USADA - Armstrong

Page 420 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Turner29 said:
"VN: Finally, Armstrong’s lawyers claimed again today that this is a waste of taxpayers’ money – how would you respond to that?

TT: I think cheating with dangerous drugs in sport is an important public health issue, it is the number one issue that clean athletes are concerned about. It is why we are in existence. If people don’t think it is important and we shouldn’t do our job, then shut us down.

But that is not what the overwhelming majority of clean athletes want and it’s certainly not what any sport entity wants….to have a drug-infested sport that is won by those who have the most professionalised doping programmes."

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R7LVSwZ

Nice comment.
Tygart seems like a straight shooter. He is competent, prepared, and focused. Armstrong was too used to dealing with clowns in positions of power in Europe. It gave him a false sense of security.
 
Aug 21, 2012
90
0
0
sittingbison said:
ahhh the intricacies of English for you ÅSBJÖRN. Its the opposite of inferring support for Lance.
I'm not so sure.... depends on whether Phinney is the straight or sarcastic type.
 
Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
More hope. :)

BroDeal said:
What about this:

@joelindsey: @jasenthorpe @billgifford Oh what the heck. I peeked: Section 16: “USADA may respond publicly” if an athlete comments on a case…

@joelindsey: @jasenthorpe @billgifford And: “…after a rule violation has been established, USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case.”
Kennf1 said:
From Tygart's interview with Velonation:


VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

TT: No, no.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R6Deq5I
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Here a a draft of the new footnote:

"D. ^ : Lance Armstrong was the winner at the podium ceremony in Paris on the last day of the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 tours, but subsequently was found guilty of using performance enhancing substances throughout his career. The United States Anti-Doping Agency stripped him of all his title on August 24, 2012."
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
BroDeal said:
Tygart seems like a straight shooter. He is competent, prepared, and focused. Armstrong was too used to dealing with clowns in positions of power in Europe. It gave him a false sense of security.
I would add professional too.
 
Turner29 said:
Here a a draft of the new footnote:

"D. ^ : Lance Armstrong was the winner at the podium ceremony in Paris on the last day of the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 tours, but subsequently was found guilty of using performance enhancing substances throughout his career. The United States Anti-Doping Agency stripped him of all his title on August 24, 2012."
His name should be bumped just like Landis.
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
0
Turner29 said:
Here a a draft of the new footnote:

"D. ^ : Lance Armstrong was the winner at the podium ceremony in Paris on the last day of the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 tours, but subsequently was found guilty of using performance enhancing substances throughout his career. The United States Anti-Doping Agency stripped him of all his title on August 24, 2012."

I'm not so sure "found guilty" is the proper word choice. that could be debated.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
BroDeal said:
What about this:

@joelindsey: @jasenthorpe @billgifford Oh what the heck. I peeked: Section 16: “USADA may respond publicly” if an athlete comments on a case…

@joelindsey: @jasenthorpe @billgifford And: “…after a rule violation has been established, USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case.”
I have no idea what the source(s) of those statements is/are. Section 16 of the WADA Code is entitled "Doping Control for Animals Competing in Sport" and is obviouisly inapplicable here. I don't know where the other statement comes from either.

If the twit (tweeter?) is referring to Section 16 of the USADA Protocols, this is what they say:

16. Confidentiality
Athletes consent to USADA disclosing such information concerning the Athlete to
sports organizations as may be required by the Code, IF rules, the USOC NADP, this
Protocol, or the IST, including the whereabouts information described in Articles
14.3 and 14.5 of the Code. For any disclosure which USADA is entitled to make to
the USOC, USADA may, in addition, make such disclosure to the appropriate NGB or
other appropriate USOC member organization.

USADA shall maintain on its website a list which includes the identity of all Athletes
tested by USADA and the number of times each Athlete has been tested by USADA
USADA shall not Publicly Disclose or comment upon any Athlete’s Adverse Analytical
Finding or Atypical Finding or upon any information related to any alleged doping
violation (including violations not involving an Adverse Analytical Finding) until
after the Athlete or other Person (1) has been found to have committed an antidoping
rule violation in a hearing conducted under this Protocol, or (2) has failed to
request a hearing within the time set forth in 10 (a),
or (3) has agreed in writing to
the sanction sought by USADA. However, USADA may provide notification to the
USOC, NGB, IF, WADA, an event organizer or team selecting entity (or other sporting
body ordering the test) as provided for in this Protocol. USADA does not control
how information provided by USADA to the USOC, NGBs, IFs, WADA and other
sports organizations is disseminated but will include statements to each organization requesting that any organization receiving such information
keep it confidential until disclosed by USADA
.

USADA may comment publicly at any time on any aspect of the results management/adjudication process or the applicable rules without making specific reference to any Athlete or other Person alleged to have committed an anti-doping rule violation. USADA may also release aggregate statistics of Testing and adjudication results.

In the event an Athlete or the Athlete’s representative(s) or others associated with the Athlete make(s) public comments about their case or the process involving the Athlete then
USADA may respond publicly to such comments
.

USADA shall Publicly Report the disposition of anti-doping matters no later than five
(5) business days after
: (1) it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with
the Protocol that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, (2) such hearing has
been waived,
(3) the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely
challenged, or (4) the Athlete or other Person has agreed in writing to the sanction
sought by USADA.

After an anti-doping rule violation has been established USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case. In all cases, the disposition shall be reported to the USOC, NGB, IF, WADA and, if applicable, the other sporting body referring the matter to USADA.
So, I suppose it's that last sentence that somehow gives an opening for USADA under its own rules to "comment upon any aspect of the case" once the anti-doping violation has been "established." Of course, this provision is nowhere found in the WADA Code, and it appears not to be consistent with the provisions of that Code, and perhaps that's why the Herman letter was sent.

Also, the language where the rule allows "comment" upon "any aspect of the case" doesn't say that the USADA can release evidence that it relied upon or statements of witnesses, but only that it can "comment" on "aspects of the case."

So, I think my original take on this is still right, and that USADA is somewhat limited in what it can do with information related to the case publicly, and that it's ability to "comment" on the case doesn't amount to making the entire thing public. If that's what the Protocol was intended to say, that's what it would have said, i.e., "USADA may comment upon any aspect of the case and release any documentary evidence or witness statements it deems appropriate." And that is not what the Protocol says, and WADA's rules don't say that either.
 
Captain Kirk said:
So who wants the honour of fixing Wikipedia?

It appears to be way out a date.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tour_de_France_winners
The deal isn't done. It seems likely Wonderboy has to contest, so that will slow things down. And then Wonderboy will be making stuff up to slow it down again. Let's say it gets all the way through USADA's arbitration in 6 months, then it's likely off to CAS to delay the inevitable for Wonderboy.

After CAS, the ASO could never get around to changing those wins...

Lots of opportunities for Friday afternoon press releases left. Plus, we've got some ominous foreshadowing from RaceRadio regarding another personality in the case.

It's going to be a while...

FWIW, I think a new thread is a good idea. It broke 1000, that's long enough.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
Brodeal:

Screw you. I am done fighting for post 10,000. I know who really posted #10,000, my friends know it, and so does Susan Westemeyer. It was the strongest poster here in the toughest thread ever, and we all know who that was.

Oh, and if you say anything about this post or the reason I'm no longer fighting to maintain the title of poster #10,000, I will sue you. For what I have no idea. But I will sue you.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
BroDeal said:
Brian Holcombe, a name that will live in infamy. You have to wonder how deep the barrel was that Velonews scraped the bottom of to find the clowns they have writing there now.
Brian Holcombe is the editor of VeloNews.com. Holcombe joined VeloNews in 2009 following years spent introducing students to whitewater kayaking and working in avalanche control
Nice credentials there. The editor of VELOnews.com is a kayaker ...why am I not surprised?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY