression that I got from the Men's Journal piece is that Armstrong was attempting to manage the dimensions of the expected USADA case. He was telling the USADA that he would not contest losing one or two titles but, if his back was against the wall, then he was a fighter.

He probably did not expect the sweeping nature of the charges nor being lumped into a conspiracy with five others.

 

[131313]

I'm not at all sure that Armstrong is going to make a defense.....
I'd bet that Lance won't fight. He's paying lawyers good money and their first responsibility is to keep him out of jail. They'll advise him to stick with the "most tested" mantra and otherwise STFU. That's my prediction.

I bet you're right. I just don't seen much upside, but a ton of potential downsides.

He has a whole new family of triathletes who are ready to create their own league for him (even though he basically tried to buy WTC). The speedo crew is taking this really hard. They love Lance, since he represents everything they admire (well, most of them). So, they'll do whatever it takes for some Lance love. Cycling was done with him anyway. There's just not any real reason to fight it. He said as much in the MJ article, and I believe him for once.

 

[BroDeal]

I bet you're right. I just don't seen much upside, but a ton of potential downsides.

He has a whole new family of triathletes who are ready to create their own league for him (even though he basically tried to buy WTC). The speedo crew is taking this really hard. They love Lance, since he represents everything they admire (well, most of them). So, they'll do whatever it takes for some Lance love. Cycling was done with him anyway. There's just not any real reason to fight it. He said as much in the MJ article, and I believe him for once.

I think he will fight. It is in his nature. If it was just the 2004 and 2005 TdF crowns then he might stand down and rely on his PR machine to defend him as being the victim of a witch hunt, but I have a hard time seeing him swallow losing all seven titles plus all other results from 1999 onward. Being banned for, perhaps, eight years would also be hard to get over.

The wrench in the works is what implications fighting the charges might have on future legal matters. Maybe his lawyers tell him that he cannot afford to risk future legal fallout by fighting the case.

 

[Jeremiah]

I bet you're right. I just don't seen much upside, but a ton of potential downsides.

He has a whole new family of triathletes who are ready to create their own league for him (even though he basically tried to buy WTC). The speedo crew is taking this really hard. They love Lance, since he represents everything they admire (well, most of them). So, they'll do whatever it takes for some Lance love. Cycling was done with him anyway. There's just not any real reason to fight it. He said as much in the MJ article, and I believe him for once.

That bolded part scares the bejesus out of me. That and his facebook page.

 

[dbrower]

I'm not at all sure that Armstrong is going to make a defense.

(1) If he makes a defense he has to lie.
(2) If he makes a defense he has to subject himself to cross-examination by USADA.
(3) The feds will be watching.
(4) If he lies about any material detail, and the feds have evidence that contradicts that lie, then he runs the risk of a perjury prosecution.
(5) USADA won't be asking just general questions. They will also be asking very particular questions (date, time, place kind of stuff).
(6) To prevail, Lance will have to lie in his answers to these very particular questions. Keeping all the lies straight for all that doping over all that time is a difficult task.
(7) Lance's particular problem is that he does not know what the federal government knows about the details of his doping (and I bet they know a lot). If he is not careful with his lies, he could walk right into a perjury prosecution. On cross-examination, he would be walking through a minefield blindfolded.

There is a huge chance that Lance will just eat the USADA sanctions. Why should he spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) to fight a battle that he is doomed to lose and one that can reopen the risk of a felony prosecution? Furthermore, the ongoing PR hit would be brutal, as well as the emotional toll that fighting would take on him and his family.

I'd bet that Lance won't fight. He's paying lawyers good money and their first responsibility is to keep him out of jail. They'll advise him to stick with the "most tested" mantra and otherwise STFU. That's my prediction.

The problem with the scenario of him just rolling over is that there are others charged at the same time with the same things. They are personally far more threatened in the livelihood than he is, so it will be hard for them to just roll over and eat lifetime sanctions. They will have to fight, and in having to fight, things will come out. It is not a good scenario for him, because so many others are involved. There may not be cause for them to cooperate with his interests, and he may have run out of leverage. In game theory terms, there are already at least 10 defectors, so viable options shrink.

Pepe looks like the weak link of the named respondents.

-dB

 

[BroDeal]

The problem with the scenario of him just rolling over is that there are others charged at the same time with the same things. They are personally far more threatened in the livelihood than he is, so it will be hard for them to just roll over and eat lifetime sanctions. They will have to fight, and in having to fight, things will come out. It is not a good scenario for him, because so many others are involved. There may not be cause for them to cooperate with his interests, and he may have run out of leverage. In game theory terms, there are already at least 10 defectors, so viable options shrink.

Pepe looks like the weak link of the named respondents.

-dB

Pepe probably does not have means to fight the charges. The others may not even respond.

Bruyneel could be booted from RSNT in the next few days and decide to retire.

 

[MarkvW]

The problem with the scenario of him just rolling over is that there are others charged at the same time with the same things. They are personally far more threatened in the livelihood than he is, so it will be hard for them to just roll over and eat lifetime sanctions. They will have to fight, and in having to fight, things will come out. It is not a good scenario for him, because so many others are involved. There may not be cause for them to cooperate with his interests, and he may have run out of leverage. In game theory terms, there are already at least 10 defectors, so viable options shrink.

Pepe looks like the weak link of the named respondents.

-dB

Very good point. Maybe Lance gets burned with the bad PR no matter which way he turns.