USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

I will ignore the bluster and highlight the key point - again, you appear to not know that almost every other team has been sanctioned or disqualified in one way or another.

I would be quite happy with the same arrangement regardless of the team or rider.

 

[ChrisE]

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.

Who of his major competition during those seven years got busted? Only TH acting a buffoon, after he got warned at Romandie I believe playing roulette with blood bags.

We are meandering back into an argument we all had last year about who was protected and why nothing major happened in the TdF or to his main competition during those years. I don't care to rehash that.

Please point out where I am slamming those that accuse him. I have done no such thing. I am criticizing the system. There is a difference.

 

[python]

Python upthread noted the sanction can be reduced to 1/4 the original which would be 6 mos.

i never noted that but of course in your relentless drive to defend armstrong you are willing to attribute to anyone anything without bothering checking the facts.

 

[ChrisE]

I will ignore the bluster and highlight the key point - again, you appear to not know that almost every other team has been sanctioned or disqualified in one way or another.

I would be quite happy with the same arrangement regardless of the team or rider.

No, I know. And I have commented on each of them over the years. Even recently I reitterated my distaste for the whole OP fallout and especially the Valverde BS getting sanctioned due to an entity other than his ADA. Those that have gotten caught from the rules at hand I have zero problem with.

Obviously I think eyewitness testimony should be good enough to sanction. I have a disagreement with how it is handled here, if my assumptions are correct. If those that will be sanctioned were serving now, after admittance, then we would not be having this conversation.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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).

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.

I pointed out the problems in your scenario. You are presuming things you don't know to be true (as we all are to some extent), so make sure you are clear that your theory may very well be quite wrong. You're welcome.

 

[ChrisE]

i never noted that but of course in your relentless drive to defend armstrong you are willing to attribute to anyone anything without bothering checking the facts.

OK. I was going by memory but I thought I read it could not be reduced more than 75%, and I thought it was you. I am too lazy to scroll back. My apologies.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Where could the "cut deal" story have come from?

USADA? Not bloody likely.

The (American) riders? Not unless the all got together and snitched themselves off to foreign media outlets. Such unpatriotic masochism is unlikely.

The Co-Cons? Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner! But how do they know about the riders and the suspensions? Lance and his lawyers have already told us that they DON'T know who the witnessses are? Are they lying to us, or are they making stuff up? One or the other.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

My only point to Chris was this: before you get ****ed off make sure you know what you are ****ed off about.

We are all sitting around speculating about this whole thing. We don't know much, if anything, more that what the charging letter alleges. We don't know which riders doped themselves or just witnessed doping or even if this is a possibility.

So getting upset because current riders are not yet sanctioned has the cart way in front of the horse.


BTW, I think you are probably pretty close with the highlighted.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually, I just remembered there is precedence of delayed sanctions.

When Joe Papp was given his second sanction with USADA for trafficking it was not until last October and instead of the lifetime ban that a second offence could have gained it was reduced to 8 years.

From the CN article at the time:

"He has provided substantial assistance to anti-doping authorities, sharing information about ongoing criminal activity as well as potential anti-doping rule violations by athletes under USADA's jurisdiction and/or the jurisdiction of other anti-doping organizations," said the USADA.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

If we are just talking about one guy doping being sanctioned, you have a point. But what you and everyone here trying to discredit the USADA seems to miss is that this is about a conspiracy. Go ask a DA who has prosecuted one the difference between that and a singular prosecution of an individual. They are not even the same ballgame. This is the most comprehensive set of charges ever brought against a cyclist by a body charged with enforcing doping regulations. Never have we had the whole chain of the conspiracy charged. We have the suppliers, the pushers, and the user who wouldn't roll over.

I have said many times, the other guys in that letter are the point as much and actually more than is as Lance, but all anyone wants to talk about is the cherry. Understandable, but to pretend that the cake doesn't change the manner of proceeding is just ignorant.

 

[Velodude]

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.

"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."

Can you elaborate on your belief of Armstrong's right to interview the witnesses before the hearing?

Do you speculate the venue will be a restaurant of Armstrong's choice in Aspen, Colorado?

 

[python]

OK. I was going by memory but I thought I read it could not be reduced more than 75%, and I thought it was you. I am too lazy to scroll back. My apologies.

you are conviently claiming being lazy after being caught misrepresenting yet again. I said the wada code allows for 1/2 of a 2 year sanction and I was not sure where the 6 months came from.

 

[Race Radio]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, hard to keep up with this mess of a thread
http://drupal-sporten.tv2.dk/tour/2012-07-05-doping-indrømmelser-komplot-af-armstrong

"Armstrong camp working on the same scale as political campaigns. And the news has come out today, aims to bring the four riders into disrepute and make life miserable for them in the Tour de France. "

"Armstrong camp has private investigators on all involved parties. I think everyone who had anything to do with Lance Armstrong, will be on the front page of the newspapers the next week,"

 

[131313]

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.

A couple of things:

-just because they ostensibly admitted doping, it doesn't mean they've waived their right to a hearing. There's already precedence for this. Jerome Chiotti admitted to doping in April and was suspended in July? He continued to race during that time. And even though he freely admitted doping, he still requested a hearing, then appealed the decision (he won the appeal, BTW).
http://velonews.competitor.com/2001/01/news/chiotti-gets-light-sentence-from-tas_122

-there's no "maybe" about it. There are no hard and fast rules in WADA or USADA's bylaws regarding timing of sanctions

-regarding the very likely possibility that USADA is withholding sanctions to protect the riders rather than a courtesy, the recent actions of LA make that more likely than I believed at first. But I disagree with your suggestion that means that their suspensions could be delayed indefinitely. Once the witness statements are made available to the defense, there's certainly no need to keep their identity a (poorly kept) secret. In fact, it would be detrimental, since any witness intimidation could be more likely to be seen in the public view. I don't know the exact time frame for LA to get the evidence, but I know it's after the review board finding but before the formal hearing is heard. So, this line of reasoning falls down quite a bit, IMHO.

 

[thehog]

The Hincapie statement: http://www.bicycling.com/tour-de-fr...-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Video-_-hincapie-usada

Looks prepared. Interesting how he speaks of Lance.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

(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?

Those problematic words again.

 

[D-Queued]

Actually, I just remembered there is precedence of delayed sanctions.

When Joe Papp was given his second sanction with USADA for trafficking it was not until last October and instead of the lifetime ban that a second offence could have gained it was reduced to 8 years.

From the CN article at the time:

Thanks Dr. Mas.

This brings up the situation of Levi. He had a ~6 mo ban back in the '90s, and at least one stripped result as I recall.

The lie to this latest story and its universal 6 month bans could also be revealed by Levi's 'special case'.

Wagers on a lifetime ban being the cost of Levi's potential honesty?

(BTW, and not wanting to get flamed myself, I know that there is history here but I thought that Chris E was correct in citing Python as the provider of the WADA code extract that allowed suspensions to be reduced up to 75%. Anyhow, I did read the post and remember reading that section of THE CODE sometime in the past myself.)

Dave.

 

[Race Radio]

----- Sounds to me Armstrong has just p1ssed on entire peloton.

That is his goal. He does not have a workable exit strategy so he is going for scorched earth

 

[thehog]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, hard to keep up with this mess of a thread
http://drupal-sporten.tv2.dk/tour/2012-07-05-doping-indrømmelser-komplot-af-armstrong

The interesting part in the article is Matt Rendell. He believes the newspapers were "approached" with the story. Some choose to print others not...

 

[ChrisE]

you are conviently claiming being lazy after being caught misrepresenting yet again. I said the wada code allows for 1/2 of a 2 year sanction and I was not sure where the 6 months came from.

OK man. I really don't care to get into another pizzing match with you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK. I was going by memory but I thought I read it could not be reduced more than 75%, and I thought it was you. I am too lazy to scroll back. My apologies.

you are conviently claiming being lazy after being caught misrepresenting yet again. I said the wada code allows for 1/2 of a 2 year sanction and I was not sure where the 6 months came from.

Actually - it was moi that linked to the article in the Anti-doping rules (rule 301) that showed a ban can be reduced to "not less than a quarter".

And yes, I am way too lazy to go back and find where i posted it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

There has never been a case like this, and precedent is created by procedure and rulings in cases that are unlike any of those before them. That's how it works many times.

The idea that without precedent there is a "right way and a wrong way" completely negates itself. You divided by zero. The world will now end.

Again, I am guessing here a bit, but I think those involved with proceeding with this case (attorneys are certainly involved heavily) probably have a good handle on how and why they are proceeding in the manner they are. You can pretend this is some out of control ship with no rudder and no ethics about what they are doing, but that is in reality so far off the mark it would be laughable...if it weren't for the fact that is the precise PR game Gunderson is pursuing in his effort to thwart justice.

 

[ChrisE]

Actually - it was moi that linked to the article in the Anti-doping rules (rule 301) that showed a ban can be reduced to "not less than a quarter".

And yes, I am way too lazy to go back and find where i posted it.

Cool. I knew it was one of my hemorroids that provided this info.

 

[ChrisE]

There has never been a case like this, and precedent is created by procedure and rulings in cases that are unlike any of those before them. That's how it works many times.

The idea that without precedent there is a "right way and a wrong way" completely negates itself. You divided by zero. The world will now end.

Again, I am guessing here a bit, but I think those involved with proceeding with this case (attorneys are certainly involved heavily) probably have a good handle on how and why they are proceeding in the manner they are. You can pretend this is some out of control ship with no rudder and no ethics about what they are doing, but that is in reality so far off the mark it would be laughable...if it weren't for the fact that is the precise PR game Gunderson is pursuing in his effort to thwart justice.

Understood, but delaying sanctions as I have stated could make things messy. Again, I use the unlikely case of LL winning the tour. I still haven't heard how you legal eagles would handle that without making the sport more of a trainwreck than it already is.

 

[red_flanders]

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.

I don't know anything about what deal they may or may not have cut, so I can't comment on it. Nor do I really care, getting leniency for testimony isn't exactly a new concept. It's not like they have been bribed by some mob figures to make up some wild lark. Everything they say will have to be supported by evidence, and needs to be the same story.

I have no reason to think it won't be. I don't see where anyone does.