USADA - Armstrong

[aphronesis]

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"?

I don't think I am confused about it. I heard that same evidence around the same time. Everyone knew what the issues were and where the power lay. If a govt. supported agency wanted to make it a priority they would have. It wasn't and they didn't. That they are now is all well and fine, but it shouldn't be regarded as any heroic or noble endeavor. It's historic convenience nothing more.

As others have stated already today, the PR machine should not be the issue here. If you make it so, then I would argue that that makes the USADA's current agenda part of that same PR machine.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

So, UASDA were not sitting on their thumbs.
They just did not have the .... wait for it, evidence.

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.

Your right, it doesn't count as ambition - but that wasn't your point, now was it.

 

[Benotti69]

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?

I think this has been responded to in a manner by others that requires no further input from me at this time.

 

[BullsFan22]

Very interesting read:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think I am confused about it. I heard that same evidence around the same time. Everyone knew what the issues were and where the power lay. If a govt. supported agency wanted to make it a priority they would have. It wasn't and they didn't. That they are now is all well and fine, but it shouldn't be regarded as any heroic or noble endeavor. It's historic convenience nothing more.

As others have stated already today, the PR machine should not be the issue here. If you make it so, then I would argue that that makes the USADA's current agenda part of that same PR machine.

The question that you raise is a valid one. Was USADA sitting on sufficient evidence to bring an antidoping case against Armstrong?

You ask the question, then answer it in a conclusory fashion. I have a difficult time seeing what you want to discuss. Looks to me like you're just baiting people.

 

[aphronesis]

So, UASDA were not sitting on their thumbs.
They just did not have the .... wait for it, evidence.


Your right, it doesn't count as ambition - but that wasn't your point, now was it.

No, it wasn't my point. But you brought up Papp didn't you?

Uh, and my point was that they didn't have evidence because they didn't have the means, the wherewithal or the impetus to obtain it. Are you contesting that? RR already let it go.

 

[Jeremiah]

Complete nonsense from you.

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.

And I've often noticed that you're often contrary for the sake of contrariness.

The bolded is completely nonsensical and bears no connection to reality.

What was actually written by Weislo is commentary that was designed to appeal to a powerful figure in cycling so CN would be seen as not siding too strongly with USADA, just in case. All of the criticisms of USADA by Sparks effectively mean NOTHING.


As was obvious in my post, I want journalists to report the facts of what happened which I was somehow able to do in like 5 minutes of putting that post together.

Perhaps it would help you to go back and read it to refresh your memory of what Judge Sparks did.

As far as I know it's not the job of journalists to write in code requiring readers to "read between the lines" to hopefully appeal to divergent audiences simultaneously.

From Weislo's post it's also apparent that CN has bytes,inches, to fill on their website. Do you think that or unreasonable deadlines are an excuse for piffle?

It's too bad Weislo couldn't read between the lines of the Judges decision, or better yet, realize the Judge was writing in code, and exercise some editorial restraint by doing nothing, rather than setting herself up for ridicule.

I agree abuse is uncalled for but she herself acknowledges that the piece requires deciphering, which is bs.

Edit, As for Weislo's contention that "merely a report stating that all was not rosy for USADA," nothing can be further from the truth.

Despite Spark's "harsh criticism," USADA's powers emerge from this ruling as even greater than before Armstrong filed suit.

Every time precedent is set, powers are solidified. Now when some clown tries to make the same idiotic claims as Armstrong they will be rebuffed by the citation of Armstrong v USADA.

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.)

 

[Race Radio]

I don't think I am confused about it. I heard that same evidence around the same time. Everyone knew what the issues were and where the power lay. If a govt. supported agency wanted to make it a priority they would have. It wasn't and they didn't. That they are now is all well and fine, but it shouldn't be regarded as any heroic or noble endeavor. It's historic convenience nothing more.

As others have stated already today, the PR machine should not be the issue here. If you make it so, then I would argue that that makes the USADA's current agenda part of that same PR machine.

So no examples of USADA "sitting on their thumbs"?

Everyone knew that Hincapie and Landis were transfusing bags of blood with Lance on the bus? When did everyone know this? More importantly when did USADA know this?

 

[aphronesis]

The question that you raise is a valid one. Was USADA sitting on sufficient evidence to bring an antidoping case against Armstrong?

You ask the question, then answer it in a conclusory fashion. I have a difficult time seeing what you want to discuss. Looks to me like you're just baiting people.

No, I'm not baiting people, however, I find that a good amount of the remarks in this thread are "conclusory" as you say.

What I want to discuss (and maybe this isn't the thread for it, but then again, it does say USADA) is that just because they've achieved what "appears" to be an endgame doesn't mean that it's through their own means. Nor, especially, does it mean that any value should be attached to it. That's what I want to discuss and have always wanted to discuss.

Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is, at times, any enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So that that not remain a strictly philosophical proposition, I have to question whether the end result will do much in terms of larger social good: either to LA's "victims" or as a deterrent to doping.

Back on topic then, I have to question the convenience of the USADA's agenda at this moment, what they imagine that they're accomplishing and how that accomplishment plays out within the spectacularization of politics--via media--of which they are a part.

 

[JRTinMA]

And I've often noticed that you're often contrary for the sake of contrariness.

The bolded is completely nonsensical and bears no connection to reality.

What was actually written by Weislo is commentary that was designed to appeal to a powerful figure in cycling so CN would be seen as not siding too strongly with USADA, just in case. All of the criticisms of USADA by Sparks effectively mean NOTHING.


As was obvious in my post, I want journalists to report the facts of what happened which I was somehow able to do in like 5 minutes of putting that post together.

Perhaps it would help you to go back and read it to refresh your memory of what Judge Sparks did.

As far as I know it's not the job of journalists to write in code requiring readers to "read between the lines" to hopefully appeal to divergent audiences simultaneously.

From Weislo's post it's also apparent that CN has bytes,inches, to fill on their website. Do you think that or unreasonable deadlines are an excuse for piffle?

It's too bad Weislo couldn't read between the lines of the Judges decision, or better yet, realize the Judge was writing in code, and exercise some editorial restraint by doing nothing, rather than setting herself up for ridicule.

I agree abuse is uncalled for but she herself acknowledges that the piece requires deciphering, which is bs.

To the bolded, do you know this to be fact? I suspect its just a conspiracy of yours but I will await your evidence. Would you have been equally enraged if they had only published the dismissal article? Wouldn't that be very one sided in your mind? Take whats written and apply some critical thinking, then move on.

 

[aphronesis]

So no examples of USADA "sitting on their thumbs"?

Everyone knew that Hincapie and Landis were transfusing bags of blood with Lance on the bus? When did everyone know this? More importantly when did USADA know this?

Again there seems to be a confusion of sitting on thumbs and sitting on evidence. Why are these being made synonymous. People in NY told me about this years ago. I can't say when the USADA knew it, but that's not my point.

A question: why are you so defensive of the USADA? They're achieving an objective that suits your interests; you can't imagine that they could be subject to criticism?

 

[MarkvW]

No, I'm not baiting people, however, I find that a good amount of the remarks in this thread are "conclusory" as you say.

What I want to discuss (and maybe this isn't the thread for it, but then again, it does say USADA) is that just because they've achieved what "appears" to be an endgame doesn't mean that it's through their own means. Nor, especially, does it mean that any value should be attached to it. That's what I want to discuss and have always wanted to discuss.

Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is, at times, any enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So that that not remain a strictly philosophical proposition, I have to question whether the end result will do much in terms of larger social good: either to LA's "victims" or as a deterrent to doping.

Back on topic then, I have to question the convenience of the USADA's agenda at this moment, what they imagine that they're accomplishing and how that accomplishment plays out within the spectacularization of politics--via media--of which they are a part.

What facts lead you to suppose that USADA did not obtain its evidence by its own means.

 

[JRTinMA]

No, I'm not baiting people, however, I find that a good amount of the remarks in this thread are "conclusory" as you say.

What I want to discuss (and maybe this isn't the thread for it, but then again, it does say USADA) is that just because they've achieved what "appears" to be an endgame doesn't mean that it's through their own means. Nor, especially, does it mean that any value should be attached to it. That's what I want to discuss and have always wanted to discuss.

Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude is, at times, any enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So that that not remain a strictly philosophical proposition, I have to question whether the end result will do much in terms of larger social good: either to LA's "victims" or as a deterrent to doping.

Back on topic then, I have to question the convenience of the USADA's agenda at this moment, what they imagine that they're accomplishing and how that accomplishment plays out within the spectacularization of politics--via media--of which they are a part.

Its not the forum for it either, stick with the group think and you will be fine. Any dissenting opinion even if its not actually dissenting will be pounced upon by the resident trolls.

 

[goober]

Lance is working on his confession speech now....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, it wasn't my point. But you brought up Papp didn't you?

Uh, and my point was that they didn't have evidence because they didn't have the means, the wherewithal or the impetus to obtain it. Are you contesting that? RR already let it go.

I already contested it, and mentioned Landis in 06- which you acknowledged.
So they were not sitting on their thumbs.

 

[zigmeister]

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.

You are more than welcome to go get hired by someone to do the reporting you think is required. That is rhetorical also, everybody knows you won't do that.

 

[aphronesis]

I think this has been responded to in a manner by others that requires no further input from me at this time.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Most of the responses seem to be a matter of narrow and misconstrued semantics.

 

[aphronesis]

I already contested it, and mentioned Landis in 06- which you acknowledged.
So they were not sitting on their thumbs.

Oh, so perfunctory follow up and a little big game fishing equates to not sitting on thumbs? Got it.

 

[Jeremiah]

The decision

To the bolded, do you know this to be fact? I suspect its just a conspiracy of yours but I will await your evidence. Would you have been equally enraged if they had only published the dismissal article? Wouldn't that be very one sided in your mind? Take whats written and apply some critical thinking, then move on.

was one sided...

USADA has more power than ever despite Sparks' supposed harsh criticism!

You don't think Armstrong v USADA will be a tool in the anti doping agency's arsenal?

 

[aphronesis]

What facts lead you to suppose that USADA did not obtain its evidence by its own means.

No strict facts according to the legal protocols discussed here over the past several months.

Mostly the hunch that they don't have the power of coercion to obtain testimony from all the witnesses who will come out. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I won't believe it until I see it.

 

[mewmewmew13]

You forgot; choose to arbitrate and not show. Send a proxy. F0ck it. Call Sheryl Crow as a witnesses. Make it a celeb trial. Gets fans holding a vigil out the front. Get a song written about your freedom. "All we are saying....". Just attempt to derail the entire proceedings.

LMAO
Just read this. I can just picture a huge group sitting cross-legged swaying while singing this....

He will choose something ridiculous to try to make a mockery of the whole thing...'witch hunt'..continue to discredit USADA ...can see it happening now.

Can't wait until tomorrow though

 

[Jeremiah]

You are more than welcome to go get hired by someone to do the reporting you think is required. That is rhetorical also, everybody knows you won't do that.

Hey Zig,

Nice distraction from reality. That reality is that USADA emerges from this decision with enhanced, solidified powers.

IOW, Armstrong's lawsuit backfired for all American dopers who would like to advance bs legal theories to escape sanction for their fraud.

That's the bottom line and I'm giving away those insights for free rather than clogging up people's minds with "reading between the lines" drivel which is just designed to take up space.

Sorry you can't see that.

 

[Race Radio]

Again there seems to be a confusion of sitting on thumbs and sitting on evidence. Why are these being made synonymous. People in NY told me about this years ago. I can't say when the USADA knew it, but that's not my point.

A question: why are you so defensive of the USADA? They're achieving an objective that suits your interests; you can't imagine that they could be subject to criticism?

Oh, I see you are just trolling.

Let us know when you have anything to back up your claim

 

[thehog]

Very interesting read:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html

Wow! Where did you find this? I don't think anyone has seen this before!

 

[Jeremiah]

Again there seems to be a confusion of sitting on thumbs and sitting on evidence. Why are these being made synonymous. People in NY told me about this years ago. I can't say when the USADA knew it, but that's not my point.

A question: why are you so defensive of the USADA? They're achieving an objective that suits your interests; you can't imagine that they could be subject to criticism?

As opposed to the interests of fraud on whose side you're on?

Look, the judge ruled and it's a correct and devastating defeat for Armstrong and his fans.



My condolences.