USADA - Armstrong

Page 449 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
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.
I call it stage 2 - Anger.

Stage 1 (I'm impartial) was the denial stage.

3 to go!
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
mewmewmew13 said:
The backdraft from the shock that it really happened is affecting some here....:rolleyes:
Not surprising, it's the same old trolls in different clothing. Their taintmeat is really chaffed today.
 
Does anyone know if LeMond has issued a statement on the cheater yet? Im VERY curious to get his reaction on this subject.

How could busting Lance hurt the tour as the riders claimed, is it bc more riders are doping still & dont want to get caught?
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
the big ring said:
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?
Do I seem upset for anyone? Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not sorry for Armstrong. I'm not sorry for the doctors, or for Bruyneel.

If they engaged in an ongoing conspiracy they all ought to be punished.

And let's understand how these other 10-12 former teammates and associates "came clean". You do know how that sort of thing works, right? It works like this: The USADA sends a letter to, for example, George Hincapie. In the letter the USADA says, "We've got sworn testimony from your former teammates that you engaged in blood doping, took PED's, and helped facilitate an ongoing conspiracy in which you and several of your former teammates, including LA, JB and others, trafficked, possessed and distributed PED's and other prohibited substances to others in your team. We have sworn statements that this went on for close to a decade and that you knew about it and participated and took drugs too. Unless you cooperate with us, we will issue the most severe sanctions possible to you. If you do cooperate, we'll go easier on you than we otherwise would if you contested these allegations. So, what would you like to do?"

The letter is not specific as to any names, dates or places, but it has enough detail about what the addressee is alleged to have done that it scares the crap out of the target. "What else do they really know?" the target thinks. And it's that fear of the unknown, the stuff the prosecutors might know that gets the guy to talk.

And let's not forget that at the time most of this information was being compiled, when the statements were being obtained from George, from Levi, DZ and others, most of the pressure was being brought to bear not by USADA, but by the United States Department of Justice, in the form of two Assistant U.S. Attorneys from the Central District of Los Angeles, a dogged and reportedly single-minded (and perhaps ethically challenged) investigator from FDA (who had been booted out of the IRS investigations for misconduct in the MLB-Balco investigation for releasing the names of MLB steroid users even while a motion was pending before a federal judge to keep this information confidential), as well as the single most intimidating thing any U.S. citizen can face, and I'm referring to a Grand Jury Panel, where everything you say can and will be used against you, and if you are later held to an untruth, you will be prosecuted and go to jail for perjury or obstruction of justice.

So please don't talk to me about "cooperation". These guys were threatened with prosecution, monetary fines, perjury charges, and jail. The least of their problems would have been a two-year ban from the sport.

And that's how its done. USADA didn't go to all of these former teammates and suggest simply, "Gee, tell us what you know and if you do, we'll be nice," and in response they all came in and simply volunteered information, the same information that they'd been keeping secret for a decade.

What did USADA do first? They found one guy, Landis, who had an axe to grind, and who wanted to settle a score, and who was willing to give them enough information to allow the pressure to be brought to bear on the weaker links in the chain, the JV's of the world. I am not saying JV isn't a good guy, or a stand-up friend or that he's evil. But some guys respond to pressure differently than others. And when they show weakness, it allows the prosecutors to apply yet more pressure and threaten other people in the chain who might be tougher nuts to crack.

And of course, the USADA also had other information as well, including stuff from the Andreus, Lemond, etc., nothing quite definitive enough standing alone, but as they went up the chain, allowed them to get more and more concessions from those who would be most reluctant to talk. And each time, they are offered concessions and leniency, and are promised (and may ultimately be given) more lenient treatment as a result of their "cooperation".

Did they cooperate? Sure. Was it compelled cooperation? In my mind, absolutely.

Does this mean I have sympathy for any of the parties or players in the conspiracy? No way. Frankie Andreu admits to taking EPO, but because the statute of limitations had long since run, and he expressed regret (or rather Betsy expressed her outrage that Frankie had given into the pressure) this all somehow justifies that he was never sanctioned? Why not apply the same Hellebuyck rationale to him now, and ban him for at least two years (for PED use and possession) from his current cycling reporting gig. Or do we have a special place for him because he happens to have suffered at the hands of Armstrong?

Look, the whole thing is a cesspool, really. So you'll pardon me if I don't have too much sympathy for those who decided, only when it was morally convenient for them to do so, to blow the whistle and confess.

I just think no one deserves special treatment, at least not here, not now, not in this case. If you're going to punish one, then punish them all.

And yes, I'm aware of the discretion that the WADA Code and the USADA Protocols allow for those who cooperate. But after all this time, what really is the meaning of the word "cooperate" and how does it differ from simply trying to cover one's a##.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
the big ring said:
I call it stage 2 - Anger.

Stage 1 (I'm impartial) was the denial stage.

3 to go!
Last stage: Put your Trek up for sale on ebay or craigslist.

I was in Omega Sports tonight, asked the guy behind the register if they were putting their Livestrong gear on clearance. He said they weren't that he knew of. I told him he'd better consider it unless he wants to still be inventorying it in 4 years.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
QuickStepper said:
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.
You need--you utterly NEED--an inside man to crack a conspiracy. Without that (especially if you lack surveillance tools), you simply don't get inside. This is fundamental and practical and not fairly subject to debate.

Your approach has the surface appeal of fairness and simplicity--but it's just a wordy way of saying. "nobody likes a snitch." And you don't catch conspirators without snitches.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Do I seem upset for anyone? Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not sorry for Armstrong. I'm not sorry for the doctors, or for Bruyneel.

If they engaged in an ongoing conspiracy they all ought to be punished.

And let's understand how these other 10-12 former teammates and associates "came clean". You do know how that sort of thing works, right? It works like this: The USADA sends a letter to, for example, George Hincapie. In the letter the USADA says, "We've got sworn testimony from your former teammates that you engaged in blood doping, took PED's, and helped facilitate an ongoing conspiracy in which you and several of your former teammates, including LA, JB and others, trafficked, possessed and distributed PED's and other prohibited substances to others in your team. We have sworn statements that this went on for close to a decade and that you knew about it and participated and took drugs too. Unless you cooperate with us, we will issue the most severe sanctions possible to you. If you do cooperate, we'll go easier on you than we otherwise would if you contested these allegations. So, what would you like to do?"

And that's how its done. USADA didn't go to all of these former teammates and suggest simply, "Gee, tell us what you know and if you do, we'll be nice," and in response they all came in and simply volunteered information, the same information that they'd been keeping secret for a decade.

What did USADA do first? They found one guy, Landis, who had an axe to grind, and who wanted to settle a score, and who was willing to give them enough information to allow the pressure to be brought to bear on the weaker links in the chain, the JV's of the world. I am not saying JV isn't a good guy, or a stand-up friend or that he's evil. But some guys respond to pressure differently than others. And when they show weakness, it allows the prosecutors to apply yet more pressure and threaten other people in the chain who might be tougher nuts to crack.

And of course, the USADA also had other information as well, including stuff from the Andreus, Lemond, etc., nothing quite definitive enough standing alone, but as they went up the chain, allowed them to get more and more concessions from those who would be most reluctant to talk. And each time, they are offered concessions and leniency, and are promised (and may ultimately be given) more lenient treatment as a result of their "cooperation".

Did they cooperate? Sure. Was it compelled cooperation? In my mind, absolutely.

Does this mean I have sympathy for any of the parties or players in the conspiracy? No way. Frankie Andreu admits to taking EPO, but because the statute of limitations had long since run, and he expressed regret (or rather Betsy expressed her outrage that Frankie had given into the pressure) this all somehow justifies that he was never sanctioned? Why not apply the same Hellebuyck rationale to him now, and ban him for at least two years (for PED use and possession) from his current cycling reporting gig. Or do we have a special place for him because he happens to have suffered at the hands of Armstrong?

Look, the whole thing is a cesspool, really. So you'll pardon me if I don't have too much sympathy for those who decided, only when it was morally convenient for them to do so, to blow the whistle and confess.

I just think no one deserves special treatment, at least not here, not now, not in this case. If you're going to punish one, then punish them all.

And yes, I'm aware of the discretion that the WADA Code and the USADA Protocols allow for those who cooperate. But after all this time, what really is the meaning of the word "cooperate" and how does it differ from simply trying to cover one's a##.
Your "objectivity" is showing...again :rolleyes:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
i haven't seen anyone try to defend the scale of decision. i detect mainly embarrassment and some hollow laughter.
No, we just don't really care. We don't have to justify anything anymore. All of the dolts who believed in the myth for years on end are the ones with some 'splanin to do. LUCY!!!!!!
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
You need--you utterly NEED--an inside man to crack a conspiracy. Without that (especially if you lack surveillance tools), you simply don't get inside. This is fundamental and practical and not fairly subject to debate.

Your approach has the surface appeal of fairness and simplicity--but it's just a wordy way of saying. "nobody likes a snitch." And you don't catch conspirators without snitches.
You'd think such a well seasoned, detached attorney who had been in federal court would understand that, but he is just sooooooo much more objective than anyone else that he has surpassed normal objectivity, and rocketed into stratospheric objectivity...
 
Scott SoCal said:
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.
Come on Scott. You're what? Selectively cynical? I was going to build your response into an earlier post but knew it would get lost.

They would have easily found someone else and that speaks to the broader levels of coercion. Not the individuals
 
Aug 21, 2012
90
0
0
ÅSBJÖRN BENKT said:
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.
UCI will have to. Or they'll burn. But think they will anyway. And how is a lifetime ban heavy handed? If he doped and doped his team and conspired with organisations etc. all from '98 to retirement, why should he get to keep some of the 7? I'm lost on that logic. The rules are the rules. They've [USADA] just got to stick to them. And show no satisfaction in carrying out their duties. And then no one can complain.

My worry is that lowering what ought to be a minumum 2 year ban on all the others to 6 months (if gossip is to be believed) looks far to soft. 12 months at the least. But do all their results go from '98 too?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Dude, do everyone a favor and shorten up the apologist tirades a little. I know you like the sound of your own keyboard, but the rest of us get the idea within the first few refrains of your song and dance.

You're welcome.
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
No, we just don't really care. We don't have to justify anything anymore. All of the dolts who believed in the myth for years on end are the ones with some 'splanin to do. LUCY!!!!!!
if you want people to recognize the ban then you have a lot of explaining to do. most pro riders, most fans, don't seem to be buying into it. and have the UCI recognized it yet?
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
MacRoadie said:
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
Moral relativism. You're comparing a cycling team's alleged doping to mafia hit men?

I'm not even going to engage in that discussion.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
&#197 said:
if you want people to recognize the ban then you have a lot of explaining to do. most pro riders, most fans, don't seem to be buying into it. and have the UCI recognized it yet?
I'm sorry, I thought you could read English. Let me reiterate the point of my post: I don't care. Armstrong is the greatest fraud in sporting history. He needs to explain himself before anyone else. So do people like you who believed the myth.
 
Apr 17, 2009
402
0
9,280
ChewbaccaD said:
Last stage: Put your Trek up for sale on ebay or craigslist.

I was in Omega Sports tonight, asked the guy behind the register if they were putting their Livestrong gear on clearance. He said they weren't that he knew of. I told him he'd better consider it unless he wants to still be inventorying it in 4 years.
Along with your USPS and Discovery Channel jerseys

(I must admit I did that):eek:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Moral relativism. You're comparing a cycling team's alleged doping to mafia hit men?

I'm not even going to engage in that discussion.
Yea, because the principles behind the usage in those cases and this are just soooooooooo different...:rolleyes:
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Dude, do everyone a favor and shorten up the apologist tirades a little. I know you like the sound of your own keyboard, but the rest of us get the idea within the first few refrains of your song and dance.

You're welcome.
Dude. I'm not apologizing for anyone or anything. You really are not clarivoyant, so stop pretending to be. Instead of reading between the lines (which is only white space) why not just read the words? Really, I'm not angry at anyone, but I just think USADA ought to, when they get around to announcing the punishments for the rest of the former teammates who "cooperated" mete out consistent punishments.

But you already got that idea. So I guess I don't have to say it again. But is it ok with you if I respond to those who have responded to my "tirade"? I mean, you don't have to read it if you already know what I'm going to say, right?
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Clemson Cycling said:
Do you think Hincapie, Zabriske, and Vande Velde are going to lose their wins with 6 month bans?
This is the USADA v. Armstrong thread. Start your own thread if you want to throw that party.

You're welcome for the wonderful suggestion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Clemson Cycling said:
Do you think Hincapie, Zabriske, and Vande Velde are going to lose their wins with 6 month bans?
Dunno. Did they buy the UCI?
 
Aug 21, 2012
84
0
0
OldManThyme said:
UCI will have to. Or they'll burn. But think they will anyway. And how is a lifetime ban heavy handed? If he doped and doped his team and conspired with organisations etc. all from '98 to retirement, why should he get to keep some of the 7? I'm lost on that logic. The rules are the rules. They've [USADA] just got to stick to them. And show no satisfaction in carrying out their duties. And then no one can complain.

My worry is that lowering what ought to be a minumum 2 year ban on all the others to 6 months (if gossip is to be believed) looks far to soft. 12 months at the least. But do all their results go from '98 too?
very few cases go over the statute of limitations, nor single out one rider over others to such a bizarre extent. USADA decision is now a very divisive for the sport as most pros, teams, pundits and fans think it was the wrong call. it wasn't necessary to clean up the sport either, as jonathon vaughters says. it was a massive overreach. it will leave a blackhole in the sport for decades. far better to have stayed within the statute - it would have been much less divisive and reflected the reality of the previous era. UCI would probably have accepted that.

its now worse for people who oppose armstrong as they are left trying to defend the decision, and they have no real bans since they're not being recognized by the rest of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY