USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

Yes,Anquetil believed the drugs were essential but it doesn't make it true.
This is how young riders are persuaded to dope in the first place.

In that era it was never seen as performance enhancing. Just survival. Bit of that, bit of this just to get you through. The term performance enhancing never came about until the late 80's/early 90's.

Young riders take lots of things when they're 16. I remember distinctly my club passing about ridiculous ideas that could help you. Bi-carb soda, herb supplements, viatim pills or anything you thought might help. The progression is not hard. Generally it starts once you inject viatims. After that it's normal to inject anything. It's just fluid.

Think of Armstrong. At 16 they were injecting him. No wonder he thinks it's normal. He knows no different. They told him to lie and just keep riding. It's worked all his life. Why stop now?

 

[Cal_Joe]

In that era it was never seen as performance enhancing. Just survival....

And exactly how was that perception different in later years? Guess it depends on how you define survival.

Sorry, I think you are making excuses.

 

[caryopsis]

Anyone else think it's funny that college's "Lance Armstrong 7 Time Tour De France Champion" signature has 7 asterisks at the end?

 

[Runitout]

Bartali doped? Really?

I'd love to see that substantiated. Goes against everything I've heard.

wow.one for one without even trying. Yes the kind of dope that Coppi,Bartali,Binda,Merckx,Kelly,Delgado,Museeuw,The Planckaerts,Andersen took did influence the outcome of races.You may even get some feedback here from a doper who used,sold and was convicted of all, and all done from tiny spaces,like basement apartments. You have some grand idea that cycling has quantumly leaped.
The intent is the same only the substances have changed. The fact that more cyclists are not included is telling. It's like Papp getting pumped, he turned over names that deserve investigation but the will to do so doesn't exist within the office,from local to federal. The USADA is getting busy to get press not to catch all,or even the majority,or even a bunch of dopers,just a select bunch of famous ones. Uneven application of the law,period.
When they give a yellow jersey to Jan or Ivan cycling will be more confusing than it currently is to you. The doping and dopers are there you just need to look. The ability to voice outrage via the interweb is the main difference

 

[Berzin]

Maybe you should start a separate fanboy hater thread.

Personal attacks on the character of the fanboys just start flame wars and end up making the thread stupid. Of course, If I was Lance Armstrong, that's exactly what I'd like to see forums critical of me devolve into.

You're not a moderator, so spare me the sanctimonious tripe.

 

[thorny59]

I beleive he had a few choice words about Mr. Landis and Mr. Hamilton.

i shoiudl of asked of the ones who have not spoken about him.

 

[joe_papp]

Which rules govern the various charges

Found a paper copy of a 2004 protocol in my files - section 10.4.2 of that version has the 4 years to life ineligibility period for trafficking.

As far as your other questions go, I think we are on new ground here and any issues about protocol changes/dates may not have ever been a previous issue.

If there have been rule changes that might come into play during the periods USADA is hinting at, I expect the LA team will press that quite hard.

USADA addresses this and makes clear which rule-sets they'll be applying.

Rules applicable to use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances or methods include:
UCI ADR 2 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 130 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.2 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.2 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.2 (2003-present);

Rules applicable to the possession of prohibited substances and/or methods include:
UCI ADR 135 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.6.1 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.6.1 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.6.1 (2003-present);

Rules applicable to trafficking include:
UCI ADR 135 (2001-04); UCI ADR 15.7 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.7 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.7 (2003-present);

Rules applicable to administration and/or attempted administration include: UCI ADR 54, §1-2 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.8 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.8 (2003-present);

Rules applicable to assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti—doping rule violations and/or attempted anti—doping rule violations include:
each of the above listed provisions and UCI ADR 54, §1-2 (1997-
2000); UCI ADR 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.8 (2009-present); Code Article 2.8 (2003-present); and

Rules applicable to aggravating circumstances include:
UCI ADR 305 (2009-present) and Code Article 10.6 (2009-present).

For a violation that took place under the 2003 terms of the Code but wasn't charged until after the 2009 version was adopted, the athlete is supposed to receive the lesser sanction, if there's a difference b/w the penalty under the two periods, iirc.

Handy to note:

"The 2009 Code provides for an increase of sanctions in doping cases involving aggravating circumstances such as being part of a large doping scheme, the athlete having used multiple prohibited substances or a prohibited substance on multiple occasions, or the athlete engaging in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation. Aggravating circumstances also include situations in which a normal individual would be likely to enjoy the performance-enhancing effects of the anti-doping rule violation(s) beyond the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility."

Presences of aggravating circumstances, in addition to charges of both Trafficking (2.7) and Administration of Prohib Substance/Method ensures USADA will be able to legitimately argue for lifetime bans for the conspirators.

In the 2003 Code, the minimum ban for trafficking or administration was four years, up to lifetime ineligibility...and it clearly states in the 2003 Code as well that accused who are involved in the doping other athletes or covering up violations should be subject to sanctions that are more severe than those meted out for a simple analytical positive.

What's funny though is reading the 2003 version of the Code, it looks like the violations Lance is accused of would be considered as one single first violation (rather than multiple violations) - but because of the trafficking charge, he can still face lifetime ban. So it all adds up to one long-running single violation, in terms of assessing penalties - I think lol.

It'll be interesting to see if the cases brought against the witnesses who testify against Lance are affected by the fact that:

"Incentives to come forward have also been strengthened.

The potential extent of the suspension of an ineligibility period (one-half of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period in the 2003 Code) has been enhanced to three-quarters of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period in the 2009 Code, for substantial assistance to an anti-doping organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the anti-doping organization discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another person.

In addition, where an athlete or other person admits voluntarily to committing an anti-doping rule violation prior to receiving notice of a sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation, or in circumstances where no anti-doping organization is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed, the period of ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable."

You can find the 2003 WADA Code here:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...Review/1st_Consultation/WADA_Code_2003_EN.pdf

You can find the 2009 WADA Code here:

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

You're not a moderator, so spare me the sanctimonious tripe.

Please stop respond to that grubby little troll. You thwart my efforts and undermine my ignore list when you quote him and I end up reading at least a few of his worthless words while identifying the quoted text as belonging to him. lol

 

[D-Queued]

Found a paper copy of a 2004 protocol in my files - section 10.4.2 of that version has the 4 years to life ineligibility period for trafficking.

As far as your other questions go, I think we are on new ground here and any issues about protocol changes/dates may not have ever been a previous issue.

If there have been rule changes that might come into play during the periods USADA is hinting at, I expect the LA team will press that quite hard.

Thanks.

Dave.

 

[131313]

Reading the idiocy regurgitated by fatandfast and college gets old. The "uneven application of the law" comment is especially stupid. As though federal agencies don't try to get underlings to testify against the heads of crime families. This whole "uneven application of the law" argument is unbelievably moronic. How devoid of any tether to reality does one have to be to write this stuff?

Well, let's face it, they've continually demonstrated that they only care about the really high-profile cases: Zajicek, Chuck Coyle, Josh Webster, Pete Cannell. And that's just cycling! Let's not forget about bringing down international paralympic archery sensation Jerry Shields...

Obviously they're enforcing their "rules" selectively, and only interested in going after high-profile cases to build there own stature:
http://www.usada.org/sanctions

This Tygert guy obviously is a bitter, attention-seeking low-life.

 

[joe_papp]

oh yeah USADA hunting only the superstars of cycling

Well, let's face it, they've continually demonstrated that they only care about the really high-profile cases: Zajicek, Chuck Coyle, Josh Webster, Pete Cannell. And that's just cycling! Let's not forget about bringing down international paralympic archery sensation Jerry Shields...

Obviously they're enforcing their "rules" selectively, and only interested in going after high-profile cases to build there own stature:
http://www.usada.org/sanctions

This Tygert guy obviously is a bitter, attention-seeking low-life.

Andrew Tilin (lol)
Jonathan Chodroff
Michael Diamond
David Clinger when he was a shell of his former self (sad, but not surprising, that he drew a lifetime ban for his clenbuterol positive, AFTER the testosterone and modafinil sanction - from Eagle Scout to smoking crack in tree )
Roger Hernandez
Kayle Leogrande
Dewey Dickey
Michael Miller
Andy Crater
Todd Robertson
my teammate Juan Pablo Dotti
my teammate Alberto Blanco
my teammate Jared Bunde
Lisban Quintero
Neal Schubel
Michael Lange
Nick Brandt-Sorenson
Flavia Oliveira
Mitch Comardo

and those are just the ones I remember off top of my head...

I think it's very important to acknowledge the fact that as this simple list shows, USADA does not selectively persecute high-profile cyclists. For every Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis, there are half-a-dozen or more age-group or amateur riders who've been caught, charged and convicted of (or admitted to) doping. The claims that Armstrong's making about this case being evidence of USADA's "obsession" with him are just more lies that the media is unfortunately allowing to go unchallenged, and which the useful idiots on my ignore list continue to regurgitate like the partially-digested food spat-up by a momma bird into the mouths of her helpless, wailing offspring.

 

[andy1234]

Andrew Tilin (lol)
Jonathan Chodroff
Michael Diamond
David Clinger when he was a shell of his former self (sad, but not surprising, that he drew a lifetime ban for his clenbuterol positive, AFTER the testosterone and modafinil sanction - from Eagle Scout to smoking crack in tree )
Roger Hernandez
Kayle Leogrande
Dewey Dickey
Michael Miller
Andy Crater
Todd Robertson
my teammate Juan Pablo Dotti
my teammate Alberto Blanco
my teammate Jared Bunde
Lisban Quintero
Neal Schubel
Michael Lange
Nick Brandt-Sorenson
Flavia Oliveira
Mitch Comardo

and those are just the ones I remember off top of my head...

That list is a good example of doping not turning donkeys into racehorses.
Donkeys remain donkeys, even when doped.

 

[D-Queued]

Andrew Tilin (lol)
Jonathan Chodroff
Michael Diamond
David Clinger when he was a shell of his former self (sad, but not surprising, that he drew a lifetime ban for his clenbuterol positive, AFTER the testosterone and modafinil sanction - from Eagle Scout to smoking crack in tree )
Roger Hernandez
Kayle Leogrande
Dewey Dickey
Michael Miller
Andy Crater
Todd Robertson
my teammate Juan Pablo Dotti
my teammate Alberto Blanco
my teammate Jared Bunde
Lisban Quintero
Neal Schubel
Michael Lange
Nick Brandt-Sorenson
Flavia Oliveira
Mitch Comardo

and those are just the ones I remember off top of my head...

...Kirk O'Bee...

There are 37 other cyclists that have had more tests conducted by the USADA over the last 12 years than Lance.

http://www.usada.org/athlete-test-history

If they were focusing on Lance, they were doing a very poor job.

Odd that the USADA's test count is only 29. Just over 1/20th of Lance's wild claim.

Where's the beef?

Dave.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

This is the USADA-Armstrong thread, remember?

Stay on topic. There are enough other threads to use for other comments.

Susan

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That list is a good example of doping not turning donkeys into racehorses.
Donkeys remain donkeys, even when doped.

All those donkeys (undoped) would leave you puking on the side of the road within a couple of miles. So lets keep perspective, okay?

 

[henryg]

That list is a good example of doping not turning donkeys into racehorses.
Donkeys remain donkeys, even when doped.

Depends on what sort of donkey. A talented rider who may never win a grand tour but could win a stage only needs a few percentage points of improvement and better recovery during the course of a stage race to make it onto the level of podium winners.

It won't turn a Cat 2 rider into a Tour winner but take the top 50 riders and give the bottom 25 EPO and you could rearrange the standings substantially. Would the GT winners of the 90's have been GT winners without EPO? Some would have, some wouldn't, there is now way to ever know who would have still been on top without dope.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Stop it with the donkeys here, please. They have their own thread.

This is USADA investigation ONLY.

Put the other stuff in the other threads. From here on off-topic postiings will face deletion by the mods.

Thanks.

Susan

 

[el hipopotamo]

Hi, been reading these forums for years, joined a little while back, realized I didn't have much to add (I'm just a fan of cycling, not an insider), so have yet to post. Didn't feel the need to bog down every thread by posting exactly what everyone else has already noted.

That out of the way, my understanding is that anyone charged has the right to an open hearing. The consensus here is that LA would likely want to keep things private, but what of the others who are under investigation? Suppose Pepe Marti, for instance, who presumably has a much smaller role in the alleged conspiracy than do the others, decides he's had enough of this nonsense. What if he wants an open hearing, even if the others do not? Maybe it isn't entirely up to Team Armstrong as to how much of the evidence is kept out of the public domain. Would the USADA hearing lump them all together or would there be a separate hearing for each of those who stand to be charged?

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed, I may well have missed it, 300+ pages is a lot.

 

[thehog]

Hi, been reading these forums for years, joined a little while back, realized I didn't have much to add (I'm just a fan of cycling, not an insider), so have yet to post. Didn't feel the need to bog down every thread by posting exactly what everyone else has already noted.

That out of the way, my understanding is that anyone charged has the right to an open hearing. The consensus here is that LA would likely want to keep things private, but what of the others who are under investigation? Suppose Pepe Marti, for instance, who presumably has a much smaller role in the alleged conspiracy than do the others, decides he's had enough of this nonsense. What if he wants an open hearing, even if the others do not? Maybe it isn't entirely up to Team Armstrong as to how much of the evidence is kept out of the public domain. Would the USADA hearing lump them all together or would there be a separate hearing for each of those who stand to be charged?

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed, I may well have missed it, 300+ pages is a lot.

What happens if Armstrong decides not to contest but there others do.... then the evidence gets out into the wild?

 

[131313]

That list is a good example of doping not turning donkeys into racehorses.
Donkeys remain donkeys, even when doped.

Actually, the list is a good example of the USADA not selectively prosecuting high-profile riders, and that's really about it.

That said, if you have any question about the results you can take a look of Zajicek after he stopped doping. He went from one of the best domestic pros to the back of the pack. No question that in relative terms he went from donkey to racehorse.

So, nice attempted obfuscation, but it doesn't change the fact that the USADA clearly doesn't selectively prosecute high-profile riders (or athletes in general), and anyone making that claim in simply lying.

Why does the mainstream press continue to let this slide, when the list of people charged by the USADA is in clear view for all to see?

p.s., why did my original post to that effect get deleted? Is Lance moderating? I'm glad Joe quoted it!

 

[MarkvW]

Hi, been reading these forums for years, joined a little while back, realized I didn't have much to add (I'm just a fan of cycling, not an insider), so have yet to post. Didn't feel the need to bog down every thread by posting exactly what everyone else has already noted.

That out of the way, my understanding is that anyone charged has the right to an open hearing. The consensus here is that LA would likely want to keep things private, but what of the others who are under investigation? Suppose Pepe Marti, for instance, who presumably has a much smaller role in the alleged conspiracy than do the others, decides he's had enough of this nonsense. What if he wants an open hearing, even if the others do not? Maybe it isn't entirely up to Team Armstrong as to how much of the evidence is kept out of the public domain. Would the USADA hearing lump them all together or would there be a separate hearing for each of those who stand to be charged?

Apologies in advance if this has been discussed, I may well have missed it, 300+ pages is a lot.

They are all charged together, and the default would appear to be that their hearings would be held together (because that's what USADA is asking for), but any one of them can ask to have a separate hearing from the others. That would then be a question that the arbitration panel would have to resolve.

If Lance's hearing goes away because he does not contest, then the others just move along in the 'combined' process unless they successfully ask the arbitrators to change it.

What if Pepe Marti tells Lance: "I can't afford a full blown Lance Armstrong-style scorched earth multimillion-dollar defense? I'm thinking about an open hearing, Lance. Can you help me financially?"

 

[131313]

Stop it with the donkeys here, please. They have their own thread.

This is USADA investigation ONLY.

Put the other stuff in the other threads. From here on off-topic postiings will face deletion by the mods.

Thanks.

Susan

Susan, I'm not sure why you moved my post? It's not my fault that others attempted to use it obfuscate the issue by bringing up the "donkeys to racehorses" thing... I think it's pretty central to the whole matter of the USADA and LA, since it goes directly to contradict the ridiculous claim that the USADA is selectively prosecuting high-profile athletes. In short, I think you moved the wrong post.

 

[Kennf1]

They are all charged together, and the default would appear to be that their hearings would be held together (because that's what USADA is asking for), but any one of them can ask to have a separate hearing from the others. That would then be a question that the arbitration panel would have to resolve.

If Lance's hearing goes away because he does not contest, then the others just move along in the 'combined' process unless they successfully ask the arbitrators to change it.

What if Pepe Marti tells Lance: "I can't afford a full blown Lance Armstrong-style scorched earth multimillion-dollar defense? I'm thinking about an open hearing, Lance. Can you help me financially?"

It'll be interesting to see if any of the others charged will actually lawyer up and come to the U.S. for the full-blown arbitration. Bruyneel may have to, just to protect his current status in the sport. Del Moral is already viewed as toxic. Ferrari has been banned from the sport in Italy for the last 10 years.

 

[MarkvW]

It'll be interesting to see if any of the others charged will actually lawyer up and come to the U.S. for the full-blown arbitration. Bruyneel may have to, just to protect his current status in the sport. Del Moral is already viewed as toxic. Ferrari has been banned from the sport in Italy for the last 10 years.

If they default and Lance contests, Lance will take a brutal PR hit. The findings of the arbitrators will make interesting reading.

From Lance's perspective, the possibilities are really variable. More variability means more thinking means more billable hours. Right now, Lance is hemorrhaging money. Lawyers, investigators, public relations massagers . . . with no end in sight.

I know Lance is rich, but is he rich enough to fight this kind of a war?

My guess is that Lance, after consulting with all of his lawyers and PR people, decided that he was going to ignore the doping process. Then he got hammered with the unexpected challenge to all of his wins--with a conspiracy to cover-up thrown in. Then he broke with his game plan and started to go thermonuclear ***.

Lance's lawyers and PR people are not going to tell Lance what to do. They are going to advise him (and they are going to be boundle$$ly happy if Lance chooses to fight). I expect Lance is really squirming right now. I'd bet that he has not yet fully decided what he is going to do--and that's another permutation for his very expensive professionals to consider.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I feel pretty certain that none of them would want the information to be public domain. I would guess that they will all want a closed hearing. I hope I'm wrong though.

 

[MarkvW]

I feel pretty certain that none of them would want the information to be public domain. I would guess that they will all want a closed hearing. I hope I'm wrong though.

But to get a closed hearing, they have to request a hearing. That requires a commitment to spend a very significant amount of money.

Are these non-rich players going to bankroll all that? Is Lance going to bankroll all that?