USADA - Armstrong

[Turner29]

The USADA website informs that it provides antidoping services for USA Cycling pursuant to a contract with USA Cycling.

Does ANYBODY have any link that explains the US Olympic Committee's connection with testing professional bike racers not involved in the Olympic movement?

People are just saying that Armstrong is like Slaney and Trevor Graham (cases dismissed for want of jurisdiction because of Ted Stevens) but just saying it doesn't make it so.

As I see it, the UCI holds the overarching contract with the athlete. Antidoping enforcement is delegated to USA Cycling. USA Cycling has contracted with USADA for antidoping services. That contractual linkage is plain and neat and explains everything in a way that does NOT implicate the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

To implicate Ted Stevens we need a linkage from USOC. Until I see that, I'm not sure that the no jurisdiction argument works.

This would be a really good question for a reporter to ask USADA. Because if Ted Stevens does apply, I agree. Lance Armstrong gets tossed just like Mary Doper Slaney and Trevor Graham.

Armstrong is subject to the Ted Stevens law because he holds a USA Cycling license and do not see why anything else matters.

 

[PedalPusher]

Armstrong is subject to the Ted Stevens law because he holds a USA Cycling license and do not see why anything else matters.

+1 I fully agree.

 

[spetsa]

I apologize for confusing substantive with procedural due process.
So under procedural due process, there is only question about whether the process provided is comensurate in scope with the potential harm caused by the action?

Perhaps, in future, you may consider correcting erroneous statements, rather than restating previous statements and implying the other person an idiot? Tends to lead to greater clarity and understanding for all parties. Especially in a thread like this that is read mostly byus non lawyers.

To the bolded......
After all this back and forth b*llsh*t, you are admitting that you are not a lawyer? Why does this not suprise me?

This thread had become nothing other than an avenue for a select a few to listen to themselves. The fanboy's claim of it being an echo chamber is growing more and more accurate recently

 

[Turner29]

Early Lance

In another forum, I had a discussion with a younger guy who buys into the idea of a "super human" Lance Armstrong. My point to him was that if Armstrong is such, his career would have been closer to that of Greg LeMond, who came in third place in his first Tour de France.

OTOH, Armstrong:

- Did not even complete a Tour until his 1999 victory.

- Had only two flat stage victories, one a "gift" from the Peloton after his team mate's death in a crash.

- Showed no ability to climb.

- Best time-trial was an 8th place finish.

At best, his abilities were of a Classics Rider and not a particularly dominating one. Who else remembers the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong's win at Sestriere, thinking "where did that climbing ability come from..."

 

[Oldman]

In another forum, I had a discussion with a younger guy who buys into the idea of a "super human" Lance Armstrong. My point to him was that if Armstrong is such, his career would have been closer to that of Greg LeMond, who came in third place in his first Tour de France.

OTOH, Armstrong:

- Did not even complete a Tour until his 1999 victory.

- Had only two flat stage victories, one a "gift" from the Peloton after his team mate's death in a crash.

- Showed no ability to climb.

- Best time-trial was an 8th place finish.

At best, his abilities were of a Classics Rider and not a particularly dominating one. Who else remembers the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong's win at Sestriere, thinking "where did that climbing ability come from..."

I thought immediately: "he's from Texas...so his blood cells are bigger."

 

[Bratam]

In another forum, I had a discussion with a younger guy who buys into the idea of a "super human" Lance Armstrong. My point to him was that if Armstrong is such, his career would have been closer to that of Greg LeMond, who came in third place in his first Tour de France.

OTOH, Armstrong:

- Did not even complete a Tour until his 1999 victory.

- Had only two flat stage victories, one a "gift" from the Peloton after his team mate's death in a crash.

- Showed no ability to climb.

- Best time-trial was an 8th place finish.

At best, his abilities were of a Classics Rider and not a particularly dominating one. Who else remembers the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong's win at Sestriere, thinking "where did that climbing ability come from..."

The LA fans say that was down to beating cancer. It turned him into a super human. It suddenly gave him wings to fly up those mountains !

 

[ManInFull]

I guess so, forget discussing the merits of the case, keep it to:

Fanboy: he'll win!

Clinic: he won't!

Fanboy: No! He will!

Clinic: No! He won't!



EDIT: I forgot Cancer!

There's a difference between discussing the merits of the case and having to sift through pages and pages of posts discussing the legal minutia of the case. It's almost as bad as having to read every page of the recent filing by Armstrong's attorney.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

question: how many lawyers does it take to ruin a thread in a cycling forum?


answer: how ever many are involved in this one

Real answer to any question that begins with "how many lawyers does it take to ruin a ____________."

1

Sorry, off topic post. Just thought I would add some levity. Hope that's okay.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There's a difference between discussing the merits of the case and having to sift through pages and pages of posts discussing the legal minutia of the case. It's almost as bad as having to read every page of the recent filing by Armstrong's attorney.

And I find it fascinating...seriously. I get off on legal minutia and finding that thin slice of why something is one way and not the other. It's hard for me to imagine people not finding it equally as fascinating, but I am being told by my handlers that it is almost universally hated. Well, I hate puppies. Can't stand them, so there.

Now, I think this thread will be pretty quiet for awhile as Micro pointed out. August 10th was the date I believe. Place should be a beehive of activity that day, no?

 

[egtalbot]

This would be a really good question for a reporter to ask USADA. Because if Ted Stevens does apply, I agree. Lance Armstrong gets tossed just like Mary Doper Slaney and Trevor Graham.

I agree that it's an interesting question, that the applicability of Ted Stevens to this specific case is not cut and dried.

Regarding the Slaney case, my understanding was that the district court and the appeals court ruled (among other things) that the state law claims Slaney was making were pre-empted by the Amateur Sports Act. Their ruling on the separate RICO claims was not one of jurisdiction but instead a ruling that she didn't have a RICO case.

Isn't Lance's first subject matter jurisdiction claim independent of state law claims (point 5 in his filing), or is my non-lawyer mind misunderstanding that? Either way he's explicitly claiming that Ted Stevens doesn't apply, I do see that.

 

[python]

Yes, because the Lance Lovers have now ...
but more likely now that Bruyneel is proceeding with arbitration).

But I don't think this will bankrupt LA, or lead to criminal charges.

i strongly disagree and agree...that armstrong and bruyneel did not coordinate their usual common response is highly unlikely...if the hog is there, armstrong will be there invariably. these two characters are too intertwined for too many years to RISK a separate uncoordinated strategy. the risk of one inadvertently exposing another is too great for such a scenario.

this is not a sophisticated legal opinion but plain common sense. !


also. though i'm not a lawyer, but - again - plain common sense says: the history of factually obvious, american (or otherwise) dopers trying too substitute wada due process with their national "constitutional rights' is doomed to failure. all precedents to date point that way.

if armstrong succeeded to turns this around it would be unprecedented.

bottom line, in a legally-challenged parlor - texas is screwed

 

[Bill Murray]

In another forum, I had a discussion with a younger guy who buys into the idea of a "super human" Lance Armstrong. My point to him was that if Armstrong is such, his career would have been closer to that of Greg LeMond, who came in third place in his first Tour de France.

OTOH, Armstrong:

- Did not even complete a Tour until his 1999 victory.

- Had only two flat stage victories, one a "gift" from the Peloton after his team mate's death in a crash.

- Showed no ability to climb.

- Best time-trial was an 8th place finish.

At best, his abilities were of a Classics Rider and not a particularly dominating one. Who else remembers the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong's win at Sestriere, thinking "where did that climbing ability come from..."

To be fair, Greg LeMond did not start his career during the EPO era.

 

[Turner29]

To be fair, Greg LeMond did not start his career during the EPO era.

This is part of what I was getting to. Some think that Armstrong started clean and realized that whatever his natural talents may be, they were not superior enough to overcome doping and his later career results are indicative of him "throwing in the towel" to doping. David Walsh suggests this in one of his books.

However, I am more inclined to believe that Armstrong's history is more indicative of the effects of amateurish doping (under Motorola) vs. sophisticated professional doping under US Postal and others.

As such, doping is more than "leveling the field" and it can decide the outcome of a race based upon the sophistication of the doping or the risks a rider is willing to take, i.e., Riis.

 

[BYOP88]

In another forum, I had a discussion with a younger guy who buys into the idea of a "super human" Lance Armstrong. My point to him was that if Armstrong is such, his career would have been closer to that of Greg LeMond, who came in third place in his first Tour de France.

OTOH, Armstrong:

- Did not even complete a Tour until his 1999 victory.

- Had only two flat stage victories, one a "gift" from the Peloton after his team mate's death in a crash.

- Showed no ability to climb.

- Best time-trial was an 8th place finish.

At best, his abilities were of a Classics Rider and not a particularly dominating one. Who else remembers the 1999 Tour de France and Armstrong's win at Sestriere, thinking "where did that climbing ability come from..."

Sorry to be a pedantic prat, but he did finish 1 Tour before 1999, it was the 1995 edition where Fabio Casartelli died. But aside from that your post was spot on regarding Armstrong.

EDIT:Just checked he finished 36th, 5 places and 10 minutes behind that noted GT contendor Johan Bruyneel.

 

[PedalPusher]

This is part of what I was getting to. Some think that Armstrong started clean and realized that whatever his natural talents may be, they were not superior enough to overcome doping and his later career results are indicative of him "throwing in the towel" to doping. David Walsh suggests this in one of his books.

However, I am more inclined to believe that Armstrong's history is more indicative of the effects of amateurish doping (under Motorola) vs. sophisticated professional doping under US Postal and others.

As such, doping is more than "leveling the field" and it can decide the outcome of a race based upon the sophistication of the doping or the risks a rider is willing to take, i.e., Riis.

I think the doping goes further back than that.

A former professional rider who was a contemporary of Armstrong's at
Motorola from 1992 to 1996 tells a different story. Now retired from
the sport, this former professional agreed to speak on the basis that
his name would not be used. Should it become necessary, though, he
will come forward and stand up for his account of the Motorola years.

"The team results in 1994 were not impressive and '95 started off the
same. We had access to the same training as other teams, the same
equipment; we ate the same food, slept the same number of hours but,
in races, we were not as competitive. The picture was becoming clear
for the upcoming Tour de France: we were going to have to give in and
join the EPO race.

"Lance was a key spokesperson when EPO was the topic. From the riders'
point of view, we felt the mounting pressure not only from within the
team but also from what was being said and written about us as a team.
No one starts out wanting to dope but you become a victim of the
sport."

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/36609/doping-or-not-read-this

A lot in there, but a good read of the history to a point. Ferrari had been around since 1995.

 

[Turner29]

Sorry to be a pedantic prat, but he did finish 1 Tour before 1999, it was the 1995 edition where Fabio Casartelli died. But aside from that your post was spot on regarding Armstrong.

EDIT:Just checked he finished 36th, 5 places and 10 minutes behind that noted GT contendor Johan Bruyneel.

Thank you for the correct! My mistake.

 

[Nocontest]

I think the doping goes further back than that.

A former professional rider who was a contemporary of Armstrong's at
Motorola from 1992 to 1996 tells a different story. Now retired from
the sport, this former professional agreed to speak on the basis that
his name would not be used. Should it become necessary, though, he
will come forward and stand up for his account of the Motorola years.

"The team results in 1994 were not impressive and '95 started off the
same. We had access to the same training as other teams, the same
equipment; we ate the same food, slept the same number of hours but,
in races, we were not as competitive. The picture was becoming clear
for the upcoming Tour de France: we were going to have to give in and
join the EPO race.

"Lance was a key spokesperson when EPO was the topic. From the riders'
point of view, we felt the mounting pressure not only from within the
team but also from what was being said and written about us as a team.
No one starts out wanting to dope but you become a victim of the
sport."

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/36609/doping-or-not-read-this

A lot in there, but a good read of the history to a point. Ferrari had been around since 1995.

That would be Stephen Swart and he has made his feelings well known in the past, even appearing on a documentary a few years ago.

 

[Turner29]

That would be Stephen Swart and he has made his feelings well known in the past, even appearing on a documentary a few years ago.

If true, 1995 corresponds to Armstrong's best results to date in Europe, save for the World Championship:

1) Finishes TdF and has best TT performance.

2) Wins Clásica de San Sebastián.

3) Early 1996 wins Fleche-Wallone.

 

[MacRoadie]

Either way he's explicitly claiming that Ted Stevens doesn't apply, I do see that.

I think you can read quite a bit into the fact that his lawyers failed to provide any reasoning as to WHY it doesn't apply.

 

[TubularBills]

I think the doping goes further back than that.

A former professional rider who was a contemporary of Armstrong's at
Motorola from 1992 to 1996 tells a different story. Now retired from
the sport, this former professional agreed to speak on the basis that
his name would not be used. Should it become necessary, though, he
will come forward and stand up for his account of the Motorola years.

"The team results in 1994 were not impressive and '95 started off the
same. We had access to the same training as other teams, the same
equipment; we ate the same food, slept the same number of hours but,
in races, we were not as competitive. The picture was becoming clear
for the upcoming Tour de France: we were going to have to give in and
join the EPO race.

"Lance was a key spokesperson when EPO was the topic. From the riders'
point of view, we felt the mounting pressure not only from within the
team but also from what was being said and written about us as a team.
No one starts out wanting to dope but you become a victim of the
sport."

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/36609/doping-or-not-read-this

A lot in there, but a good read of the history to a point. Ferrari had been around since 1995.

That lines up with Armstrong's own admission:

Independent on Sunday (London)

July 8, 2001, Sunday

"...But this was not the only surprise yesterday. Armstrong's admission in a pre -race interview that the Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who is currently charged with supplying illegal drugs to athletes, has been one of his advisers for six years was at least as unexpected as Moreau's win."

 

[superleicht]

"The team results in 1994 were not impressive and '95 started off the
same. We had access to the same training as other teams, the same
equipment; we ate the same food, slept the same number of hours but,
in races, we were not as competitive.

Lance said much the same thing in an interview with Velonews. Can't recall if it was 94 or 95, but it was in one of those last issues of the year - Lance and Julie Furtado had received awards as the best US cyclists, and the interview with Lance was a sidebar. When asked why Motorola had produced relatively poor results, Lance (in essence) remarked that the other riders were getting faster and Motorola would have to look at making some changes to their program.

Anyone have that issue? Surprised no one here has mentioned it (or else they did and I missed it.)

Superleicht

 

[TubularBills]

That lines up with Armstrong's own admission:

Independent on Sunday (London)

July 8, 2001, Sunday

"...But this was not the only surprise yesterday. Armstrong's admission in a pre -race interview that the Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, who is currently charged with supplying illegal drugs to athletes, has been one of his advisers for six years was at least as unexpected as Moreau's win."

and Frankie Andreu:

"Andreu said he was introduced to drugs in 1995 while he was riding for Motorola, where Lance Armstrong was also a rider. Another former Motorola rider, New Zealander Steven Swart, admitted in L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong to taking EPO while on that team. The team's doctor, Massimo Testa, told the NYT that he educated the riders that asked him about EPO but did not encourage them to use it. "If you want to use a gun, you had better use a manual, rather than to ask the guy on the street how to use it," he said. "I cannot rule out that someone did it."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep12news2

And from the New York Times:

"In testimony in the case, Swart, a retired rider from New Zealand, said top riders on Motorola discussed EPO in 1995. He testified that Armstrong told teammates that there was “only one road to take” to be competitive. In a sworn deposition, Swart said the meaning of Armstrong’s comment was clear: “We needed to start a medical program of EPO.”

EPO, cortisone and testosterone were common in European cycling, Swart said in a telephone interview. He said using cortisone, a steroid, was regarded as “sucking on a candy stick.” Cyclists acquired the drugs from European pharmacies and took them in private, Swart said. “You basically became your own doctor,” he said.

He said signs of drug use were widespread at the 1994 and 1995 Tours, when there was no testing for EPO."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Oldman]

and Frankie Andreu:

"Andreu said he was introduced to drugs in 1995 while he was riding for Motorola, where Lance Armstrong was also a rider. Another former Motorola rider, New Zealander Steven Swart, admitted in L.A. Confidential: The Secrets of Lance Armstrong to taking EPO while on that team. The team's doctor, Massimo Testa, told the NYT that he educated the riders that asked him about EPO but did not encourage them to use it. "If you want to use a gun, you had better use a manual, rather than to ask the guy on the street how to use it," he said. "I cannot rule out that someone did it."

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/sep06/sep12news2

And from the New York Times:

"In testimony in the case, Swart, a retired rider from New Zealand, said top riders on Motorola discussed EPO in 1995. He testified that Armstrong told teammates that there was “only one road to take” to be competitive. In a sworn deposition, Swart said the meaning of Armstrong’s comment was clear: “We needed to start a medical program of EPO.”

EPO, cortisone and testosterone were common in European cycling, Swart said in a telephone interview. He said using cortisone, a steroid, was regarded as “sucking on a candy stick.” Cyclists acquired the drugs from European pharmacies and took them in private, Swart said. “You basically became your own doctor,” he said.

He said signs of drug use were widespread at the 1994 and 1995 Tours, when there was no testing for EPO."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sports/othersports/12cycling.html?pagewanted=all

I'm surprised Swart didn't talk about even earlier days with Coors and Montgormery Subaru. Granted it wasn't the nuclear race it became in Er'p but he and a few Aussies and Irishmen made good money "cleaning up" in North America because they new where Ensenada's pharmacies were.

 

[rickshaw]

USADA - Lance Armstrong

REmember?

 

[D-Queued]

...

And from the New York Times:

"In testimony in the case, Swart, a retired rider from New Zealand, said top riders on Motorola discussed EPO in 1995. He testified that Armstrong told teammates that there was “only one road to take” to be competitive. In a sworn deposition, Swart said the meaning of Armstrong’s comment was clear: “We needed to start a medical program of EPO.”

...

USADA - Lance Armstrong

REmember?

Yes. Doesn't that case have something to do with organized doping practices? Practices that went back for quite some time?

"ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
STEPHEN SWART
JANUARY 11, 2006

…

Q (Mr. Tillotson for SCA Promotions, Inc.). Did you take EPO in connection with the 1995 Tour de France, or had you finished by then?
A (Stephen Swart). The last administering for myself was after the prologue of the 1995 tour.
Q. Now, in connection with the 1995 Tour de France, were you present with any incidences with Mr. Armstrong that led you to believe that he was also using EPO?
A. On the second race day in the Alp -- in the Pyrenees, the way they tested -- checked -- or checked your hematocrit, which is your red cell count, was using -- was by using a centrifugal machine, which they had on board.
Q. Who -- who are you talking about? Who had this on board?
A. The doctor.
Q. Is this Dr. Testa?
A. Yes.
Q. And whose hematocrit level was he checking?
A. Because it can hold, actually, I think, up to eight or 10 samples in one go, we were checking them all.
Q. Did this include you?
A. Yes.
Q. Did it include Mr. Armstrong?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Were you in Dr. Testa's room, or where physically were you?
A. We were just in one of the rider's rooms. It may have been Testa's room. I mean, they're all the same.
Q. What was your hematocrit level?
A. I think I was around 46 or 40 -- yeah, 47.
Q. Do you remember what anyone else's level was?
A. I know I was the lowest, and every -- probably everyone else that tested was 50 to anywhere just above -- you know, above the 50 -- 50 percent range.
Q. What was Mr. Armstrong's, if you recall?
A. It was above 50, but, you know, I would only be taking a guess whether it was –
Q. And how do you know what everyone else's level was? Was it being announced, or could you see the test results?
A. Oh, it was -- you know, it's a little bit -- it was a -- it was being played like a little bit of a game on who's -- who was -- who was -- who was strong and who wasn't, if you know what I mean.
Q. And why were you testing hematocrit levels?
A. Killing time. It was a race day.
Q. Did you form any belief as to whether or not Mr. Armstrong was using EPO based on his hematocrit levels?
A. That's the only way you could come to that conclusion. There's no other way your hematocrit would be that high."

Dave.