USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[the big ring]

--

Lance hasn't retired, dude. He's been banninated.

 

[gree0232]

Lance hasn't retired, dude. He's been banninated.

Thanks for that scintillating rebuttal that addressed none of the points and does nothing for cyclng or anti-doping. Another Lance hater out for the white whale ...

 

[MarkvW]

What about all the other riders who claim they have no idea what they are talking about?

Right, omerta - conspiracy ... not a lot of evidence.

Onec again, if you know EXACTLY what is going on, and yet find it hard to produce evidence to back up statements?

The simple fact of the matter is that there statements were looked into by a CRIMINAL investigation, and the case they made did not rise to the standard to bring charges.

And this is about that process, and, quite frankly, if this is what it takes to get ONE cyclist? Then the anti-doping process is fundamentally flawed.

Take a good look at what AFLD did when they nabbed Ricco et. al. They knew what the guys were doing, they designed the tests to nab them ... viola, incontrovertable proof. That is what successful anti-doping looks like.

However, when Bradley Wiggins wins a tour and is sucker punched with cowardly innuendo and baseless accusations sans proof? How are a bunch of people hurling accusations from the shadows ... right? Productive?

Wiggins was right when he called such antics the c-word.

You don't have to 'love' Lance Armstrong to find the current process fundamentaly flawed in terms of due process.

Worse, as I scan the headlines on cyclingnews, I am not seeing anything new - I see **** Pound and Paul Kimmage - exacting their pound of flesh. It appears to be old hat, the CPT Ahab's of cycling out after the white whale.

Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.

Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...

Added bonus, it keeps the ingrained politics of UCI vs. WADA, etc. out of the process entirely. Which side wins? The side that presents the evidence and makes the best case ... as it should be.

Why isn't it?

When will you stop posing argumentative questions?

Just wait, you'll see the full force of the evidence soon enough--evidence that caused Lance to quit rather than fight.

 

[the big ring]

Thanks for that scintillating rebuttal that addressed none of the points and does nothing for cyclng or anti-doping. Another Lance hater out for the white whale ...

Lance isn't even on my radar, dude. He's been banninated.

My hate is reserved solely for the UCI. The real bad guys in all this.

Say it with me. Banninated.

 

[Animal]

"viola"...

Just goes to show...

 

[TexPat]

"viola"...

Just goes to show...

That's what Christophe Bassoon always said.

 

[hektoren]

You don't have to 'love' Lance Armstrong to find the current process fundamentaly flawed in terms of due process.

Worse, as I scan the headlines on cyclingnews, I am not seeing anything new - I see **** Pound and Paul Kimmage - exacting their pound of flesh. It appears to be old hat, the CPT Ahab's of cycling out after the white whale.

Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.

Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...

Added bonus, it keeps the ingrained politics of UCI vs. WADA, etc. out of the process entirely. Which side wins? The side that presents the evidence and makes the best case ... as it should be.

Why isn't it?

To answer your last question first, unless the WADA-code is adopted by every nation under the sun and hard-coded into their laws, there is no indication that the individual court systems in sum would be a better system than CAS. And you're wrong, the three-man panel doesn't award two seats to the accusers. They get to choose one each and'll have to agree on the third.

YOU say that this process has been flawed in terms of due process, I say that you don't know what you're talking about. Where are the flaws, exactly?

And please spare us the crap of "an adversarial system governed by objective judges". Show me ONE objective judge! A mousetrap is quite objective when the sentence is handed down, but can be fooled.

 

[JA.Tri]

Kimmage

Removing the "cancer"

JIC you have not seen (probably posted on forum somewhere):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Excellent summation.

ps included link because if you are like me, I have been relying on others, while I spend all my time on the forums.

 

[aphronesis]

When will you stop posing argumentative questions?

Just wait, you'll see the full force of the evidence soon enough--evidence that caused Lance to quit rather than fight.

No I suspect you're here ofg: tell me Mark: how did the USDA jump alive in the past couple of years and find all this radical evidence?

 

[Sandeep]

This constant portrayal of Armstrong as the Great White Whale is very grating. He had the financial resources and the administrative recourse (Arbitration, CAS, a return to Sparks) to challenge these charges.

Yet he chose not to. And is getting on with his life. He hasn't bothered to defend himself. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to be willing to stand up for him instead.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that an innocent man would walk away from the opportunity for justice.

 

[gree0232]

This constant portrayal of Armstrong as the Great White Whale is very grating. He had the financial resources and the administrative recourse (Arbitration, CAS, a return to Sparks) to challenge these charges.

Yet he chose not to. And is getting on with his life. He hasn't bothered to defend himself. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to be willing to stand up for him instead.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that an innocent man would walk away from the opportunity for justice.

He spent 17 years fighting the charges and winning. When someone creates an entirely new system just to get you ... what's the point? CPT Ahab is after the white whale and will pursue him into retirement ... so ... what?

I suppose he should do what Floyd did? Go bankrupt fighting the charges, and then, in a fight of vengence go after the entire peloton? And that helps ... what?

The simple fact of the matter is that if people would actually apply standards, they would see why LA did what he did:

"A USADA proceeding would force Mr. Armstrong to arbitrate about jurisdiction in at least two, and perhaps three, arbitrations – AAA and then CAS – and perhaps later in a Swiss court. Then, when even USADA’s unfair multi-stage process confirms that USADA does not have authority or jurisdiction, USADA would then be free to submit the file to UCI for consideration and referral and start what would be another review by CAS prior to any dispositive proceeding. It is fundamentally unfair to put Mr. Armstrong through that costly and time-consuming process, particularly when it is already clear that USADA does not have authority to bring these charges. Mr. Armstrong will, instead, respect the decision of UCI with every confidence that his position should and will be vindicated through independent review by authorities with lawful jurisdiction over this matter. As you are aware, this has been the exclusive and required procedure invoked for every international cyclist except Mr. Armstrong."

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/2012/Bock-letter.pdf

Why bother wasting your time in a kangaroo court where, even if you win, the CPT Ahab's of cycling will just take you to a different jurisdiction? Why not force USADA to actually produce the evidence and then actually get a fair hearing?

Well, using one brain rather than commiting financial suicide is not cathartic enough for the Lance Haters?

If you doubt the claim of the white whale, the please tell me why we are only hearing the same tiured old voices? The Andreau's? Pound? Kimmage? Absolutely nothing new ... just the White Whalers who will take their Crusades to the grave - and where I get worried, is where they decide to create entirely new legal processes quite clearly aimed just at getting Lance ... and presumeably any other cyclist who stands up to their insinuations without proof ...

Like Bradley Wiggins.

I wonder who through out those anonymous accusations of his doping in this TdF? Time the shadowy accusers learn how to use a fair system like everyone else in the world.

If we are so concerned with cheating? Well, what do you call creating an entirely new process, from an agency that does not have jurisdiction, trying alleged crimes in Europe, against non-US citizens (one of whom is already acquitted by an Italian Court), where innocence must be proven against evidence that has not been presented?

Well, that certainly sounds like doping due process to me.

 

[ebandit]

Truth

No I suspect you're here ofg: tell me Mark: how did the USDA jump alive in the past couple of years and find all this radical evidence?

even the greatest amount of spin/collusion can't bury the truth for ever

lance recognised that the truth was not going to be hidden any longer and backed off.................banned!

no contest

lance has accepted that reality..............he is no longer worthy of support on his behalf

 

[rhubroma]

Removing the "cancer"

JIC you have not seen (probably posted on forum somewhere):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kimmage-uci-needs-root-and-branch-surgery

Excellent summation.

ps included link because if you are like me, I have been relying on others, while I spend all my time on the forums.

I can only quote myself in having said before pretty much what Kimmage thinks in this piece. The only thing I regreted about Paul's positions was his wishy-washy and contradictory take on Vaughters and Garmin. Otherwise, amen.

It is truly a shame to see cycling, the most beautiful sport to me, dragged through the mud like this. Though in this case it is not the fault of USADA, but entirely his, Armstrong's, alone. Yet I’m sorry to say at this point, to reform it, it must be torn down to the foundations. For it can’t be reformed unless it is first torn down. Naturally this should also be done as well with European and World Cup soccer and the major American sports, chief among them football, where, apart from the doping, a significant degree of corruption, hypocrisy, mendacity, baseness has always been the order of the day within the teams and the governing federations, as the Joe Paterno case revoltingly has demonstrated. But these sports are too mighty and make far too much wealth circulate to make them easy targets, unlike cycling, which in comparison to them is weak and poor and thus much easier to throw under the truck in the name of all sport.

 

[Velodude]

No I suspect you're here ofg: tell me Mark: how did the USDA jump alive in the past couple of years and find all this radical evidence?

I would have thought hauling fellow team members and team personnel before the Grand Jury in LA would have connected a lot of dots.

Expect to see the funding and sources of supply, muling and distribution of drugs being in evidence.

Evidence would not be limited to 10+ cyclists witnessing just Armstrong's dictatorial arranging of the team drug program and the administering of those drugs to LA.

 

[sniper]

I can only quote myself in having said before pretty much what Kimmage thinks in this piece. The only thing I regreted about Paul's positions was his wishy-washy and contradictory take on Vaughters and Garmin. Otherwise, amen.

agreed. he was praising Garmin/JV's anti-dopiong stance, yet at the same time expressing some concerns regarding certain decisions.

may I ask what's your take on Garmin /JV?
Should Kimmage have been more lauding or should he not have mentioned Garmin at all?

 

[Sandeep]

He spent 17 years fighting the charges and winning. When someone creates an entirely new system just to get you ... what's the point? CPT Ahab is after the white whale and will pursue him into retirement ... so ... what?

Why do you say that a new system has been created specifically for Armstrong? He's being held accountable to the same rules as everyone else. He signed up to them every time he renewed his cycling license. This atleast is my understanding.

I suppose he should do what Floyd did? Go bankrupt fighting the charges, and then, in a fight of vengence go after the entire peloton? And that helps ... what?

I believe that you are entitled to recover your legal costs if vindicated. Didn't the SCA payment include Lance's Legal costs? So he knows if he's innocent, that he can beat the charges and recover his money.

The simple fact of the matter is that if people would actually apply standards, they would see why LA did what he did:

"A USADA proceeding would force Mr. Armstrong to arbitrate about jurisdiction in at least two, and perhaps three, arbitrations – AAA and then CAS – and perhaps later in a Swiss court. Then, when even USADA’s unfair multi-stage process confirms that USADA does not have authority or jurisdiction, USADA would then be free to submit the file to UCI for consideration and referral and start what would be another review by CAS prior to any dispositive proceeding. It is fundamentally unfair to put Mr. Armstrong through that costly and time-consuming process, particularly when it is already clear that USADA does not have authority to bring these charges. Mr. Armstrong will, instead, respect the decision of UCI with every confidence that his position should and will be vindicated through independent review by authorities with lawful jurisdiction over this matter. As you are aware, this has been the exclusive and required procedure invoked for every international cyclist except Mr. Armstrong."

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/2012/Bock-letter.pdf

Why bother wasting your time in a kangaroo court where, even if you win, the CPT Ahab's of cycling will just take you to a different jurisdiction? Why not force USADA to actually produce the evidence and then actually get a fair hearing?

The evidence would have been turned over. Sparks ruling specifically states that USADA assured him/Armstrong that the evidence would be turned over before Arbitration. And it's extremely cynical to believe that if Armstrong was able to disprove/discredit the charges against him, that the process would continue regardless. The avenues for appeal are a safeguard for athletes, it's incredible that this is being viewed as a hindrance when it comes to protecting the rights of athletes.

Well, using one brain rather than commiting financial suicide is not cathartic enough for the Lance Haters?

If you doubt the claim of the white whale, the please tell me why we are only hearing the same tiured old voices? The Andreau's? Pound? Kimmage? Absolutely nothing new ... just the White Whalers who will take their Crusades to the grave - and where I get worried, is where they decide to create entirely new legal processes quite clearly aimed just at getting Lance ... and presumeably any other cyclist who stands up to their insinuations without proof ...

Perhaps it is time to finally acknowledge that the 'same old voices' deserve to be heard. Again, he could have dismantled these 'same old voices' in the appropriate setting, but he chose not to.

Like Bradley Wiggins.

I wonder who through out those anonymous accusations of his doping in this TdF? Time the shadowy accusers learn how to use a fair system like everyone else in the world.

If we are so concerned with cheating? Well, what do you call creating an entirely new process, from an agency that does not have jurisdiction, trying alleged crimes in Europe, against non-US citizens (one of whom is already acquitted by an Italian Court), where innocence must be proven against evidence that has not been presented?

Well, that certainly sounds like doping due process to me.

Bradley Wiggins can fight his own battles. You do realise that you're jumping to the defence of athletes supported by billion dollar corporations, while having nothing but disdain for those who don't have such backing - the 'same old voices' that you casually dismiss.

As far as jurisdiction etc, a US Federal Court has ruled that they do indeed have jurisdiction. Are you saying that that's not good enough? You would prefer to take the UCI at it's word?

 

[Benotti69]

He spent 17 years fighting the charges and winning.........................more fanboyism

He actually didn't. His paid liars spent 17 years bullying and trying to sue people who spoke up.

He would not have had a cycling career if he spent 17 years fighting. He would not have had a tri career if he was fighting.

Emma O'Reilly who was a soigneur and masseuse for Armstrong on his USPS team for his first 2 wins was taken to court in order to get for 1miilion Euro by Armstrong for damages. He lost.

Armstrong called O'Reilly a prostitute. Once in court and again on another occasion. The guy is the lowest of the low.

 

[personal]

So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?

 

[Benotti69]

So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?

Let's hope so.

 

[ManInFull]

So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?

I'd like to understand why the investigation was all of sudden closed. It seems as if politics came into play.

I'll be satisfied with an overwhelming majority of the American public viewing him as a cheat and doper.

 

[ManInFull]

The simple fact of the matter is that there statements were looked into by a CRIMINAL investigation, and the case they made did not rise to the standard to bring charges.

Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.

Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...

Why isn't it?

First, we really don't know why the criminal investigation was closed. If you believe what was written, apparently the people actually doing the investigation were shocked when they were told that the investigation was closed. So, maybe it was closed for reasons other than what you claim.

Sure, maybe there should be some changes made to the arbitration process. However, I see absolutely no reason to change them simply because the defendant happens to be Lance Armstrong. He knew the rules and knew the process--that's why he spent oodles of cash to try to prevent the process from happening.

And their should be no argument that it is absolutely fine to take a close look at his blood samples from years 2009 and 2010. And it shouldn't take a positive drug test to determine if someone doped. The doping methods used today are very sophisticated. It should be clear that the reason that people gets positive is primarily due to their on stupidity.

 

[DominicDecoco]

 

[henryg]

So, any chance of reopening Novitzky's investigation?

I doubt it. To much money for potentially to little result.

Armstrong is now history. He's been exposed as a cheat and liar. His record will be relegated.

What cycling fans who want a clean sport should really be concerned about is the UCI. You can sanction a dozen Armstrongs and it won't change a thing if there is not a major house cleaning at the UCI.

Forget prosecuting Armstrong -hope that WADA and the IOC move against McQuaid.

 

[rhubroma]

agreed. he was praising Garmin/JV's anti-dopiong stance, yet at the same time expressing some concerns regarding certain decisions.

may I ask what's your take on Garmin /JV?
Should Kimmage have been more lauding or should he not have mentioned Garmin at all?

That Garmin/JV need to be more consistant and transparent. Above all any potential doings with JB is scandalous.

 

[Pantani_lives]

I'm still wondering about what happened in 2006-2008, when LA had retired for the first time. All of a sudden everybody seemed to be against doping. ASO, journalists, team leaders, David Millar and other riders made storng statements about the "new cycling". A lot of riders were caught. Landis, Rasmussen, Vinokourov, Schumacher and Ricco were expelled to Devil's Island.

Then came 2009. LA came back for the second time and was welcomed like a hero. The UCI regained control over the doping tests.

What happened in 2009 to explain this change?