Political influence to protect dopers

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
the big ring said:
Our?

"being asked to do **** like this all day, [instead of?] real cancer patient research this stuff."? <--- this sentence makes no sense.

They haven't been cancer research for years.
Ok let me spell it out then as you seem to ask for clarification.

Doug Ulman, Livestrong CEO is being asked to do s**t like this all day (political influencing), by Lance. What he is doing ("this stuff", ie political influencing) is "real cancer research" (it's a cynical expression - hmm, got it?)

"Our" refers to one of the key guys "we" are focused on - Doug Ulman - as one of LA's key puppets.

I am quite aware of the "not doing cancer research for years". But that's what the broader public that signed up for Livestrong still believes as it is what they were sold into in the early days.

Any other clarifications or doubts feel free to PM me, rather than clog the thread.
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
Just wasted some time looking at @raceradio onTwitter ! It made no sense to me since it was a bunch of disconnectd tweets !

With Comments by Raceradio in the Clinic i was able to move around to find the basis of the replies a understand the bulk of the discussion . Do not know if " The Hog " is going to twitter also but there also enjoyed the depth of insight displayed .

Losing people of this calibre makes the clinic a poorer place to visit for info which commenters like these provide from their network of resources .

Perhaps CNF knows the identities of these and other long term posters so can use a " Verified " symbol against their chosen avatur so that readers will know the quality of the info supplied ! Ialso think that " Senior Member " should only to those with at least ONE year or/and 500 posts in the forum .

Having read the 140+ posts in this thread today , i can see how difficult it is to control content and keep THreads on track .

We , the readers , are the losers when the likes of Radiorace & The hog , fail to offer the value that they rendered in the past !
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
I realise it's dramatised, but if you're not an American, or even if you are but don't get the whole lobbying thing, I watched a film last night that puts vision to the process. Plus it has one of my favourite actors in it.

Casino Jack.

Contemporary enough to have Senator John McCain in it, so it's not going to challenge your political memory with a history lesson.

I think it is very easy to laud Livestrong and perhaps people have no problem with the (I consider dirty) process used to influence politicians via lobbying. Having seen the "reality" of this lobbying process dramatised in a movie, the $1.5M Livestrong donation to California earlier this year and the support then shown by California's state senators makes a whole heap of sense.

I'd welcome any other movie suggestions that would help further exemplify the sorts of things Armstrong's cabal are doing in their PR fight. Poltical preferably or we'll have to take it to another thread ;)
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
the big ring said:
I realise it's dramatised, but if you're not an American, or even if you are but don't get the whole lobbying thing, I watched a film last night that puts vision to the process.

I think it is very easy to laud Livestrong and perhaps people have no problem with the (I consider dirty) process used to influence politicians via lobbying. Having seen the "reality" of this lobbying process dramatised in a movie, the $1.5M Livestrong donation to California earlier this year and the support then shown by California's state senators makes a whole heap of sense.
You are right. There are fundamental differences in how people view lobbying, USA vs rest of world. Same goes for the associated topic of "fund raising". These are largely USA driven disciplines. Outside USA much of this would be considered "exerting undue influence". Interestingly even in USA this isn't as supported as before. Refer Obama's bill to reduce lobby influence in Washington.

Not a big movie fan myself but one of my favorites on the general topic of undue influence is Tin Men with deVito 1987 :).
 
Feb 25, 2011
101
0
0
I received a response from Senator Feinstein to my letter from a few weeks ago, since it is buried in the thread, here is my original letter:
Dear Senator Feinstein,

I'm very upset that you are considering inserting yourself in the affairs of the United States Anti-Doping Agency. I'm a former elite cyclist who competed without the use of performance enhancing drugs and raced against Lance Armstrong and most of the witnesses against him at one point during my career. I have had numerous former teammates and competitors investigated by USADA and some have been sanctioned while others have not. From my understanding, the deciding factor between those who have been sanctioned, and those who have not, has had nothing to do with vendettas or witch hunts, as Mr. Armstrong alleges. It's been strictly based on evidence.

I believe USADA has done an excellent job of investigating and sanctioning athletes for drug use in olympic sports, in accordance with their mission as defined by the Amateur Sports Act. I think their $10 million annual budget is a small price to pay to help preserve fair competition and clean sport, as well as the reputation of United States athletes. No senators or representatives, including yourself, got involved when Phil Zajicek received a similar lifetime ban, for a similar "non-analytical positive." From what I can tell the treatment USADA has given athletes has been very uniform and consistent. What isn't uniform or consistent is legislators choosing to get involved in the process strictly for one athlete, when they never did so for others.

Mr. Armstrong's doping offenses were as great as any other athlete in the history of sport. You would have seen this, had he not opted out of arbitration. His actions had a profoundly negative effect on the image of US sports, the anti-doping process and especially on clean athletes such as myself. If USADA were to ignore these offenses it would be a case of gross negligence.

I would imagine that in justifying your involvement you probably use his foundation as reasoning. Please read the following article: http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor....html?page=all for more information on the truth behind the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Take careful note of the distinctions between Livestrong.com and Livestrong.org and Mr. Armstrong's choice to use his charity to benefit himself.

Please uphold the honor of the United States Senate and continue to let the USADA do it's job protecting clean sport.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXX
Dear XXXXX:

Thank you for writing to me regarding your support for the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, USADA is the anti-doping agency for Olympic sports in the United States and is funded predominantly by Congress. USADA helps to ensure that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs are kept out of Olympic, Pan-American and Paralympic sports.

On August 23, 2012, Lance Armstrong dropped his challenges to USADA's investigation into an alleged doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2011 involving Mr. Armstrong and nine other cyclists. According to Mr. Armstrong, though he never failed a drug test, he was tired of continuously disputing doping allegations. USADA, which claims it has "overwhelming evidence" against Mr. Armstrong, has since stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles and banned him indefinitely from the sport.

With regard to your support for funding USADA, on June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, passed out of Committee the "Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2013" (S. 3301), which contains $9 million for USADA for anti-doping activities for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13), level funding from the previous fiscal year. The House has proposed to fund USADA at $9.5 million for FY13. Should S. 3301 be approved by the Senate, it will need to be reconciled in Conference Committee with the House version before it can be signed into law by the President.

It is important for me to know of your support for funding USADA as Congress makes difficult decisions about what federal programs to maintain, reduce, or eliminate. Spending cuts are taking place across all areas of government, and I am working to promote a comprehensive solution to deficit reduction that includes increased revenues. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress continues the appropriations process for FY13.

Again, thank you for writing. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.


Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
Race Radio said:
And it continues

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=309538

Here is the document

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106584121

Conyers also tried to do the same for Marion Jones and the Sensenbrenner is Trek's congressman
RR, what's the prognosis? How fast can this move through Congress? I don't see how Congressional meddling can stop the USADA's "reasoned decision" and, at that point, the USADA won't matter, right? The outcome will be in the hands of UCI and CAS (and ASO), will it not?
 
Doesn't sound like the bill is changing anything, besides USADA reporting to congress:

The Act ensures that all athletes are (1) served with written specific charges, (2) given a reasonable time to prepare their defense, and (3) afforded a full and fair hearing. It also creates new reporting requirements. USADA must provide Congress with an annual report summarizing its enforcement activities and must provide congress with written notice when it amends its rules.
Although this is vague overview language, would the LA case have been approached any differently, had this bill been in place?

Due process keeps getting thrown around, but people seem not to internalize its meaning
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Page Mill Masochist said:
RR, what's the prognosis? How fast can this move through Congress? I don't see how Congressional meddling can stop the USADA's "reasoned decision" and, at that point, the USADA won't matter, right? The outcome will be in the hands of UCI and CAS (and ASO), will it not?
It is a complete waste of time and it will go nowhere. What makes this odd if Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and their staff are well aware of the USADA process but did this anyways. As USADA said in their press release

looked forward to communication with the congressmen and encouraged them to read Sparks' ruling.
it appears the Congressmen have no intention of listing to facts
 
Race Radio said:
It is a complete waste of time and it will go nowhere. What makes this odd if Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and their staff are well aware of the USADA process but did this anyways. As USADA said in their press release



it appears the Congressmen have no intention of list(en)ing to facts
Full status quo then.

Dave.
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
thirteen said:
USA Today has always been reflexively favorable to Armstrong over the years. But in this story they let Travis Tygart have the last word -- and it's more than a quick quote. It's really good stuff. Bravo, Tygart. He has proven himself alert, steady and PR savvy throughout this whole process:

"The current process is a result of over a decade of collaboration between the athletes, the national sport federations and the U.S. Olympic Committee, all of which have approved the rules handed to USADA to operate," Tygart said. "For every celebrity athlete who complains about the process when their cheating with performance-enhancing drugs is about to be or has been revealed, we have thousands of clean athletes who are enthusiastic supportersof USADA, its mission and its process which already provides most of what this bill calls for. I hope that Congressmen Sensenbrenner and Conyers will keep the nation's clean athletes in mind when they consider policy changes in this area."
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
Race Radio said:
What makes this odd if Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and their staff are well aware of the USADA process but did this anyways. . . it appears the Congressmen have no intention of listing to facts
Conyers and Sensenbrenner are both regarded as whackadoodles.

Here is what the Detroit Free Press wrote about Conyers two months ago:

"[H]is energy has slowed and he is not delivering for his district the way he used to, or the way he should be.

Then there is the matter of his wife, Monica, who's serving a federal prison sentence for shaking down vendors when she was a member of the Detroit City Council; implausibly, the congressman swears he knew nothing of the conspiracy she pled guilty to taking part in. ..."

Source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/07/conyers-gets-an-awkward-endorsement-129009.html

Sensenbrenner made news last year when he insulted Michelle Obama's bigg ****:

Source: http://hollywoodlife.com/2011/12/22/jim-sensenbrenner-michelle-obama-insult/
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
The political machinations we're now witnessing adds credence to the notion that it was political pressure that led to federal investigation into Armstrong's PED use being dropped. Thankfully, Travis Tygart actually has a pair, unlike that eunuch Andre Birotte.
 
Jul 15, 2010
464
0
0
Am I brilliant or did Dopestrong have the option to appeal but decided not to. How can you complain about due process when you don't even bother to appeal?
 
Zweistein said:
Am I brilliant or did Dopestrong have the option to appeal but decided not to. How can you complain about due process when you don't even bother to appeal?
Just to use the right lexicon: He denied an opportunity to go through arbitration. He could have appealed the result of that arbitration, but he never engaged in it the first place. But yes, you're right
 
The Times is a bit more critically reflective:

Before the judge dismissed the case, Sensenbrenner sent a letter to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, which provides a majority of the antidoping agency’s budget. In it, he defended Armstrong, using arguments identical to those used by Armstrong’s legal team.
Of Sparks's decision, they also note the outcome without trying plant little seeds of doubt in Armstrong's favor:

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying the antidoping agency’s arbitration rules were robust enough to handle Armstrong’s case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/sports/cycling/congressmen-seek-more-oversight-of-us-antidoping-agency.html
 
Race Radio said:
It is a complete waste of time and it will go nowhere. What makes this odd if Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and their staff are well aware of the USADA process but did this anyways. As USADA said in their press release



it appears the Congressmen have no intention of listing to facts
Whew..thanx for reassurance
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Race Radio said:
Here is the best part. Sensenbrenner had little to do with this. It comes from one of his staff members who is huge Armstrong groupie/Tri geek. The old man likely did not even read it
That is interesting.

The timing of this was not well thought out. Trivial research would have shown that it would be smarter to wait a couple of weeks to see what fallout comes from the USADA's decision. With the election, nothing will happen any time soon so there is no reason to stick Sensenbrenner's neck out. Sensenbrenner should be upset with the incompetence of his staff.
 
BroDeal said:
That is interesting.

The timing of this was not well thought out. Trivial research would have shown that it would be smarter to wait a couple of weeks to see what fallout comes from the USADA's decision. With the election, nothing will happen any time soon so there is no reason to stick Sensenbrenner's neck out. Sensenbrenner should be upset with the incompetence of his staff.
Canada has a Senator with Alzheimers. (no kidding - they just haven't come up with an excuse yet for the rest of them)

Using the standard 10:1 population analogy, is Sensenbrenner even capable of understanding?

Dave.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY