USADA - Armstrong

[D-Queued]

Discovery Channel has a reportage on Lance's story, and his doctor says 40%.
BTW, thanks to medicine and doctors who have saved his live.

Disco?

Dave.

 

[ggusta]

According to the book, Armstrong was originally told a 90+% figure. Then as more work was done, and they found the the cancer had metastasized, the estimates dropped, to 70+ percent (abdomen) and then "almost a coin flip" (brain). Eventually Armstrong was told 30-40%. However, doctors try to give patients hope, and Scott Shapiro (the brain surgeon) later said he thought the chances were a few percent.

Those were the estimate for surviving. Virtually nobody gave him a realistic chance of being an effective bike race.

However, to me, "miraculous" is in a different category of odds.

Why are we discussing this in this thread? I am happy for anyone that beat such odds, it doesn't give them a free pass. OJ Simpson overcame racism, zero acting ability and playing for a cruddy team to have a great Hollywood career after football. What did that entitle him to? It's 2 separate issues.

He was in incredible physical condition and was employed professionally in a successful career where one's ability to endure suffering longer than one's opponent can mean the difference between keeping your job and losing it. I have no doubt it was very advantageous in beating the odds.

 

[PedalPusher]

Armstrong's cancer was in 1996. The 1997 estimates are the relevant ones for that reason. That's just false that he had a highly survivable cancer (even now). It is irrelevant to the question of doping except some other people have tried to make it relevant by suggesting Armstrong also fabricated the severity of his cancer. That's a pretty tasteless argument, in my opinion, and one not supported by the relevant case studies.

It's not false even now, the newest data supports that. I didn't pull it out my ****. But i am not going to get into this discussion, off topic and irrelevant. It was touched on originally to explain the psychology of the man.

Back to the topic at hand, "RICO" Suave...

 

[poupou]

Disco?

Dave.

Yes, I wanted to say : make by Discovery Channel. I saw it on youtube there is a few year.

2 points about Lance's cancer:

1. He did'nt beat it. Cancer was probably beaten for 99.9 % by medicine, doctors and science... Lance's contribution is very low.

2. I am used with high mountains practise, and most of my friends who have seen death very closely, are saying they are on life bonus, no reason for them to stop what they do.
So I don't believe that doper would stop to dope after having health problem.

Who have stopped to drive his car after a serious crash? How many people are still smoking after cancer?

 

[D-Queued]

Yes, I wanted to say : make by Discovery Channel. I saw it on youtube there is a few year.

2 points about Lance's cancer:

1. He did'nt beat it. Cancer was probably beaten for 99.9 % by medicine, doctors and science... Lance's contribution is very low.

2. I am used with high mountains practise, and most of my friends who have seen death very closely, are saying they are on life bonus, no reason for them to stop what they do.
So I don't believe that doper would stop to dope after having health problem.

Who have stopped to drive his car after a serious crash? How many people are still smoking after cancer?

I was questioning the source, also the relevance.

Your points/analogies are excellent.

Dave.

 

[perfessor]

Why are we discussing this in this thread? I am happy for anyone that beat such odds, it doesn't give them a free pass.

One of the cornerstones of Armstrong's image, is the idea that he wouldn't take PED's after beating cancer, that he'd be "crazy" to do so, and he has a lot of people convinced of this. I think discussing other motivations seems useful -especially on a slow news day.

 

[BroDeal]

He was in incredible physical condition and was employed professionally in a successful career where one's ability to endure suffering longer than one's opponent can mean the difference between keeping your job and losing it. I have no doubt it was very advantageous in beating the odds.

Complete BS. You respond to the drugs or you don't. Attitude, how tough you are, how much suffering you can endure has nothing to do with it. In my case being in great shape was a disadvantage because I started with less than 8% body fat. Weight loss became a problem.

If you get stage 3 or 4 cancer, testicular cancer is what you want to have. For all intents and purposes you are compltely cured if the chemo works.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Take the cancer discussion to another thread, please. And this is NOT just a suggestion.

susan

 

[ManInFull]

Take the cancer discussion to another thread, please. And this is NOT just a suggestion.

susan

Thank you!

 

[Microchip]

... To repeat myself, this thread will remain civil and on-topic. Suspensions will be awarded liberally, if needed. In light of the topic of this thread, 30 days sounds good.

Susan

 

[Turner29]

Niklas Axelsson was caught twice doping with EPO. The first time before his testicular cancer, and the second time after he'd been cured. Maybe Axelsson hadn't been sick enough to understand about poison and death and such?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Axelsson

If Armstrong is a sociopath, one trait of such is that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes.

 

[ggusta]

If Armstrong is a sociopath, one trait of such is that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes.

I have been on a couple of websites trying to find the distinguishing traits from narcissist and sociopath and have yet to find definitive characteristics.
Let me know if there is one or two comprehensive articles.

Sorry if off topic although I think it's relevant to Lance, it's not relevant to USADA vs Armstrong.

Thanks.
gg

 

[mewmewmew13]

...Microchip you are great! That is so funny...

 

[mewmewmew13]

I have been on a couple of websites trying to find the distinguishing traits from narcissist and sociopath and have yet to find definitive characteristics.
Let me know if there is one or two comprehensive articles.

Sorry if off topic although I think it's relevant to Lance, it's not relevant to USADA vs Armstrong.

Thanks.
gg

Do a term search here...it's been gone over several times in some Armstrong thread...good luck with tracking it down though

 

[perfessor]

I have been on a couple of websites trying to find the distinguishing traits from narcissist and sociopath and have yet to find definitive characteristics.
Let me know if there is one or two comprehensive articles.

Sorry if off topic although I think it's relevant to Lance, it's not relevant to USADA vs Armstrong.

Thanks.
gg

I think it's very relevant. If Armstrong were not the way he is, this discussion (USADA vs Armstrong) would probably not be taking place. There is more than procedural law in what is happening.

 

[MarkvW]

I think it's very relevant. If Armstrong were not the way he is, this discussion (USADA vs Armstrong) would probably not be taking place. There is more than procedural law in what is happening.

Absolutely. This is emotionally charged lashing-out as much as it is anything else.

 

[Random Direction]

Absolutely. This is emotionally charged lashing-out as much as it is anything else.

If a tabloid or similar media were so inclined, they could create a public venue and audience and then entice Lance to lash-out. Setting him up wouldn't be too hard and there would be chance of a high payout if they were to capture the show.

That would be nasty of course, but it is within the realm of possibility now that Lance's reputation is getting darker and darker by the day.

 

[BotanyBay]

Suing the USADA is a classic example of the narcissism.

It's like challenging the air one breathes to a fight (or fighting city hall). Cain't do it.

 

[henryg]

Uh ohhhh.. USADA ***. They might lose all their funding now for pursuing a personal venddenta against LA. Way to go USADA... now they will have to back off or lose their funding..

The USADA is not intimidated in the least by this buffoon. There is nothing Sleezenbrenner can do within 30 days to shut this down. Only the court can do that and that is a long shot at best.

If Lance gets sanctioned and the evidence and sanctions hit the press Sensenbrenner will forget he ever knew Armstrong. Armstrong will be radioactive.

 

[Contadoraus Schlecks]

MOD NOTE: If you want to talk any aspects of the cancer question, please open another thread for that purpose. This thread is ONLY to discuss the USADA case.

Thank you.

Susan

 

[Benotti69]

This s probably somewhere among the 562 single thread pages...

Could a la admission, landis style, be good for cancer research promotion (in the long term)?

He comes clean and explains that he had no choice, everyone was doing it, very sorry to everyone who believed in him etc. At the outset he never knew he was going to win titles or the positive impact this would have on people with cancer. Thus he felt he had no choice but to keep doping in order to keep winning in order to keep positive momentum.

If he is humbled in such a way in the eyes of the general public I believe he may continue to yield a positive message. Moreso potentially as disgraced athletes often do more to try to amend for their past wrongs?

That said, if I ever meet him I will ask for refunds for his books

When it all comes out how Armstrong fooled the USA public, it will damage cancer charities in the short term.

Armstrong does not do good for cancer, he does good for Armstrong. Raising money for Liestrong is raising money for Armstrong.

As for positive message. What message is that? People have cancer and suffer, we know that. What liestrong do is scoure the internet and link stuff through their liestrong website. They direct people to stuff that already exists to assist cancer sufferers. They do nothing for research. Why? That costs money,money that can be given to Armstrong and his cohorts.

Why do you think he is fighting so hard to keep the myth alive? Once people know he doped, the game is up.

 

[sniper]

when everything still looked good

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo...n-arbitraje-armstrong/20120715dasdaicic_6/Tes

 

[Microchip]

...Microchip you are great! That is so funny...

hah hah....thank you Mew.

 

[serottasyclist]

I know I said somewhere that our due process rights are inviolable, and that ChewbaccaD took issue with this on the grounds that arbitration is mutually agreed to. I should have been more explicit. What I meant to say is that our due process rights are inviolable where the state is concerned. So if LA can show a reasonable likelihood that USADA was comporting itself as a state actor, he is entitled to due process.

Somewhere along the lines in this thread the "due process" claim seems to have been distilled to an issue of whether or not USADA is a state actor. That ignores 2/3 of the due process analysis. The Constitution guarantees U.S. Citizens (i.e., ONLY Lance in this case, none of the others charged, which is part of why a decision in Lance's case likely has no bearing on Bruyneel's case and likely one reason why Bruyneel and LA didn't file this jointly) the protection against a state actor depriving them of life, liberty or PROPERTY without due process.

This leads to three questions, all of which must be answered in the affirmative before the constitutional due process argument is a winning one:

(1) In prosecuting Lance Armstrong, will USADA be taking government action (this is the "government actor" question people have been saying is the critical issue).
(2) In prosecuting Armstrong, will USADA potentially be depriving Armstrong of Life, Liberty, or PROPERTY?
(3) If the answer to the above are both yes, is the process by which USADA intends to prosecute Armstrong sufficient in view of the right which they may eventually deprive him of?

The "government actor" question has been discussed at length. I'll leave my thoughts on that issue for another post. I haven't seen much discussion of the second or third points. Regarding the second point, clearly this is not a life or death issue, and USADA isn't threatening a prison sentence. So the question under the second prong is whether the sanctions that would be imposed amount to deprivation of a property right.

Although depriving an individual of any means of earning money can be considered deprivation of a property right, depriving an individual of a very specific means of earning money is not. Here, Armstrong is merely facing the possibility of not being able to compete in USADA sanctioned events. Nothing prevents him from competing in non-sanctioned events, from earning appearance fees for showing up to charity rides, from founding his own triathalon circuit outside the scope of USADA, etc., etc., etc. Considering that Armstrong makes most of his money from non-competition stuff . . . speaking fees, sponsorship, etc., it would be a very hard sell.

The only thing I can see that might gum up the works for USADA here is that in stripping him of TdF titles, they would also require he return prize money. I don't know enough about this area of law to know if that does amount to deprivation of a property interest. Normally, the government asking you to give them cash does amount to deprivation of property, but here the prize money was awarded as a prize for winning a race . . . its like the government saying to a federal employee "hey, we paid you for 40 hours of work last week, but you were only here for 30, so you need to pay us back." USADA isn't levying a fine on Armstrong, its merely requiring restitution.

Regarding "due process", its important to note that this is a moving target and depends on what the state is doing to the citizen. Think of it this way: "what process is due?" i.e., "what process is owed to insure the government isn't going overboard in taking this item from this individual?" In a criminal case, where the govt. is threatening to place a person in prison or to end his/her life, an enormous amount of process is due, because the harm if the govt. is making a mistake (or acting out of malice) is so great. However, the amount of process due for any deprivation is comensurate in scope with the govt's taking.

So even if USADA is found to be a government actor and is found to be attempting to deprive Lance of a constitutionally protected property interest, then Lance has to establish that the arbitration process does not provide sufficient process in view of what USADA intends to take from Armstrong. Importantly, just because there would be major fallout from a sanction by USADA re: endorsement opportunities, etc., that doesn't come into play because USADA isn't taking those away from Lance, just his right to compete in USADA sanctioned sport and his Tour titles. The arbitration process provides significant process. Way more process than is seen in most employer/employee dispute resolutions. Lance will have an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses, to provide his own expert witnesses, to testify on his own behalf, etc. The arbitration panel is made up of three licensed arbitrators, one of which is selected by Lance's team, one of which is selected by USADA and the third of which is selected by those two arbitrators. Lance can appeal any decision to CAS. Lance can request that the arbitration be open to public scrutiny (HA!). That's a lot of process.

Consider this: in most govt. agencies, if you disagree with a penalty assessed, or a taking of property, your first potential action is to file an appeal -- that is handled WITHIN that agency by an administrative law judge that is employed BY THAT AGENCY. If your appeal is denied, you then have a right to appeal to a federal district court. But this is only a right to APPEAL, not retry the whole case. So the fed. court can review the facts that were presented to the agency and the administrative law judge and determine if they think the agency made the right decision. New facts can not be presented to the court, and it is not, therefore, a trial by jury because the facts are all hashed out at the agency. So the only real difference in the USADA proceeding is that (1) the arbitrators are less biased, because they are independent from USADA and USADA only gets to select one of the three and (2) the arbitration ruling can only be appealed to CAS, not a federal court.

One final, but very important, point: Lance is not asking for an alternative procedure to replace the USADA arbitration, he is simply asking that USADA's procedure be stopped because it allegedly does not provide due process. The important point, however, is that if he does get the USADA procedure stopped, there is no alternative procedure that can take its place. USADA has to follow its rules, they can't just make up a new process now that provides more procedural safeguards. If they were to make up a new process that provides more procedural safeguards (e.g., an alternative arbitration process or a right to trial in civil court), then Lance would definitely have legitimate contract-based claims against USADA, because the only process Lance ever agreed to was the one referred to when signing for his USA Cycling license.

So basically, Lance could be seen as saying "yes, I signed the contract, but only because I knew the process was unconstitutional and I never had any intention of abiding by it." Maybe he's more brilliant than we ever thought. Perhaps he had Bill Stapelton specifically formulate USADA rules that violate the Constitution so that he could dope all day long and then as soon as a proceeding was launched against him, he'd pull out the "#unconstitutional" card. USADA's hands would be tied to that one and only procedure that he planned from the beginning to fail a constitutionality test and he'd walk free

 

[spetsa]

Armstrong's cancer was in 1996. The 1997 estimates are the relevant ones for that reason. That's just false that he had a highly survivable cancer (even now). It is irrelevant to the question of doping except some other people have tried to make it relevant by suggesting Armstrong also fabricated the severity of his cancer. That's a pretty tasteless argument, in my opinion, and one not supported by the relevant case studies.

If the argument is so tasteless, why are all the photos that showed scars from sternum to navel and a horeshoe on his scalp no longer available anywhere on the web. They used to be all over the place including a Nike poster that hung in bike shops. Maybe we can ask the doctors that treated him. Oh, that's right, only the paid spokespeople have been allowed to speak to those issues. The docs all were retrained with gag orders.

I would like to think that this is just conspiracy theory, but too much of it adds up and has for a decade