USADA - Armstrong

[benzwire]

Man, I hope this is true. Do you have a link? I have not seen this...

And will this information become public?

 

[college]

Man, I hope this is true. Do you have a link? I have not seen this...

I would not be surprised. But then the Feds did not go forward with criminal charges. What did novit have?

 

[Race Radio]

Jemison didn't ride for USPS that long, so I'm surprised he's one of the 10. Did he ever ride the tour with LA? What I'm wondering more about is, what rider spilled the beans on the pre-cancer LA doping? Seems like it'd have to be more than Andreu, or the hospital-room incident, to be enough for USADA to mention it.

Marty may have anger issues and was not part of the "In" crowd, but he knows about Hemmassit

Of course Frankie is on the list

 

[Kennf1]

Marty may have anger issues and was not part of the "In" crowd, but he knows about Hemmassit

Of course Frankie is on the list

Gotta love Steffen's comment when Jemison confronted him: "Twelve years later, we’re still trying to clean up the mess you idiots made."

Jemison: "There is nothing. There was nothing. We knew nothing in 1996.”


http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/08/news/road/old-doping-accusations-lead-to-altercation_82154

 

[MarkvW]

Man, I hope this is true. Do you have a link? I have not seen this...

The post purports to be a quotation of something. I searched a sentence from the post in Google, and that guy's post is the only result I got.

If it was a Tygart (USADA) "announcement," it wouldn't have been announced here first, I think.

 

[cleanmarine]

Look at this gem from WSJ in 2010. The rooster has come home Patty.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...3732974367988.html?mod=WSJ_hps_editorsPicks_1

 

[Merckx index]

Simultaneously, Armstrong's Livestrong foundation unveiled a partnership with the Ironman series that included fundraising for the foundation and Ironman's sponsorship of Livestrong events.

Wow! He's a part owner of the events he's competing in? What a screaming conflict of interest.

While I would call this being in bed together, a definite conflict of interest, I would not describe it as LA being a part owner of WTC. Not in the strict, legal sense of ownership. The business world is full of partnerships like this. No owner of one company necessarily has an ownership stake in the other.

Insert Jemison an Kevin L. Take out Berry, Cruz, and McCarty.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. From p.1 of the charging letter:

The witnesses to the conduct described in this letter include more than ten (10) cyclists…

I propose the governments impose a ban on cycling for at least 2 years (actually, all pro sport should be eliminated for say 5).

While I’d love to see that happen, you know it never will. While we’re dreaming, I would also like to see one day a year in which there is a total, no excuses, no exceptions, blackout on the reporting of all news.

On a final note the corporate sponsors who made or increased their brand on Armstrong, from Trek to Nike, from Oakley, to US Postal to Discovery, etc, given that much of this info has been out there for years, should be boycotted by the cycling community.

What are they going to do if USADA wins this case? Very interesting to watch. Based on what happened with Tiger Woods, I’d guess some will bail, while some will remain, buying the LA never tested positive, witch-hunt line.

Man, I hope this is true. Do you have a link? I have not seen this...

I remember reading that in one of the first stories to come out about the USADA letter. But reporters not intimate with pro cycling often make errors in reporting about events. IOW, I wouldn't put too much into the fact that some story said Novitzky got all the federal information.

 

[Love the Scenery]

It's the riders themselves who seek these so-called medics. Thus it is a completely simbiotic relationship, like the parasite is to the host. There is no other way to way to save the sport at this point, than to kill both, parasite and host alike. Because one can't survive without the other.

And that is what I really don't agree with. When there is an organized doping system in a team and a young rider comes up through the ranks, they are confronted with an entire structure that they must conform to or else quit cycling. You may think that any rider should make the choice to quit cycling because it's the ethical thing to do, but I am not so willing to throw stones or to think that those who accept the treatments are bad people.

I just got done watching stage 9 of TdS with one of my cases in point, Alejandro Valverde, doing an great job as superdomestique for Rui Costa. Valverde, you will recall, came up through the Kelme squad, widely rumored to be a squad that had an organized doping system in place just as Valverde was coming up to the pro ranks. Valverde did not, probably, go out of his way to seek out the doping doctors. Much more likely, he was simply confronted with a situation where he either participated in the system or did not get a contract. Seeing others doing the same thing, he went with the flow and doped, and eventually got caught by CONI and suspended. But I am not willing to judge him, any more than I am willing to judge Tyler Hamilton, for making that choice when they did not go out of their way to find the doping doctors but instead were faced with a choice of either doping or quitting.

Again, you may say, they should all make the choice of quitting the sport, and again I will say, I will not judge that choice. They can do their time when caught, but I do not consider them evil people, just flawed human beings caught in difficult situations and making bad choices.

Now, for the doctors and team managers who keep those organized doping systems in place, who do the coercion and threats, who take young riders and tell them to either dope or get lost, for them I have no mercy or compassion in my heart. They are simply evil. And riders who rise to that level--riders who organize doping rings, coerce teammates into doping, and distribute the dope--for them no compassion either.

Just my opinion.

 

[Captain Sensible]

On a final note the corporate sponsors who made or increased their brand on Armstrong, from Trek to Nike, from Oakley, to US Postal to Discovery, etc, given that much of this info has been out there for years, should be boycotted by the cycling community.

+1 especially Trek.

 

[MarkvW]

+1 especially Trek.

Excepting USPS (which would be cutting off the nose to spite the face), I've been boycotting all of them for that reason for years.

 

[ElChingon]

Excepting USPS (which would be cutting off the nose to spite the face), I've been boycotting all of them for that reason for years.

Yes , I like to tell people showing off those brands , I can't. wear/use that brand.

 

[rhubroma]

And that is what I really don't agree with. When there is an organized doping system in a team and a young rider comes up through the ranks, they are confronted with an entire structure that they must conform to or else quit cycling. You may think that any rider should make the choice to quit cycling because it's the ethical thing to do, but I am not so willing to throw stones or to think that those who accept the treatments are bad people.

I just got done watching stage 9 of TdS with one of my cases in point, Alejandro Valverde, doing an great job as superdomestique for Rui Costa. Valverde, you will recall, came up through the Kelme squad, widely rumored to be a squad that had an organized doping system in place just as Valverde was coming up to the pro ranks. Valverde did not, probably, go out of his way to seek out the doping doctors. Much more likely, he was simply confronted with a situation where he either participated in the system or did not get a contract. Seeing others doing the same thing, he went with the flow and doped, and eventually got caught by CONI and suspended. But I am not willing to judge him, any more than I am willing to judge Tyler Hamilton, for making that choice when they did not go out of their way to find the doping doctors but instead were faced with a choice of either doping or quitting.

Again, you may say, they should all make the choice of quitting the sport, and again I will say, I will not judge that choice. They can do their time when caught, but I do not consider them evil people, just flawed human beings caught in difficult situations and making bad choices.

Now, for the doctors and team managers who keep those organized doping systems in place, who do the coercion and threats, who take young riders and tell them to either dope or get lost, for them I have no mercy or compassion in my heart. They are simply evil. And riders who rise to that level--riders who organize doping rings, coerce teammates into doping, and distribute the dope--for them no compassion either.

Just my opinion.

Opinion respected. I'm aware of the systemic aspect of doping, of the peer and job pressure, of the "do what one has to do to survive" mentality, etc. Though this is precisely the rational that permitted someone like Pharmstrang to become the Al Capone of pro cycling. And that's what it is a Mafia, where omertà is the order of the day, and has been for decades now.

In addition, I've been around the block a few times. I've thus seen the patent unscrupulousness and lack of consciousness of the dopers I was around and competed against. These were guys who actually got an ego boost because they were breaking the rules and because they had entered into the sort of "alpha" club.

At some point one has to decide where one stands. With conviction. So it's either you uproot the tree completely or legalize doping. The half measures have only exacerbated the problem and ultimately produced the monster that was Lance, since one such as him found the perfect environment at UCI world to incubate the incredibly ruthless and maniacal forces within to become the quintessential champion of the sport: one that represented all its fraudulent corporate characteristics. Perhaps legalizing it at this point is the only non-hypocritical, though least desirable, thing to do. I'm not saying this can even be done, but we're kidding ourselves if we think the so called moral "fight against doping" has been effective. It has not. The Texan has demonstrated with his 500 passed controls, buying one (at least) "passed" control and the presence of so many past convicted dopers in the sport, a governing body that is riddled with corruption and a conflict of interests, is leading it down the path of redemption and liberation.

Finally the last thing we need right now is to worry about the various reasons why so-and-so made the decision to dope, since the sport is literally being murdered by the system of doping and omertà. If things keep going this way, there will be no pro cycling because there will be no sponsors.

 

[Morbius]

What do people think are USADA's tactics? I've not seen this discussed yet

Based on Armstrong's interviews, it seems that USADA could have had an easy win by going for two tours only, and expecting Armstrong not to fight. Instead they have gone after his whole legacy and his participation in future sporting events. This seems designed to force Armstrong to fight and opens up a lot of risks that they may lose or get caught in procedural issues

I can see three possibilities.
1) they are positioning for a compromise, where Armstrong pleads guilty or no contest to some lesser charges,
2) for some reason they are very keen to get Armstrong to testify.
3) they need the bigger charges to catch more than Armstrong, such as JB and the doctors. Armstrong is caught in the cross-fire unless he testifies against the others

Any other thoughts?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

I do wear the Oakley Jawbones, since they fit my nose well. I cracked my nose in several places years ago doing an endo on the MTB in Moab.

Otherwise, I stay away from Dopestrong brands. Especially Twreck and Nike.

 

[cleanmarine]

Notice anything?
http://www.usada.org/icompeteclean/take-pledge/whos-pledging.aspx

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Notice anything?
http://www.usada.org/icompeteclean/take-pledge/whos-pledging.aspx

No Leipheimer or Hincapie, which is expected given their histories. I really think that George has been clean during the last few years.

I don't think for a second that Levi has. At least he can redeem himself by doing something positive now.

No way will you see Dopestrong on there.

 

[Fidolix]

The post purports to be a quotation of something. I searched a sentence from the post in Google, and that guy's post is the only result I got.

If it was a Tygart (USADA) "announcement," it wouldn't have been announced here first, I think.

It¨s probably becourse I bothered to translate it first from danish to english.

heres the link.
http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/armstrong_betalte_ferrari_23_millioner/

 

[Fidolix]

Man, I hope this is true. Do you have a link? I have not seen this...

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/armstrong_betalte_ferrari_23_millioner/

but its in danish...

 

[mtb Dad]

And that is what I really don't agree with. When there is an organized doping system in a team and a young rider comes up through the ranks, they are confronted with an entire structure that they must conform to or else quit cycling. You may think that any rider should make the choice to quit cycling because it's the ethical thing to do, but I am not so willing to throw stones or to think that those who accept the treatments are bad people.

I just got done watching stage 9 of TdS with one of my cases in point, Alejandro Valverde, doing an great job as superdomestique for Rui Costa. Valverde, you will recall, came up through the Kelme squad, widely rumored to be a squad that had an organized doping system in place just as Valverde was coming up to the pro ranks. Valverde did not, probably, go out of his way to seek out the doping doctors. Much more likely, he was simply confronted with a situation where he either participated in the system or did not get a contract. Seeing others doing the same thing, he went with the flow and doped, and eventually got caught by CONI and suspended. But I am not willing to judge him, any more than I am willing to judge Tyler Hamilton, for making that choice when they did not go out of their way to find the doping doctors but instead were faced with a choice of either doping or quitting.

Again, you may say, they should all make the choice of quitting the sport, and again I will say, I will not judge that choice. They can do their time when caught, but I do not consider them evil people, just flawed human beings caught in difficult situations and making bad choices.

Now, for the doctors and team managers who keep those organized doping systems in place, who do the coercion and threats, who take young riders and tell them to either dope or get lost, for them I have no mercy or compassion in my heart. They are simply evil. And riders who rise to that level--riders who organize doping rings, coerce teammates into doping, and distribute the dope--for them no compassion either.

Just my opinion.

I'm inclined to agree, but with the UCI minding the sport, what manager or owner had any more of a choice than the riders did? For me my compassion runs out for LA corrupting the UCI and the UCI, especially VerDRUGgen, beating up those who objected like Bassons, going on holiday during the Festina crisis, taking Lance's bribes, and balking at signing the WADA code.

 

[Animal]

http://www.feltet.dk/nyheder/armstrong_betalte_ferrari_23_millioner/

but its in danish...

You're not using Google Chrome???

 

[Raul Ramaya]

I think that, like many others, you fail to distinguish between levels of doping, levels of involvement in doping, and of course different types of action from stupidity to sheer evil. Every doper should be found out and receive an appropriate sanction, but the lifetime ban is a punishment reserved for those who commit the worst offenses against a sport. Read the USADA letter again. Armstrong is not merely accused of doping. He is accused of corrupting the entire sport. He is accused of distributing drugs to others, he is accused of using threats and coercion to enforce a code of silence, and he is accused of many years of an organized conspiracy to deceive antidoping authorities. It is also well known that he has been accused of improperly influencing the UCI with his monetary donations. Do you seriously want us to put Dave Zabriskie in the same category as Lance Armstrong? Has Dave Zabriskie made large contributions to the UCI? Has Dave Zabriskie chased down breakaways because they criticized his doctor? Has Dave Zabriskie been accused of not just doping, but of running a major organized multimillion dollar doping operation, coercing teammates into doping, coercing everybody into silence, using threats to enforce omerta? No, there are reasons why it is more important that Armstrong face justice than that Zabriskie or Hincapie face justice. If the allegations are true, Armstrong was not merely a drug consumer, he was a kingpin who bought wholesale and distributed to others.

We can and we should make distinctions between different levels of involvement with doping. The best thing about this procedure is that finally the team manager and the doctors are targets too, not just the riders. I think the team manger who operates a doping system is far, far worse than most of the riders. I actually sympathize with some riders who might have doped.

Bingo! I don't understand how folks miss this point - especially after reading the letter. Very well written post.

 

[JRTinMA]

Notice anything?
http://www.usada.org/icompeteclean/take-pledge/whos-pledging.aspx

Props to Joe Papp. Scroll to the Z's, now thats funny.

 

[Fidolix]

You're not using Google Chrome???

yep, but i hate the translate option, prefer to choose when I need translation, and not every time I enter a site in a foreign language.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

...It doesn’t have to be either/or. From p.1 of the charging letter:

I have to say that every time someone posts about the "charging letter" I get a chuckle out of it. Excellent double entendre.

 

[Love the Scenery]

Opinion respected.

Likewise.

However, I do not think it is advantageous to lump all offenders into one category called "dopers." That just plays into the Armstrong peanut gallery's hands. One of their main arguments being that doping is not a very serious offense, and that taxpayer money should not be spent pursuing dopers, and that everybody doped anyway so if Armstrong is singled out for a more intense prosecution, it is a 'witch hunt'.

To all of this, I would have to argue that the USADA case is not about doping and that Armstrong is not being accused of being a doper. He is accused of "Trafficking" and of "Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity" as well as "Aggravating circumstances" including "The use of fear, intimidation and coercion to attempt to enforce a code of silence." The accusations of possession and administration of PEDs are a minor component. If you talk about a "doper" you imply someone guilty of possession and administration of PEDs. But the USADA letter places Armstrong in quite a different category. He should not, if the accusations are supported, be considered a mere doper any more than the head of a major drug cartel should be treated like a street junkie. They are in different categories altogether. The Armstrong case is about trafficking, encouraging, and coercing, not simple possession and consumption. I do think these distinctions should be made.