USADA - Armstrong

[Benotti69]

This is just flat out bad journalism and of the type that the LA PR spin machine has used to great effect over the years to maintain the myth. She needs to be called out.

Due to the nature of Armstrong being involved with so many sponsors, Future Publishing is always going to go easy on him till he gets done.

They dont want to upset possible advertising.

To give you an example, Daniel benson is doing the live MBM from the Vuelta and is posting tweets from Bruyneel. I mean that speaks volumes to me about what CN is about.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

He will always have a few fanatical supporters - we saw that with the Penn State case, and that makes LA case seem irrelevant and trivial - however in the greater general public's view, he is a doper and a fraud.

Interesting comparison, though I don't think he's there (yet) where the greater public views him as a doper and fraud. A doper, yes, pretty much, unless he wins the USADA arbitration big. As a fraud, I don't think that has quite hit home with most yet. But if he loses arbitration...

He has already lost the. Q Scores says he has a 10% favorable rating.

But his negative rating is only something like 40%. The other half of the population simply don't care. But the number you reference is before Sparks ruling. Let's see what the numbers are in a few months if/when the majority of USADA's evidence sticks...

This is just flat out bad journalism and of the type that the LA PR spin machine has used to great effect over the years to maintain the myth. She needs to be called out.

Again, Laura is a CN writer, and a member here. You may have interacted with her in the past without knowing it. She's a pretty reasonable person and passionate about cycling. Try writing to her (politely) and ask her to clarify.

 

[thehog]

Looking at the Cyclingnews Facebook comments I'm not optimistic about Lance not surviving the public opinion battle. Even with all the info that's already out there for everyone to see, lots of people are still repeating the usual drivel - never tested positive, waste of taxpayers money, no evidence, witch hunt, it's in the past, etc.

You cannot change public perception whilst the case is in flight. That will only occur once the evidence starts to see the light of day. Sometimes people like to argue that they’re right in face of the obvious logic to the contrary. What you’re really asking is for them to admit they were “stupid” to believe in the first place.

Many have their fingers crossed that somehow Armstrong will find a way out of this. To be honest he has a very good track record in doing so. Some people like his ability to get away with it.

If David Miller was ever right about anything its what he told Armstrong in 2007. He should have listened.

To be honest outside this forum most don’t even know who he is. He’s become a bit of joke. Come November that’s all he’ll be. A joke.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Please take the CN bashing to this forum: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2

Stay on topic: USADA-Armstrong.

Thank you.

Susan

 

[laura.weislo]

Well, she's a CN writer, and member of this forum (though not very active). Try asking her, politely.

I'm not trying to throw her under the bus (despite what some people think, I do no work here), but considering the importance of the situation, I think you bring up a valid question.

Just FYI, that story was a follow up to one reporting on the dismissal of the suit. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.

Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.

I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision, merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA.

Hope that helps.

(don't expect me to come back to the forums for further discussion, it's another busy day in the office.)

 

[Benotti69]

Just FYI, that story was a follow up to one reporting on the dismissal of the suit. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.

Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.

I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision, merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA.
Hope that helps.

(don't expect me to come back to the forums for further discussion, it's another busy day in the office.)

it didn't seem like that, there was some criticism of USADA, but Sparks dismissed everthing of Armstrongs. So to pick up on what Sparks had to say about USADA was unfair to the 30 pages. He totally dismissed Armstrong with some comments towards USADA.

 

[JRTinMA]

This is just flat out bad journalism and of the type that the LA PR spin machine has used to great effect over the years to maintain the myth. She needs to be called out.

Your comment is ridiculous. There had already been an article detailing the dismissal of the case by Judge Sparks. If you read her work or her tweets you will see she is far from an apologist or a shill for the LA PR machine. The judge pointed out some concerns he had about the USADA process, she reported them. As a last resort, you could practice some critical thinking and take the article at face value or get all excited over nothing and demand she's "called out".

 

[aphronesis]

it didn't seem like that, there was some criticism of USADA, but Sparks dismissed everthing of Armstrongs. So to pick up on what Sparks had to say about USADA was unfair to the 30 pages. He totally dismissed Armstrong with some comments towards USADA.

So simply because the USADA's current agenda (as fully gifted to them) squares with yours, you think think the implication that they've been sitting on their thumbs for the past 8 years is an invalid one?

 

[Microchip]

Looking at the Cyclingnews Facebook comments I'm not optimistic about Lance not surviving the public opinion battle. Even with all the info that's already out there for everyone to see, lots of people are still repeating the usual drivel - never tested positive, waste of taxpayers money, no evidence, witch hunt, it's in the past, etc.

I would suggest not to let the public's perception of him factor in as any worth really. No matter what, the worst criminal has somebody rooting for him. It's not important to have everyone convinced.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So simply because the USADA's current agenda (as fully gifted to them) squares with yours, you think think the implication that they've been sitting on their thumbs for the past 8 years is an invalid one?

Can you point out the evidence (because they would need it) that USADA had 8 years ago that they were sitting on?

This is just flat out bad journalism and of the type that the LA PR spin machine has used to great effect over the years to maintain the myth. She needs to be called out.

You appear to be capable of doing that on your own.
The article was fine, it was an accurate piece on the Judges remarks.
Will any of Judge Sparks concerns come to pass? No.

 

[aphronesis]

Can you point out the evidence (because they would need it) that USADA had 8 years ago that they were sitting on?

Two fallacies here: I said thumbs, not evidence. That's one. The second is that you assume any ineptitude and maintenance of status quo must be oriented toward LA. I'm speaking generally: they're a bureaucratic organ. Nothing more.

So no, I don't really see the need to point toward that at all. Nice try though.

 

[the big ring]

So simply because the USADA's current agenda (as fully gifted to them) squares with yours, you think think the implication that they've been sitting on their thumbs for the past 8 years is an invalid one?

They weren't sitting on their thumbs. The UCI were

 

[Race Radio]

Just FYI, that story was a follow up to one reporting on the dismissal of the suit. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.

Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.

I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision, merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA.

Hope that helps.

(don't expect me to come back to the forums for further discussion, it's another busy day in the office.)

Thank you for the feedback Laura

 

[aphronesis]

They weren't sitting on their thumbs. The UCI were

Really, after all that's been seen in the last month, let alone what's been known for years about Hein and Pat, that's an entirely separate argument. Isn't there a "how corrupt is the UCI and why do they get to keep existing thread."? Should be I'm sure.

Two separate issues. The fact that LA may finally be going down should not be mistaken for the competence of the agencies doing that work.

A little objectivity please.....

 

[Jeremiah]

Helps who?

Just FYI, that story was a follow up to one reporting on the dismissal of the suit. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.

Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.

I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision, merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA.

Hope that helps.

(don't expect me to come back to the forums for further discussion, it's another busy day in the office.)

It's not our job to understand your workload. Maybe CN should hire more writers if the overburdened ones can't write pieces which accurately reflect bottom line reality, which follows....

This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above,
the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. Indeed, but for
two facts, the Court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due
process, and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical
effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would
presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later,
only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the
Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against
him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.


With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at
this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a
defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge.


For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA,
and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA
will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA
arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether
Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; but what
is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's
agreement to arbitrate, on the basis of a speculative injury. Armstrong's claims are therefore
dismissed.


Maybe you can tell us what the judge's harsh criticism has forced USADA to change in their Standard Operating Procedures?

That's a rhetorical question btw.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Two fallacies here: I said thumbs, not evidence. That's one. The second is that you assume any ineptitude and maintenance of status quo must be oriented toward LA. I'm speaking generally: they're a bureaucratic organ. Nothing more.

So no, I don't really see the need to point toward that at all. Nice try though.

Ok - how do you know they were sitting on their thumbs (for 8 years)?
Hint - they weren't. Landis said he was questioned in 06 about LA.

So, they needed evidence - to thumb through. They finally got it starting in 2010.
Your second point, ask Joe Papp or his customers were USADA sitting on their thumbs.

 

[Race Radio]

Two fallacies here: I said thumbs, not evidence. That's one. The second is that you assume any ineptitude and maintenance of status quo must be oriented toward LA. I'm speaking generally: they're a bureaucratic organ. Nothing more.

So no, I don't really see the need to point toward that at all. Nice try though.

So no examples of them "Sitting on their thumbs"?

Got it

 

[DirtyWorks]

It's not our job to understand your workload. Maybe CN should hire more writers if the overburdened ones can't write pieces which accurately reflect bottom line reality, which follows....

It's a publication/media business. Their editorial policy presents enough of a challenge inside cycling and you want something few people would read? They have enough challenges in the Internet age.

 

[aphronesis]

So no examples of them "Sitting on their thumbs"?

Got it

Sorry, was that the question?

Here's one. 90% of the people posting in this thread have known about this "conspiracy" for years and yet the reasonably well-funded USADA found out about it when? Last fall? Right after Floyd's emails? Tearing it up weren't they?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I would suggest not to let the public's perception of him factor in as any worth really. No matter what, the worst criminal has somebody rooting for him. It's not important to have everyone convinced.

Agree 100%. In this case, public opinion is just a statistic......

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry, was that the question?

Here's one. 90% of the people posting in this thread have known about this "conspiracy" for years and yet the reasonably well-funded USADA found out about it when? Last fall? Right after Floyd's emails? Tearing it up weren't they?

You have confused the level of evidence needed to post on a forum with the level needed to win a AAA case

I heard from friends who rode on USPS about the team doping a decade ago. These same friends explained how they were completely scared of Armstrong and his co-conspirators at the UCI. They stayed quite for years.

A couple of years ago Landis breaks the dam and the evidence starts to flow. USADA start to build a case that will stand up to Armstrong legal and PR myth machine.

So tell us, do you have any examples of USADA "Sitting on their thumbs"?

 

[aphronesis]

Ok - how do you know they were sitting on their thumbs (for 8 years)?
Hint - they weren't. Landis said he was questioned in 06 about LA.

So, they needed evidence - to thumb through. They finally got it starting in 2010.
Your second point, ask Joe Papp or his customers were USADA sitting on their thumbs.

Mmm. I recall the bit about questioning Landis in '06. Again, doesn't seem they got much traction until others wanted to give it--regardless of what they were doing.

All respect to Joe and his customers (you are restricting your example to the myopic world of cycling), I'm not sure that counts as ambition.

 

[MarkvW]

It's a publication/media business. Their editorial policy presents enough of a challenge inside cycling and you want something few people would read? They have enough challenges in the Internet age.

Yeah. What he said.
The Internet works fast, but people still process things at the same old rate and write thoughtful pieces at the same old speed.

 

[Turner29]

Everyone has been presuming that for the next step Lance will act logically, or heed sage advice. He is a sociopath, he will not act logically, he will not heed advice.



Anna has done a terrific job the past month or so, she tries to impart a humorous slant, sometimes misses the mark, but has persevered and made all the salient points. She has done this all alone, without the support we in the clinic derive from each other, and has now attracted the attention of lance idiotic vilify hate brigade.

Some here have attacked her because of her liking of Franck, well not everyone is totally doper hunter inclined, and she did title her blog "say it aint so Franck" which to me (an aussie not a godamn) harks to shoeless joe jackson, so she IS calling Franck out.

Anyhoo she has well and truly nailed Lances hide to the wall, AND she is in Austin Texas lol. That takes some cojones hehe both of 'em no doubt lol. Her blog is well worth a read, lots of analysis of Lances predicament

While she sometimes shows a lack of detail and understanding of the of some facts, her conclusions are generally correct.

 

[Turner29]

They weren't sitting on their thumbs. The UCI were

Prior to Travis Tygart becoming CEO in 2007, one could argue that the USADA was Armstrong's co-enabler, along with the UCI, ASO and to a lesser degree, WADA, all having their role in protecting somebody "too big to fail."

Interesting that in as much Armstrong pleads conspiracy against him, in actuality the conspiracies was one favoring him and one by him.