USADA - Armstrong

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Your attempts at obfuscating the issue are weak. It's a sporting sanction from a sporting body based on "rules" not "laws". One can challenge the rules using legal means, but the rules of a sport do not need to correspond to any standard laws, so long as laws are not being broken. Rules may take on some semblance of laws due to common concepts of fairness, but they are not the same, duh!

You did not read it carefully to the end. That's what I said????

It's the idea that's he's guilty, established by "unammed sources close to the investigation" the first time through that imply guilt. Horners only saying, wait for the evidence. It still does apply in any legal action, duh!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good to have some back up from Geraint Thomas. His remarks are almost verbatim what I have been saying in this thread. He could even be me! This is the view of the young clean pros and their teams - they want this investigation like a hole in the head. It doesn't relate to what's happening now.

On a lighter note, Chris Horner did have a serious case of amnesia resulting from a head injury last year. Maybe it effected his memory of the previous tours as well.

Really?
Because this actually relates to as recently as 2010 - and Geraint not only rode alongside Armstrong and, well if you are Geraint, then you'll know which team bus he visited at the stage start in Paris 2010 (the jerseygate stage).

Also, what Geraint actually says is quite different to what you say:

"Hopefully [the USADA] will come to a decision quickly and it won't get dragged out for the next few months,"

unlike you he doesn't say he wants Armstrong to be cleared - just that it is done quickly.
I think we can all agree, if Armstrong confesses that would really help the sport.

 

[BillytheKid]

Your attempts at obfuscating the issue are weak. It's a sporting sanction from a sporting body based on "rules" not "laws". One can challenge the rules using legal means, but the rules of a sport do not need to correspond to any standard laws, so long as laws are not being broken, duh!

Armstong has the full right to challenge it in court. Doubtful it would be denied (maybe a lower court) but it most likely find traction on appeal, because of the lapse of the charge.

Landis ended up in court fighting the ruling against him remember.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Armstong has the full right to challenge it in court. Doubtful it would be denied (maybe a lower court) but it most likely find traction on appeal, because of the lapse of the charge.

Landis ended up in court fighting the ruling against him remember.

Sure it will go to court, but at this stage of the game it's strictly within sporting rules, and in that context Armstrong is suspended. Deal with it Sally.

 

[Kennf1]

Horner's actually got it right in terms of actual evidence we've seen so far.

I assume that you are not familar with "innocent until proven guilty" here in the U.S. as opposed to "guilty until proven innocent" which still exists in many country's today. I believe France still runs it that way.

The Fifth Amendment "Bill of Rights" of the U.S. Constitution

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/

Since the the Criminal "Grand Jury" failed to find evidence to bring charges, suspicion does not count, in light of any new evidence, we should presume him innocent of criminal charges.

“fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”

This quote, from the letter, was in the Washinton Post's first story second paragraph. It is now gone from it original place in the story. (I need reread it to see if its been buried down) It sounds pretty damming. Maybe that's why they pulled it form up top in the story. What exactly does "fully consistent" mean. Sounds like an expert witness or witnesses to me. That means Lance will come back with his expert witness. If its biopassport stuff, then this will drag out and the outcome possibly effect the whole system.

The big question is why is it now only coming to light..again just ahead of the Tour as so much of the unammed source press accounts against Armstrong have in the past.

Horner, like myself, is mearly pointing out the "the innocent until proven guilty" protection afforded by the constitution in criminal cases. Guilt has been establish in many people minds by press account, but the GJ did not see it that way. In this case, it may be different under law that governs doping violations and the USADA and Armstrong may have more of a burden to disprove the alligations.

My guess is expert vs. expert.

I am complaining more about the trial-by-press "yellow journalism" here than anything.

This does seem to be more aimed at cycling sometimes, and I wonder about those who post solely about doping in "The Clinic," but have no interest in the sport and don't post elsewhere in the forum much, if at all.

Horner is spewing nonsense. No evidence unless there's photos?

Yes, we are all familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which is a concept taken from English law, not the constitution. That's a rule in a criminal proceeding. In the real world, a person is guilty if they're guilty. I can form an opinion on someone's guilt if I want, even before a court does. For me, I formed my opinion based on the facts that have been reported over the last 12 years, not because a journalist told me to form that opinion.

No one knows what evidence was in front of the prosecutor and grand jury in California, nor do we know why they decided to close the investigation. That decision, however, is not the same as an acquittal, nor does it somehow act to prevent me from forming my own opinions.

With respect to the 2009/2010 blood tests, it does sound like this will be an expert-intensive issue before the panel.

With respect to the timing, USADA opened their investigation when Landis sent his e-mails to them, in 2010. When the feds started their investigation, USADA needed to stand down, until they knew where the feds were going with it. That investigation was closed in February this year, at which time USADA started the process of requesting the DOJ's file. I don't what is so suspicious about the timing. As for dropping the bomb before the Tour, well, I don't think the USADA is tasked with maximizing the image of a sporting event. If they had waited until September, it would be right before Ironman Kona, and people would be screaming the timing was just to screw with Lance's triathlon career.

Correction: Landis sent the email to Johnson (USA Cycling), which sent it to Tygart (USADA).

 

[BillytheKid]

Sure it will go to court, but at this stage of the game it's strictly within sporting rules, and in that context Armstrong is suspended. Deal with it Sally.

That's OK skippy. Walk it back a bit. No, seriously, no "governing" body is outside the law at least in the U.S.

And, yes, it is a valid current ruling.

Expert vs. Expert, I'll wager. Why can't they do this in November?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Horner is spewing nonsense. No evidence unless there's photos?

Yes, we are all familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which is a concept taken from English law, not the constitution. That's a rule in a criminal proceeding. In the real world, a person is guilty if they're guilty. I can form an opinion on someone's guilt if I want, even before a court does. For me, I formed my opinion based on the facts that have been reported over the last 12 years, not because a journalist told me to form that opinion.

No one knows what evidence was in front of the prosecutor and grand jury in California, nor do we know why they decided to close the investigation. That decision, however, is not the same as an acquittal, nor does it somehow act to prevent me from forming my own opinions.

With respect to the 2009/2010 blood tests, it does sound like this will be an expert-intensive issue before the panel.

With respect to the timing, USADA opened their investigation when Landis sent his e-mails to them, in 2010. When the feds started their investigation, USADA needed to stand down, until they knew where the feds were going with it. That investigation was closed in February this year, at which time USADA started the process of requesting the DOJ's file. I don't what is so suspicious about the timing. As for dropping the bomb before the Tour, well, I don't think the USADA is tasked with maximizing the image of a sporting event. If they had waited until September, it would be right before Ironman Kona, and people would be screaming the timing was just to screw with Lance's triathlon career.

+1 good post

 

[Anonymous]

Really?
Because this actually relates to as recently as 2010 - and Geraint not only rode alongside Armstrong and, well if you are Geraint, then you'll know which team bus he visited at the stage start in Paris 2010 (the jerseygate stage).

Also, what Geraint actually says is quite different to what you say:

unlike you he doesn't say he wants Armstrong to be cleared - just that it is done quickly.
I think we can all agree, if Armstrong confesses that would really help the sport.

Typical BPC. But, I digress.

 

[El Oso]

Looking at the comments on the various non-cyclingnews articles, I'm amazed at how many fanboys drank the 500 test punch. FFS it's a number he pulled out of his ar$e. Still clinging to the most tested athlete of all time lie.

 

[BillytheKid]

Horner is spewing nonsense. No evidence unless there's photos?

Yes, we are all familiar with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which is a concept taken from English law, not the constitution. That's a rule in a criminal proceeding. In the real world, a person is guilty if they're guilty. I can form an opinion on someone's guilt if I want, even before a court does. For me, I formed my opinion based on the facts that have been reported over the last 12 years, not because a journalist told me to form that opinion.

No one knows what evidence was in front of the prosecutor and grand jury in California, nor do we know why they decided to close the investigation. That decision, however, is not the same as an acquittal, nor does it somehow act to prevent me from forming my own opinions.

With respect to the 2009/2010 blood tests, it does sound like this will be an expert-intensive issue before the panel.

With respect to the timing, USADA opened their investigation when Landis sent his e-mails to them, in 2010. When the feds started their investigation, USADA needed to stand down, until they knew where the feds were going with it. That investigation was closed in February this year, at which time USADA started the process of requesting the DOJ's file. I don't what is so suspicious about the timing. As for dropping the bomb before the Tour, well, I don't think the USADA is tasked with maximizing the image of a sporting event. If they had waited until September, it would be right before Ironman Kona, and people would be screaming the timing was just to screw with Lance's triathlon career.

Your being too literal, he saying "physical" evidence as opposed to interpreting the bio passport or accusation. Although, he should learn to cut it shorter.

 

[armstrong]

Looking at the comments on the various non-cyclingnews articles, I'm amazed at how many fanboys drank the 500 test punch. FFS it's a number he pulled out of his ar$e. Still clinging to the most tested athlete of all time lie.

Armstrong is still far from guilty in the court of public opinion, and even if he gets his TdFs annulled, I honestly don't think that'll change.

 

[patrick767]

He is not "banned", he is suspended, and it is not USADA rules, it is a WADA rule, to which USADA is a signatory.
As to the whys - this is not a criminal system, and as an athlete who doped would be back at their sport while they frustrate the process a suspension is entirely appropriate.

Which is exactly can happen in cycling when the UCI is handling the doping investigations. The athlete keeps riding. As we saw with Contador, that has its downsides too, but that I blame mostly on how ridiculously long it took to reach a final verdict in the Contador case. They need to give the athlete the presumption of innocence. Ie. allegations do not equal suspension. What if the athlete is found not guilty? Then they've been suspended without cause and nothing can replace the lost time and events missed. They need to streamline the process though so that it doesn't drag out so long. I cannot and will not agree with a presumption of guilt, whether it's a criminal system or WADA.

Hold on - Ullrich was sanctioned recentley because of Puerto, so there is nothing (legally) to suggest he was doped before that, so going by your logic he should be given the benefit and the Tours
You cannot have it both ways.

Perhaps. I was talking more about what would be just for the sport and for the fans rather than about legal technicalities. We know that Ullrich doped. We know that Basso doped. In fact we know that almost every podium finisher from 1999 to 2005 doped. How is the sport better by giving the victories to another doper?

If it's really about cleaning up the sport's reputation, why stop at Armstrong in 1999? Pantani won in 1998 and was a doper. Ullrich won in 1997. Riis won in 1996 and admitted that he doped from 1993 to 1998. Surely we agree that a confession is more than enough evidence. Initially the ASO stripped his TdF win but they gave it back. His career race results still stand. Miguel Indurain won 5 TdFs and 2 Giros from 1991 to 1995. How likely is it that he did that without the assistance of EPO? I'd say the chances border on zero. I think Lemond would be inclined to agree. Difficulty: in all of the above cases the guy who came in 2nd probably doped too.

I know that all of this has nothing to do with the USADA proving their case. It's what happens after that if they are successful. It's a nightmare scenario for the ASO and the UCI. I doubt they know what they'll do yet.

 

[Anonymous]

Armstrong is still far from guilty in the court of public opinion, and even if he gets his TdFs annulled, I honestly don't think that'll change.

Yep. OJ was innocent and Elvis still gets his mail. It takes all kinds.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

No, seriously, no "governing" body is outside the law at least in the U.S.

And, yes, it is a valid current ruling.

No, seriously, USADA is currently innocent until proven guilty of breaking any laws, therefore it remains a purely sporting matter at this time, and is why Armstrong is now suspended.

Expert vs. Expert, I'll wager. Why can't they do this in November?

Hey, there will never be a good time for it. USADA got their ducks in a row, and let it fly. Altering the schedule for proceeding for the convenience or comfort of person(s) or timing of upcoming sporting events would be ridiculous. Their mandate is to lay sanctions against those breaking anti doping codes, not to smooth out any potential commercial impact to the parties involved. The moment you ask USADA to do that, the integrity of the proceedings becomes compromised. They are doing exactly the right thing to proceed on their own schedule, when they are ready, and that time is now.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Armstrong is still far from guilty in the court of public opinion, and even if he gets his TdFs annulled, I honestly don't think that'll change.

You speak for the billions of people on this planet? Armstrong may have a couple of bastions of support among the sheeple in in U.S.A. and Australia among others, but on a global basis the prevailing opinion is that he's dopestrong.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

In fact we know that almost every podium finisher from 1999 to 2005 doped. How is the sport better by giving the victories to another doper?

Can you please acknowledge that simply declaring no winner for the Armstrong years is an option? It may not be an option you agree with, but you keep posting over and over as if the only choice is to give the TdF titles to someone else.

If it's really about cleaning up the sport's reputation, why stop at Armstrong in 1999? Pantani won in 1998 and was a doper. Ullrich won in 1997. Riis won in 1996 and admitted that he doped from 1993 to 1998. Surely we agree that a confession is more than enough evidence. Initially the ASO stripped his TdF win but they gave it back. His career race results still stand. Miguel Indurain won 5 TdFs and 2 Giros from 1991 to 1995. How likely is it that he did that without the assistance of EPO? I'd say the chances border on zero. I think Lemond would be inclined to agree.

Quiz of the day ; in which of your examples above did the rider's own national federation or ADA apply sanctions for the period of time in which the wins occurred?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which is exactly can happen in cycling when the UCI is handling the doping investigations. The athlete keeps riding. As we saw with Contador, that has its downsides too, but that I blame mostly on how ridiculously long it took to reach a final verdict in the Contador case. They need to give the athlete the presumption of innocence. Ie. allegations do not equal suspension. What if the athlete is found not guilty? Then they've been suspended without cause and nothing can replace the lost time and events missed. They need to streamline the process though so that it doesn't drag out so long. I cannot and will not agree with a presumption of guilt, whether it's a criminal system or WADA.

No-one cares with what you agree with.
Those are the rules - which you agree to abide by when you are a licence holder.

Also -you need to get your facts right. Contador was suspended from August 2010 until he was heard and acquitted by the RFEC.
An appeal was lodged to CAS and he was allowed to ride then.

Perhaps. I was talking more about what would be just for the sport and for the fans rather than about legal technicalities. We know that Ullrich doped. We know that Basso doped. In fact we know that almost every podium finisher from 1999 to 2005 doped. How is the sport better by giving the victories to another doper?

If it's really about cleaning up the sport's reputation, why stop at Armstrong in 1999? Pantani won in 1998 and was a doper. Ullrich won in 1997. Riis won in 1996 and admitted that he doped from 1993 to 1998. Surely we agree that a confession is more than enough evidence. Initially the ASO stripped his TdF win but they gave it back. His career race results still stand. Miguel Indurain won 5 TdFs and 2 Giros from 1991 to 1995. How likely is it that he did that without the assistance of EPO? I'd say the chances border on zero. I think Lemond would be inclined to agree. Difficulty: in all of the above cases the guy who came in 2nd probably doped too.

I know that all of this has nothing to do with the USADA proving their case. It's what happens after that if they are successful. It's a nightmare scenario for the ASO and the UCI. I doubt they know what they'll do yet.

What has this got to do with "whats good for the sport"?
You say, effectively they all doped, so it would be unfair to give it to anyone else (even if there is no evidence that they doped at that time).

Then give it to no-one - simple.
As for going back further - that is why there is a statute of limitations.

 

[joe_papp]

...
Perhaps. I was talking more about what would be just for the sport and for the fans rather than about legal technicalities. We know that Ullrich doped. We know that Basso doped. In fact we know that almost every podium finisher from 1999 to 2005 doped. How is the sport better by giving the victories to another doper?

If it's really about cleaning up the sport's reputation, why stop at Armstrong in 1999? Pantani won in 1998 and was a doper. Ullrich won in 1997. Riis won in 1996 and admitted that he doped from 1993 to 1998. Surely we agree that a confession is more than enough evidence. Initially the ASO stripped his TdF win but they gave it back. His career race results still stand. Miguel Indurain won 5 TdFs and 2 Giros from 1991 to 1995. How likely is it that he did that without the assistance of EPO? I'd say the chances border on zero. I think Lemond would be inclined to agree. Difficulty: in all of the above cases the guy who came in 2nd probably doped too...

I actually agree w/ you re. handing the victories over to another doper. The glaring absurdity of the Landis Affair was the transfer of Floyd's Tour title to Pereiro, which made a mockery of the entire notion of anti-doping. Far better, perhaps, to just vacate the title(s).

As for your musings on "where does it stop?" that's not really a concern of USADA's, as they have a very clear mission and arbitrating all of the doped results in cycling isn't part of that. This is a pretty specific instance of alleged wrong-doing that they're investigating, as is their responsibility.

 

[Oldman]

Did everyone miss that this happened on TUESDAY? It was a good prediction back then...

 

[Caruut]

I imagine it's been covered, but surely in the case of Armstrong, the reason they want a charge just before the Tour is that it means that 2004 can still be ruled on, and they have the most time to gather and process evidence.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Really?
Because this actually relates to as recently as 2010 - and Geraint not only rode alongside Armstrong and, well if you are Geraint, then you'll know which team bus he visited at the stage start in Paris 2010 (the jerseygate stage).

You're making the assumption that the suspicious blood profile tests came from the tour. I doubt they did. Landis appeared to have put paid to that.

Armstrong is an icon of the sport so he had lots of visits on what was his retirement. I think it's fairly crappy to imply Geraint was doing transfusions on Armstrong's team bus, or watching it, or whatever the insinuation is. Maybe you want to clear that up?

Also, what Geraint actually says is quite different to what you say: unlike you he doesn't say he wants Armstrong to be cleared - just that it is done quickly.
I think we can all agree, if Armstrong confesses that would really help the sport.

No that's not the interpretation of the interview that I, the interviewer and forum members here took from his remarks. We think the interview expresses hope that Armstrong is cleared for the sport. The strong impression is he just wishes people would move on and get over it. The comments on the sport having changed is where he believes the real focus should be, just as I do. The only real difference I can spot is I hope all the accusers are forced to testify in public, which seems like the minimum that should be required. That would probably drag it out more than a few months unfortunately, but seven tours is a big deal.

You may have noted in subsequent posts that I think the best compromise is taking away one or two tours, something Armstrong appeared to be willing to accept, which I suppose would have been a type of confession.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I actually agree w/ you re. handing the victories over to another doper. The glaring absurdity of the Landis Affair was the transfer of Floyd's Tour title to Pereiro, which made a mockery of the entire notion of anti-doping. Far better, perhaps, to just vacate the title(s).

As for your musings on "where does it stop?" that's not really a concern of USADA's, as they have a very clear mission and arbitrating all of the doped results in cycling isn't part of that. This is a pretty specific instance of alleged wrong-doing that they're investigating, as is their responsibility.

I suppose if they give it to no one, it not only makes a mockery of years and years of the history of the sport - it's effectively saying 7 tours didn't count - it also indirectly acknowledges that Armstrong was probably the legitimate winner given the circumstances. Thinking about it more, maybe it should be done that way. No one really believes any of the riders he beat deserved it anymore than he did, so they could be marked as tainted but accepted wins perhaps. If they did decide to give the full seven to other riders, that would just be the most absurd thing in the history of sports. Would Americans ever watch the tour again?

 

[MarkvW]

You're making the assumption that the suspicious blood profile tests came from the tour. I doubt they did. Landis appeared to have put paid to that.

Armstrong is an icon of the sport so he had lots of visits on what was his retirement. I think it's fairly crappy to imply Geraint was doing transfusions on Armstrong's team bus, or watching it, or whatever the insinuation is. Maybe you want to clear that up?



No that's not the interpretation of the interview that I, the interviewer and forum members here took from his remarks. We think the interview expresses hope that Armstrong is cleared for the sport. The strong impression is he just wishes people would move on and get over it. The comments on the sport having changed is where he believes the real focus should be, just as I do. The only real difference I can spot is I hope all the accusers are forced to testify in public, which seems like the minimum that should be required. That would probably drag it out more than a few months unfortunately, but seven tours is a big deal.

You may have noted in subsequent posts that I think the best compromise is taking away one or two tours, something Armstrong appeared to be willing to accept, which I suppose would have been a type of confession.

I'd be willing to bet that the compromise that you propose would be eminently acceptable to USADA if Lance would make a full and complete confession of his doping history. That is NEVER going to happen.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

I'd be willing to bet that the compromise that you propose would be eminently acceptable to USADA if Lance would make a full and complete confession of his doping history. That is NEVER going to happen.

I wouldn't be so sure. I think he was setting it up for this a month ago, or some form of words that admits to mistakes. Then he saw the letter.

LA was probably going to do a documentary or book "If I did it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Did_It

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're making the assumption that the suspicious blood profile tests came from the tour. I doubt they did. Landis appeared to have put paid to that.

Didn't say anything about that Tour and blood values - but USADA made remarks about Armstrongs blood values of 09 & 10.

Armstrong is an icon of the sport so he had lots of visits on what was his retirement. I think it's fairly crappy to imply Geraint was doing transfusions on Armstrong's team bus, or watching it, or whatever the insinuation is. Maybe you want to clear that up?

Only thing I was clearing up was that you were not Geraint - nor were you speaking for him.

I did not imply anything that you implied.

No that's not the interpretation of the interview that I, the interviewer and forum members here took from his remarks. We think the interview expresses hope that Armstrong is cleared for the sport. The strong impression is he just wishes people would move on and get over it. The comments on the sport having changed is where he believes the real focus should be, just as I do. The only real difference I can spot is I hope all the accusers are forced to testify in public, which seems like the minimum that should be required. That would probably drag it out more than a few months unfortunately, but seven tours is a big deal.

No-one cares what you think. If you can actually show where Geraint actually said that, then it may impress me.
Otherwise you just clutching at straws and making stuff up.

You may have noted in subsequent posts that I think the best compromise is taking away one or two tours, something Armstrong appeared to be willing to accept, which I suppose would have been a type of confession.

Some time ago you wanted Betsy to lie and commit perjury for Lance - now its just take away a few Tours, I guess we can call that progress.