USADA - Armstrong

Page 448 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
serottasyclist said:
Riders are not under a duty to report known dopers. So merely remaining silent doesn't make one part of a cover-up. The conspiracy involved acts such as covering up positive tests and distributing drugs to riders within the team.
The second clause of your last sentence pretty much negates the rider integrity suggested in the first. Report, no. Obliged to participate?
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Oh, give me a break. Boo-f*cking-hoo. No one is "forced" to dope.

And my analysis didn't even assume that they doped. All I said was that if they KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID NOTHING, failed to expose it, failed to stop it, and instead helped facilitate it, they deserve the same penalty and don't deserve any leniency either.

So they were "forced" by Armstrong to dope, and then "forced" by USADA at the risk of further peril and sanctions but with offers of leniency, to spill the beans and break a decade of silence?

No, if that's the case and this is how it went down, I don't care if they doped or didn't. They ought to all be receiving the same punishment,the same bans, the same forfeit of results. Anything less is illogical, hypocritical and smacks of the "smelly fish" that Judge Sparks alluded to.

I am becoming more and more cynical by the day about all of this. Screw them all. If USADA is bound and determined to open up the entire can of worms, then let's just treat all the worms the same.

Really, how do you give J. Vaughters a pass, and excoriate Armstrong? I just don't quite get it. Or maybe Armstrong's only mistake was that he didn't start a team and claim that it's free of doping and that he just wants to see a "clean team" for once in cycling. What a load of bushwah.
You've gone from analytical to emotional there mate.

Al Capone should get the same sentence as his lowliest employee that gave him up? Really? :eek:
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
QuickStepper said:
Oh, give me a break. Boo-f*cking-hoo. No one is "forced" to dope.

And my analysis didn't even assume that they doped. All I said was that if they KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID NOTHING, failed to expose it, failed to stop it, and instead helped facilitate it, they deserve the same penalty and don't deserve any leniency either.

So they were "forced" by Armstrong to dope, and then "forced" by USADA at the risk of further peril and sanctions but with offers of leniency, to spill the beans and break a decade of silence?

No, if that's the case and this is how it went down, I don't care if they doped or didn't. They ought to all be receiving the same punishment,the same bans, the same forfeit of results. Anything less is illogical, hypocritical and smacks of the "smelly fish" that Judge Sparks alluded to.

I am becoming more and more cynical by the day about all of this. Screw them all. If USADA is bound and determined to open up the entire can of worms, then let's just treat all the worms the same.

Really, how do you give J. Vaughters a pass, and excoriate Armstrong? I just don't quite get it. Or maybe Armstrong's only mistake was that he didn't start a team and claim that it's free of doping and that he just wants to see a "clean team" for once in cycling. What a load of bushwah.
What is your opinion on State's Witnesses and Witness Protection?

Different crimes, same principle...

Henry Hill
"Jimmy the Weasel" Fratianno
Jimmy Cardinali
John Tully
Sammy Gravano
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
QuickStepper said:
...
I think if USADA is insisting on a lifetime ban for a guy like Armstrong, and the rest of his teammates knew about the use, distribution and methods being employed for some or all the rest of the team to engage in prohibited doping, they all ought to get the same punishment, no more and no less.
I am sure that Lance Armstrong and Manolo Saiz would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Such a policy would be the very best device for enforcing omerta. Once you're in the conspiracy, your fate is inextricably bound with the fate of your leader.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
serottasyclist said:
Riders are not under a duty to report known dopers. So merely remaining silent doesn't make one part of a cover-up. The conspiracy involved acts such as covering up positive tests and distributing drugs to riders within the team.
Riders are not under any duty? Really? Is that why the USADA maintains a "Rider Hotline" for reporting known or suspected drug use by other athletes? Or did they just set up that hotline to have another telephone line in the office?

In the law, keeping silent when one knows a crime has been committed and assisting the criminal by harboring him or further facilitating his criminal acts (and you're trying to tell me that being a part of a doped team isn't "facilitating?") are all enough to be acts in furtherance of an ongoing conspiracy. The acts of one are the acts of all, and everyone has co-extensive liability.

How do you define "covering up" positive tests?

How do you define "distributing drugs to riders in the team?"

What is the significance of the reported incident where the team bus pulled off the side of the road and everyone on board is alleged to have had their blood transfused?

Are you seriously trying to tell us that only George resisted the pressure to engage in blood transfusions when the bus pulled over?

Look, we just really don't know what happened. None of us know what any of these witnesses really testified to (unless you have an inside source at USADA or happen to be a member of their "Review Board"), so at this point, it's all a guessing game.

I just think it's highly hypocritical to claim that Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to have the entire team, over a period of close to a decade, engage in blood doping, EPO and testosterone use, and other PED's, and that he winds up being the only one who receives something more than a 6 month, one year or two year ban. If you're going to punish them, do it to all of them.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
QuickStepper said:
Oh, give me a break. Boo-f*cking-hoo. No one is "forced" to dope.

And my analysis didn't even assume that they doped. All I said was that if they KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID NOTHING, failed to expose it, failed to stop it, and instead helped facilitate it, they deserve the same penalty and don't deserve any leniency either.

So they were "forced" by Armstrong to dope, and then "forced" by USADA at the risk of further peril and sanctions but with offers of leniency, to spill the beans and break a decade of silence?

No, if that's the case and this is how it went down, I don't care if they doped or didn't. They ought to all be receiving the same punishment,the same bans, the same forfeit of results. Anything less is illogical, hypocritical and smacks of the "smelly fish" that Judge Sparks alluded to.

I am becoming more and more cynical by the day about all of this. Screw them all. If USADA is bound and determined to open up the entire can of worms, then let's just treat all the worms the same.

Really, how do you give J. Vaughters a pass, and excoriate Armstrong? I just don't quite get it. Or maybe Armstrong's only mistake was that he didn't start a team and claim that it's free of doping and that he just wants to see a "clean team" for once in cycling. What a load of bushwah.
Bad post.

A young CVV (or anyone else for that matter) having a syringe dropped in his lap and being told, "if you want to go to the TdF, this is what you have to do". Yeah, Boo 'fing Hoo. Pathetic take.

BTW, any evidence of JV buying the UCI? Any? Didn't think so.

Only thing you got right above is your self described cynicism.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Oh, give me a break. Boo-f*cking-hoo. No one is "forced" to dope.

And my analysis didn't even assume that they doped. All I said was that if they KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID NOTHING, failed to expose it, failed to stop it, and instead helped facilitate it, they deserve the same penalty and don't deserve any leniency either.

So they were "forced" by Armstrong to dope, and then "forced" by USADA at the risk of further peril and sanctions but with offers of leniency, to spill the beans and break a decade of silence?

No, if that's the case and this is how it went down, I don't care if they doped or didn't. They ought to all be receiving the same punishment,the same bans, the same forfeit of results. Anything less is illogical, hypocritical and smacks of the "smelly fish" that Judge Sparks alluded to.

I am becoming more and more cynical by the day about all of this. Screw them all. If USADA is bound and determined to open up the entire can of worms, then let's just treat all the worms the same.

Really, how do you give J. Vaughters a pass, and excoriate Armstrong? I just don't quite get it. Or maybe Armstrong's only mistake was that he didn't start a team and claim that it's free of doping and that he just wants to see a "clean team" for once in cycling. What a load of bushwah.
I think you know better and are purposely just arguing one side. Why, I wonder?

The fact that Lance's team mates were "forced" to dope is well known and documented. Frankie Andreau has said so publically - you either accepted the team rules and methods, or another rider was selected to ride alongside Lance at the tour.

The investigation by FDA put several of Lance's former team mates into a tough spot - either lie and face potential perjury charges later, or tell the truth about the team doping. Once they had made those statements under oath they could not tell the USADA a different story. That's how this most likely unfolded. The rumor is that the riders who admitted to the doping will face a penalty - but it will be a lighter penalty than normal since they agreed to cooperate.

I am not giving any doper a pass, but you can hardly compare the actions of a 7-time tour cheater and the overall ring leader to a minion domistique who was given the choice of dope or miss the tour. All knew they had to keep their mouths shut - or face the end of their cycling careers in the hands of the master.
 
QuickStepper said:
The show also conducted interviews of several former teammates, including Chris Horner, who gave a glowing review of Lance, said he thought it was a shame and that Lance had just been hounded and had wasted too much money already fighting these allegations. He then said Lance has done amazing things in cycling and in raising money for cancer victims. I was actually surprised when Horner said, "I was there for one of the wins, and in my mind, he will always be the winner."
That bump to the head has really affected Horner. He cannot remember what years he rode with Armstrong. He might want to get that checked out.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
QuickStepper said:
...and that he winds up being the only one who receives something more than a 6 month, one year or two year ban. If you're going to punish them, do it to all of them.
And you know this how?
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
QuickStepper said:
I just think it's highly hypocritical to claim that Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to have the entire team, over a period of close to a decade, engage in blood doping, EPO and testosterone use, and other PED's, and that he winds up being the only one who receives something more than a 6 month, one year or two year ban. If you're going to punish them, do it to all of them.
Forest and trees again. Are you missing something really, really big here?

What did USADA do first? Who did they give the opportunity to come clean to? Who did come clean? Who was subsequently charged?

This isn't just about Armstrong, 2 doctors have also already received life time bans, or are you forgetting them? You don't seem upset for them, I noticed?
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
MarkvW said:
I am sure that Lance Armstrong and Manolo Saiz would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Such a policy would be the very best device for enforcing omerta. Once you're in the conspiracy, your fate is inextricably bound with the fate of your leader.
Yep. And of course, that is the legal consequence of deciding to join a conspiracy. But then not everyone in society joins criminal conspiracies. Those that don't have nothing to worry about. Those that do, well they get punished just the same as everyone else when things unravel.

So I'm not quite sure of your point. Omerta, or the pressure of all to keep silent isn't something that Manolo Saiz at Once or Armstrong created. It's common in every kind of conspiracy, otherwise, conspiracies wouldn't be able to exist.
 
If this hasn't been posted already, NPR's evening news cycle had a Travis Tygart interview and a Mike Peska(sp?) segment that remained pretty objective.

I couldn't be as cool as Travis Tygart while making USADA's case that's for sure.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
QuickStepper said:
I just got finished watching Phil and Paul being interviewed on NBCSports' show "Sports Talk" which immediately followed the coverage of the USProCycling Challenge. it's a show kind of like Pardon the Interruption on ESPN, but with only one guy instead of multiple hosts. The host (I forget his name) isn't a cycling fan, and as he was interviewing Phil and Paul, he kept telling them "Look, I'm not the brightest guy. I just want to know what this means for cycling."

Phil, still wearing a yellow bracelet, was clear that he believes this is going to still come down to a fight between USADA and UCI. He was otherwise very non-committal about it. When asked what he thought the reaction was from those in the peloton, he said it was about 50-50 and that lots of people have many reservations about USADA, its timing and methods, but others think the result is going to be good for the sport in the long run as it will close this chapter and allow everyone to move on.

Paul basically said the same thing, but he was asked specifically to give the perspective of someone who has ridden the TdF. He said essentially what Phil said, and added several times that he thought most of the current riders don't think this will be good for cycling, except that it will bring some closure, even if the evidence won't come out any time soon.

Both of them said that they think the whole situation still leaves many questions unanswered, and they both assumed that the only thing USADA would do is transmit a basic "rationale" statement to the UCI, and that UCI might yet decide to appeal it on the basis that only UCI has authority to sanction riders for violations that allegedly occur during international events.

Given that most people think Phil and Paul are truly homers for Lance, they didn't come across that way, at least not as much has they have in the past.

The show host also interviewed Bob Roll, who gave his perspective, saying in essence that he thought Lance had reached the end of his rope, and also saying he thinks the UCI still is going to have to approve the sanctions and that "this is only really the beginning" of what could be a very interesting fight.

The show also conducted interviews of several former teammates, including Chris Horner, who gave a glowing review of Lance, said he thought it was a shame and that Lance had just been hounded and had wasted too much money already fighting these allegations. He then said Lance has done amazing things in cycling and in raising money for cancer victims. I was actually surprised when Horner said, "I was there for one of the wins, and in my mind, he will always be the winner."

Others, including Jim Ochowizc were also expressing support for Armstrong, and Och also repeated the same thing about Lance will always be the winner.

I can't recall the others that spoke, but there were several others, some former teammates or colleagues and others who weren't. But the support was kind of surprising, and if I were the average fan who had tuned into the show to watch the upcoming NFL and MLB coverage that dominated the rest of the show, I would have likely come away with the view that Lance just decided he'd had enough because it was an unlevel playing field, and that this thing is still far from over or settled in terms of what the sanctions ultimately will or won't be.
yeah most people seem to be supporting armstrong.

what really rubs people up the wrong way is the way they went back to 1998. perhaps the USADA never thought they'd get that far back and it was just an opening position. now that they have it, they look like ****. even people who want armstrong punished in someway don't think it was worth going past the statute of limitations.

they've turned armstrong into a victim. no other rider has ever been punished in this way.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
If this hasn't been posted already, NPR's evening news cycle had a Travis Tygart interview and a Mike Peska(sp?) segment that remained pretty objective.

I couldn't be as cool as Travis Tygart while making USADA's case that's for sure.
its damage control. Tygart doesn't want to come off as vindictive or triumphant and play into the witch hunt narrative. USADA know their decision is hugely unpopular inside the sport and outside of it.

i don't know if many of you guys have had the chance to talk to ordinary people about this, but lead balloon springs to mind.
 
Aug 27, 2011
44
0
8,580
QuickStepper said:
The key phrase in your comment are the words by which you qualify the rest of your statements,i.e., "I . . think". None of us here now yet knows what the evidence really is, or what Hincapie, Leipheimer, et.al., really testified to seeing or participating in over the years. So your statement that they didn't do something is really just speculation at this point. You don't know and neitehr do I.
You call the OP out for speculating in his post, then (long-windedly, I might add) Proceed to do exactly the same thing.
I can only assume you feel your speculations are superior, but they are only more speculations.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Oh, give me a break. Boo-f*cking-hoo. No one is "forced" to dope.

And my analysis didn't even assume that they doped. All I said was that if they KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID NOTHING, failed to expose it, failed to stop it, and instead helped facilitate it, they deserve the same penalty and don't deserve any leniency either.

So they were "forced" by Armstrong to dope, and then "forced" by USADA at the risk of further peril and sanctions but with offers of leniency, to spill the beans and break a decade of silence?

No, if that's the case and this is how it went down, I don't care if they doped or didn't. They ought to all be receiving the same punishment,the same bans, the same forfeit of results. Anything less is illogical, hypocritical and smacks of the "smelly fish" that Judge Sparks alluded to.

I am becoming more and more cynical by the day about all of this. Screw them all. If USADA is bound and determined to open up the entire can of worms, then let's just treat all the worms the same.

Really, how do you give J. Vaughters a pass, and excoriate Armstrong? I just don't quite get it. Or maybe Armstrong's only mistake was that he didn't start a team and claim that it's free of doping and that he just wants to see a "clean team" for once in cycling. What a load of bushwah.
So the suppliers and dealers deserve the same sentence as the users? Noted.

Wow, your previous ode to your own objectivity really is a laugh riot. You really are taking all of this kind of hard.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
perfessor said:
You call the OP out for speculating in his post, then (long-windedly, I might add) Proceed to do exactly the same thing.
I can only assume you feel your speculations are superior, but they are only more speculations.
Introspection is not one of Quickstepper's strong suits. Nor is determining the validity of federal jurisdiction in instances where the case law is so simple, even the legally untrained can understand it.

He sure posts a lot about this for someone who claims no particular interest other than to objectively like to discuss legal matters...:rolleyes:
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
QuickStepper said:
I just think it's highly hypocritical to claim that Armstrong engaged in a conspiracy to have the entire team, over a period of close to a decade, engage in blood doping, EPO and testosterone use, and other PED's, and that he winds up being the only one who receives something more than a 6 month, one year or two year ban.
like I said, i don't think the USADA ever expected to get it all the wins. they must have believed the rumors about armstrong being this crazy head strong guy that would fight to the bitter end, so they massively overplayed their hands in the hope they could get what they wanted. it would have been far better to stay within the statute of limitations and have the other five wins be tainted by association. nobody is going to recongize such a heavy handed decision.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
yeah most people seem to be supporting armstrong.

what really rubs people up the wrong way is the way they went back to 1998. perhaps the USADA never thought they'd get that far back and it was just an opening position. now that they have it, they look like ****. even people who want armstrong punished in someway don't think it was worth going past the statute of limitations.

they've turned armstrong into a victim. no other rider has ever been punished in this way.
Well, it's always good to reserve just punishment for the greatest fraud in sporting history. Makes the Black Socks look quaint and old fashioned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY