USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

You seem to be reading this as saying that sanctions for these riders cannot start until after the hearing process for LA and co. is finished. But the way I read it, it says that a sanction (“ineligibility”) already in effect prior to the hearing (which is almost always the situation in a doping case) cannot be reduced prior to finishing the hearing and any appeal. Thus Floyd could not have his sanction reduced during the period he was challenging the ruling.

These riders have already, we presume, confessed. They have waived their right to any hearing. The process for them is finished. So whatever the rationale for not suspending them now, it is not contained in this passage. The hearing has no bearing on their sanctions, except, I presume, if they reneged on what they testified earlier to USADA, there would be a greater sanction (two years instead of six months or whatever).

Not quite.

I am not suggesting that sanctions cannot be brought - but in all that sections about "substantial assistance" it does not say when a sanction must be applied.
Therefore, as USADA are not compelled to sanction it would be prudent to wait until after the larger conspiracy (for which the info is used) has been dealt with.

To the blue - while correct in normal cases, I am not sure if there has been a case or precedent like this?

To Chris’ point that started this, these riders are known to testify to the feds. Regardless of whether USADA has access to that testimony (as another poster pointed out, the government can’t share this testimony with USADA, because the latter is not a government agency), USADA would know they testified, and the riders would know that if they testified differently in front of USADA they might be in legal problem. Beyond that, as I explained in an earlier post that was ridiculed by several here, there are ways of getting their testimony beginning with Floyd and Tyler, and gradually widening the circle of implication. It’s not rocket science.

Agree - but i dont even believe it was that elaborate, once they admitted to the Feds they had cracked, remember the line, "The problem" said one source close to the investigation, "was not getting them to talk but to stop them from crying so they could continue talking"

 

[Anonymous]

Originally Posted by Merckx index

These riders have already, we presume, confessed. They have waived their right to any hearing. The process for them is finished.

The USADA charging letter stated that "numerous riders, team personnel and others will testify...."

Future testimony, not necessarily current or past testimony.

I'm wondering who the "others" are...

Bottom of page 10.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

 

[ChrisE]

I used to think you were smart but you actually have no idea.

MI's takes are the ones I respect the most on any cycling forum. The fact you think he has no idea ratchets that opinion up a few notches that I didn't think was possible.

We go back to my argument the other week with 131313 etal. The end game does not justify the means. If these riders are being sanctioned then it is BS it is waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season. Now, I will give the USADA benefit of the doubt and say this is not the case, but that falls back on no sanctions at all which in my mind is equally unethical. So wtf is it?

To say "if LA would have cooperated this wouldn't have...." is preposterous. If he would have admitted to USADA GH and LL would not be in this tour? Holding a reduced sentence over them so they will testify correctly? Right.

 

[ChrisE]

The USADA charging letter stated that "numerous riders, team personnel and others will testify...."

Future testimony, not necessarily current or past testimony.

LOL of course. USADA shook the magic 8 ball without knowing wtf they will testify to. You know what MI is implying. Scott you don't have to argue about everything.

 

[Anonymous]

MI's takes are the ones I respect the most on any cycling forum. The fact you think he has no idea ratchets that opinion up a few notches that I didn't think was possible.

We go back to my argument the other week with 131313 etal. The end game does not justify the means. If these riders are being sanctioned then it is BS it is waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season. Now, I will give the USADA benefit of the doubt and say this is not the case, but that falls back on no sanctions at all which in my mind is equally unethical. So wtf is it?

To say "if LA would have cooperated this wouldn't have...." is preposterous. If he would have admitted to USADA GH and LL would not be in this tour? Holding a reduced sentence over them so they will testify correctly? Right.

You are assuming the riders have already confessed.

 

[Anonymous]

LOL of course. USADA shook the magic 8 ball without knowing wtf they will testify to. You know what MI is implying. Scott you don't have to argue about everything.

All you gotta do, Chris, is read the letter. Just read it. Simple enough. I even put a link there for your convenience.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

MI's takes are the ones I respect the most on any cycling forum. The fact you think he has no idea ratchets that opinion up a few notches that I didn't think was possible.

We go back to my argument the other week with 131313 etal. The end game does not justify the means. If these riders are being sanctioned then it is BS it is waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season. Now, I will give the USADA benefit of the doubt and say this is not the case, but that falls back on no sanctions at all which in my mind is equally unethical. So wtf is it?

To say "if LA would have cooperated this wouldn't have...." is preposterous. If he would have admitted to USADA GH and LL would not be in this tour? Holding a reduced sentence over them so they will testify correctly? Right.

But where did you get that USADA are "waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season"?

USADA appear to be waiting until after the USPS case is finished, which is just like what would happen in normal criminal cases.

 

[ChrisE]

You are assuming the riders have already confessed.

And I just replied to you, and you are just being argumentative.

OK, I assume USADA has those riders by the balls. That's not far fetched IMO.

Or, USADA jumped into the delorean and learned they would testify, when called, they saw/know of LA doping?

 

[Anonymous]

But where did you get that USADA are "waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season"?

USADA appear to be waiting until after the USPS case is finished, which is just like what would happen in normal criminal cases.

From the mis-information campaign LA put out there today.

 

[ChrisE]

But where did you get that USADA are "waiting until after the 2012 european road cycling season"?

USADA appear to be waiting until after the USPS case is finished, which is just like what would happen in normal criminal cases.

(I am breaking my monthly vortex quota here but what the hell)

At this time they are not sanctioned. I think we can agree on that. I haven't watched any clips the last couple of days but I saw GH towing Cadel to the front of that last climb the other day in Belgium.

If they will be sanctioned, and if the hearing is Novemberish, then it would be after the season if the theory tossed about in here is correct.

Is there precedence of riders providing info for an investigation for leniency, and them not getting properly sanctioned until after a hearing/sanctioning of the entity they testified against?

 

[Anonymous]

And I just replied to you, and you are just being argumentative.

OK, I assume USADA has those riders by the balls. That's not far fetched IMO.

Or, USADA jumped into the delorean and learned they would testify, when called, they saw/know of LA doping?

Well dude, do as you wish. But before you go stomping around like someone kicked you in the jimmies maybe you should read the letter and carefully consider what it says.

There's plenty of time to be ****ed off when there's something to be ****ed off about. Like someone said earlier (assuming there are suspensions handed out) if LA wants the riders kicked out of the TdF today all he has to do is start talking to Tygart.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

(I am breaking my monthly vortex quota here but what the hell)

At this time they are not sanctioned. I think we can agree on that. I haven't watched any clips the last couple of days but I saw GH towing Cadel to the front of that last climb the other day in Belgium.

If they will be sanctioned, and if the hearing is Novemberish, then it would be after the season if the theory tossed about in here is correct.

It may be before November - but regardless, I doubt everything will be tidied up nicely in a short time. Indeed, you are one of those who believes LA will fight this all the way (I agree).

So, if sanctions are to be applied - it will be whenever the conspiracy case concludes.

Is there precedence of riders providing info for an investigation for leniency, and them not getting properly sanctioned until after a hearing/sanctioning of the entity they testified against?

I asked that upthread and as far as I know this is all new.

 

[ChrisE]

Well dude, do as you wish. But before you go stomping around like someone kicked you in the jimmies maybe you should read the letter and carefully consider what it says.

There's plenty of time to be ****ed off when there's something to be ****ed off about. Like someone said earlier (assuming there are suspensions handed out) if LA wants the riders kicked out of the TdF today all he has to do is start talking to Tygart.

I read the letter. And you are going on about verb tense. "They will testify", like heads are in the sand before that with your reply to MI. Scott, I am game to have a conversation with you but as I say you are just being argumentative. Let's move on.

So let's say he talks to Tygart. That would get LL or GH sanctioned? Surely you don't believe that. LA would come and admit he doped as GH or LL testified to, or he came and implicated them. Then they would be sanctioned? **** I can't even type this crap into this post without feeling like I am sniffing paint thinner.

It does seem that admitting doping while implicating others affords one a pass. I assume implication of LA has happened or the letter would not have been written. I assume, at this time, no repurcusions have happened to those because they are still racing. I assume they would not freely spill the beans on LA unless their balls were in some sort of legal vice. Of course I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

And, I assume you are all ok with this, or at least put on a front you are ok with that. I don't think you are in theory, but the subject at hand skews the ethics.

 

[D-Queued]

...

Perhaps we should start assembling a list of the cumulative tests that were passed by Hincapie, Vandeveld, Zabriskie, and Leipheimer?

On a side note, hearing Lance use the phrase "unconstitutional" is like hearing a Kardshian begin a sentence with "I think it was Shakespeare who said...."

Side note is hilarious.

I am curious as to when Levi, George, Christian, and Dave Z doped. And if there were any positive tests as opposed to other non-test evidence that USADA got a hold of.

Ask and ye shall receive.

USADA Statistics for Moto/USPS/Disco/LA Teammates:

Tests Athlete
62 Levi Leipheimer*
60 George A Hincapie
49 Christopher B Horner
47 David J Zabriskie
38 Christian J Vande Velde
32 Tom S Danielson
29 Lance E Armstrong
19 Tyler S Hamilton*
19 Kirk G O'Bee*
16 Floyd A Landis*
14 Robert W Julich
6 Chann McRae
4 Jonathan Vaughters

*Doping sanctions

Dave.

(Edit to add Chann McRae... could be another straggler or two for the list)

 

[ChrisE]

I asked that upthread and as far as I know this is all new.

And, that is my point. There is no precedence for whatever is going on unless we think all of the witnesses, that are still racing and we know all assume have doped in the past (else why would they have credible knowledge about LA, at a minimum), implicated LA on their own free will. Or, at least did so without implicating themselves or corroborating others about their own doping. I find that hard to believe, as do you.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. That has nothing to do with the fact on whether LA is guilty or not.

 

[131313]

It does seem that admitting doping while implicating others affords one a pass. I assume implication of LA has happened or the letter would not have been written. I assume, at this time, no repurcusions have happened to those because they are still racing. I assume they would not freely spill the beans on LA unless their balls were in some sort of legal vice. Of course I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

We don't know that it's bought them a "pass" as much as reprieve. Personally, I'm OK with it, to a point, for the simple reason that I understand that there has to be some incentive to get guys to testify when you're short on leverage. In this case though, I don't think they're that short on leverage. If they're still racing by this time next year's, I'll feel differently.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And, that is my point. There is no precedence for whatever is going on unless we think all of the witnesses, that are still racing and we know all assume have doped in the past (else why would they have credible knowledge about LA, at a minimum), implicated LA on their own free will. Or, at least did so without implicating themselves or corroborating others about their own doping. I find that hard to believe, as do you.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. That has nothing to do with the fact on whether LA is guilty or not.

Great - lets leave Armstrong out of this.

What we have is a very large conspiracy going on almost 2 decades that involves millions of dollars and relying on various ways to avoid the fraud being uncovered.

It involves an athlete, 3 Doctors, a Team manager and a trainer - then yes, if it means delaying sanctions to witnesses then USADA are doing the correct thing.

 

[Anonymous]

I read the letter. And you are going on about verb tense. "They will testify", like heads are in the sand before that with your reply to MI. Scott, I am game to have a conversation with you but as I say you are just being argumentative. Let's move on.

So let's say he talks to Tygart. That would get LL or GH sanctioned? Surely you don't believe that. LA would come and admit he doped as GH or LL testified to, or he came and implicated them. Then they would be sanctioned? **** I can't even type this crap into this post without feeling like I am sniffing paint thinner.

It does seem that admitting doping while implicating others affords one a pass. I assume implication of LA has happened or the letter would not have been written. I assume, at this time, no repurcusions have happened to those because they are still racing. I assume they would not freely spill the beans on LA unless their balls were in some sort of legal vice. Of course I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

And, I assume you are all ok with this, or at least put on a front you are ok with that. I don't think you are in theory, but the subject at hand skews the ethics.

I don't really know what exactly would happen. But if LA confessed I would think that would set wheels in motion to whatever has been agreed to regarding current riders.

You are (seemingly) upset that those current riders are not being sanctioned now. I merely point out what the letter says. It says they will testify... not that they have already testified.

I would also assume some (JV, Dave Z, Christian) might speak freely with much less coercion than say Levi or GH. That is pure speculation on my part.

I'm also guessing that once Floyd broke the omerta then this was going to happen and I would also guess some of these guys would gladly get the doping stories off their chest. Again, pure speculation.

 

[red_flanders]

And, that is my point. There is no precedence for whatever is going on unless we think all of the witnesses, that are still racing and we know all assume have doped in the past (else why would they have credible knowledge about LA, at a minimum), implicated LA on their own free will. Or, at least did so without implicating themselves or corroborating others about their own doping. I find that hard to believe, as do you.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. That has nothing to do with the fact on whether LA is guilty or not.

I wonder what the point is of debating the correctness of suspensions when the veracity of the suspension claim is in such doubt. No one has corroborated it and we now have reason to believe the entire story came from the defendants in this case.

I would want to know for sure the who, what, how and when before getting too far into worrying about any theoretical bans or suspensions.

 

[MarkvW]

And, that is my point. There is no precedence for whatever is going on unless we think all of the witnesses, that are still racing and we know all assume have doped in the past (else why would they have credible knowledge about LA, at a minimum), implicated LA on their own free will. Or, at least did so without implicating themselves or corroborating others about their own doping. I find that hard to believe, as do you.

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. That has nothing to do with the fact on whether LA is guilty or not.

USADA is obviously going about this the right way. Armstrong has the accusation. The ball is in his court. If he wants to fight, all he has to do is say so. If Armstrong fights, he will not only learn in advance who the witnesses are, he will have a chance to interview them before the hearing. Any suggestion otherwise is nonsense.

 

[python]

There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this. That has nothing to do with the fact on whether LA is guilty or not.

No. You are obfuscating yet again.
It has everything to do with Armstrong doping, which you seem to acknow

ledge only to quickly switch to slamming those who accused armstrong of doping.

If you care totally about anti doping precedents, you need think about how a 7 times tour winner who even you admit doped, avoided the fate his competition could not escape.

Add to that precednt, please.

 

[ChrisE]

Great - lets leave Armstrong out of this.

What we have is a very large conspiracy going on almost 2 decades that involves millions of dollars and relying on various ways to avoid the fraud being uncovered.

It involves an athlete, 3 Doctors, a Team manager and a trainer - then yes, if it means delaying sanctions to witnesses then USADA are doing the correct thing.

I don't agree, so we will just leave it at that.

I am all for reduced sentences for cooperation. I had a "discussion" with somebody on DPF about 8 years ago about what is the best deterrent for doping....short sanctions and leniency for cooperation, or harsh sanctions. I was orignally for the latter but I changed my mind.

"Reduced sentences" in my mind means just that. I don't apply some delayed application to it. As you ridiculed on the other thread, it would really throw a wrench in this grand bargain if LL won the tour. What if it was somebody that had a better chance in GC? What if it was 2007 LL? Then what? Python upthread noted the sanction can be reduced to 1/4 the original which would be 6 mos. Please point out all of the other leeway there is in the code.

As for your description of what happened on USPS etal, we can say that about any cycling team during that time.

 

[ChrisE]

I wonder what the point is of debating the correctness of suspensions when the veracity of the suspension claim is in such doubt. No one has corroborated it and we now have reason to believe the entire story came from the defendants in this case.

I would want to know for sure the who, what, how and when before getting too far into worrying about any theoretical bans or suspensions.

The BS article is not the issue. The issue is that those that we think cut some type of deal are still racing. If we all want to clean up cycling then let's clean it up.

 

[Merckx index]

Red, the nature of the suspensions may be in doubt, but surely not that there are suspensions. The USADA letter clearly states that these riders are testifying to doping. By the rules, they have to be sanctioned to some extent.

Scott, as Chris noted, the fact that they “will” testify doesn’t mean they haven’t already. It would be lunacy to go into a hearing without knowing exactly what the riders will say, and the only way to know that is to have heard them say it already. So the question is, why haven’t they been sanctioned already? Millar confessed in June 2004—to the police, not to a doping agency--and was suspended two months later. These guys have probably all testified a lot longer than two months ago.

Maybe, as Mas suggests, there is considerable leeway in when the sanctions can be applied, but it does sound like it’s being used for the convenience of these riders, rather than because it adheres to some well-defined rule. Maybe it’s rationalized that to suspend them would be to identify them, and expose them to possible intimidation. But if the rationale is because the case has not finished, that opens up a can of worms. This could easily go to CAS—with LA in play, maybe even beyond—meaning a couple of years. Are you going to let riders who have confessed to doping ride during that entire period? In two years, most of them may be retired, and would in effect get off without any suspension.

Another possibility, maybe, is that the sanction is retrospective. Maybe the riders will simply be stripped of all results for a six month period at some point during the past. I doubt this, but I don’t think it can be entirely ruled out. It might be more likely if the “past” were right now. That is, the riders might be allowed to compete until the case is finished, but results stripped from some period during this time. But it still seems like a clumsier way to go about this than simply to suspend them now.

 

[thehog]

Sad day when one is arguing that former USPS riders getting a "free pass" and Armstromg not.... the irony.

Tyler and Floyd peace be with you but I have to inform you Lance is getting a raw deal by USADA. Sorry.