USADA - Armstrong

[ChrisE]

Although, there probably needs to be a Federal Investigation into the USADA.
Something certainly does NOT smell right with this "case". File a motion maybe?

Yeah, in investigation about why they keep getting $ for testing that apparently doesn't work lol.

 

[Escarabajo]

Wait ... so after all the doping allegations from 1999 until now, the USADA finds evidence in 2010 and 2011? OK hold on here, this means that Armstrong is truly a complete f*cking idiot to be doping in 2010 and 2011?

If thats the case, which I find hard to believe, then he'll get whats coming, sure. But you don't possibly think it'll be THAT easy, do you? What kind of evidence do they have anyway?

And comparing Bonds to Armstrong is silly. Even if they both "cheated", what the hell has Bonds done similar to Livestrong? Nothing.

This is really the difference. As much as it will infuriate the crap out of all of you that want to see Armstrong proven a cheater, even if he is it wont matter that much to all of the fans who look up to him from the "cancer perspective". He is a survivor just as they are.

Your personal, selfish disdain for someone who may have cheated in a sport that is nothing more than a parade of advertisement for its sponsors, categorically pales and is meaningless rubbish compared to the perceived value cancer survivors take from Armstrong.

Either way, performance improvements were relative AND many others were doing the same thing at that time so, to say it was cheating is almost absurd when all the other winners were doing the same.

And as Horner commented, lets focus on the now and the future of doping tesing in the sport. Going back in time to dredge up penalties for the impossible-to-prove cheating instances is a sure sign of derangement.

Yes he is a complete idiot for coming back in 2010 and 2011 and keep doing what he was doing before. He should have stayed retired and none of this wouldhave happened.

 

[Oldman]

He's too big to fail.

With the US Congress pressing the big US Sports (NFL, MLB) to clean up because they enjoy monopolistic privileges I doubt they'd interfere with USADA's pursuit of Armstrong. In fact, just the opposite. It takes public scrutiny away from Roger Clemons; a far bigger sports star on US terms than the little Texas fraudster.

 

[131313]

Few believe Armstrong or anyone from those Tours to be clean.

And yet, about 1/2 of the tested 1999 Tour samples tested retrospectively were NOT positive for EPO. The reason people believe that no one was clean is largely because of the myth perpetuated by Armstrong, both in the media and to his teammates. Vaughters himself corroborated that fact. He's been selling that "everyone was doing it" line for over a decade, all while denying it publicly himself.

Sure, the guys on the podium were jacked to the gills, but I suspect there were more clean(er) guys groveling through the 99-03 tours than people realize. It wasn't everyone.

 

[BillytheKid]

Armstrong made the choice early in his amateur career which could be chalked up to absent parenting or just and ethical base that justified winning at all costs. That's a sad point to consider but very likely.
As for the sport; we've seen a huge influx of new riders, most of which don't relate to Armstrong as much as Tyler Farrar and many local riders now on the National/international scene. Few believe Armstrong or anyone from those Tours to be clean. They do believe the scrutiny has improved the clarity of the sport as do I; a very hardened cynic. The argument to ignore the crime because it could do more damage completely ignores the peripeheral "crimes" of society that Armstrong continues to commit: the diefication via Cancer and benefits he enjoys from that farce are far worse than doping in cycling. Would exposing his past hurt cancer funding? Like cycling I think it could be just the opposite as it would expose flaky "charities" that exploit donations for overhead and awareness instead of actual research. Thoughtful donors would do their homework and give to foundations that actually do some good instead of providing pimp funds for a hack sportsman.

Sure he might have made the choice. The bigger question is who offered it to him? The ringleader portrayal of the failed GJ investigation is laughable. I beleive doping is broadly excepted in most of sport. Or there's lot of looking the other way.

When only a selective few are proscecuted, then you wonder if that's justice or injustice. Who's protected and who's not.....

 

[red_flanders]

With the US Congress pressing the big US Sports (NFL, MLB) to clean up because they enjoy monopolistic privileges I doubt they'd interfere with USADA's pursuit of Armstrong. In fact, just the opposite. It takes public scrutiny away from Roger Clemons; a far bigger sports star on US terms than the little Texas fraudster.

A far bigger sport, but a far smaller celebrity.

 

[straydog]

Thanks for the kind words straydog

I doubt it will go to CAS. Lance knows he can't win. The case is far from "scatter gun stategy". USADA has over a dozen direct witnesses. If Lance fights it in the traditional manner he loses.

He knows he has no chance fighting the USADA case so he is focusing on the "Unconstitutional" route. I expect he will attempt to fight USADA in a Federal court but will fail as he signed the WADA code when he took a Professional license.

The Obfuscation machine will be full gas for the next year. Gotta give hope to the groupies

I disagree....as he himself has stated he is resigned to the possibility of losing one, possibly two titles. (if you count having an asterisk by your name as "losing") But what he will definitely fight is any further ban that affects him competing in Triathlon that is based on anything outside of the statute of limitations. And he is perfectly right to. Any sanction that runs counter to the WADA code is going to gather support where you least expect it and carries much more dire long term consequences for Tryhard's employment prospects than it does for Lance. Listen, if, and it is a big if, he actually gets sanctioned by the American Arbitration Panel for a violation in 2004, and the ensuing 2 year backdated ban, covered by his retirement, then maybe you're right, he may not bother....however if their decision goes any further than that, then we are in it for the long haul, in my opinion. Which at least means we get to hang out with each other here some more

 

[Race Radio]

When only a selective few are proscecuted, then you wonder if that's justice or injustice. Who's protected and who's not.....

True. It is odd that all of Lance's key competitors were sanctioned and he was not. It was an injustice that he was protected by the UCI.

Good thing USADA is correcting that injustice

 

[spetsa]

Spetsa, I'm willing to bet that you've had more impact on LA's training than his "coach", Chris C. His real coach was, indeed, implicated. That is nothing more than a business arrangement, lending his name to dupe masters idiots out of their money. "For $1,000 a month, Lance Armstrong's Coach will tell you to go ride your bike!". Sheer genius.

I am well aware of the many- some I know personally - that were stupid enough to pay for CTS plans, but Comical was present at many of LA's training camps and recon missions. Whether he played any role in the preperation (doubtful) of LA is another story, but there is no way that he did not know what was going on. He has been awfully silent for the last couple of years when it comes to any aspect of the LA saga. I will still put my money on the side of him being a cooperating witness, whether it was the feds of the usada. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY THAT HE MADE IT THROUGH THIS WITHOUT BEING QUESTIONED! He has everything to lose by being brought into this on the wrong side of the story.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Don't care what you think of lance, usada really shouldn't repeatedly accuse someone of something with zero hard evidence. If you have evidence, convict someone. If you don't, then it's done.

.......Link?

Talanskys tweet was there, but has since been removed.
While I don't mind a young guy spouting off and being frustrated with all this - Talansky hopefully should now realize, that USADA now have the hard evidence and are attempting to convict them.

 

[Race Radio]

I disagree....as he himself has stated he is resigned to the possibility of losing one, possibly two titles. (if you count having an asterisk by your name as "losing") But what he will definitely fight is any further ban that affects him competing in Triathlon that is based on anything outside of the statute of limitations. And he is perfectly right to. Any sanction that runs counter to the WADA code is going to gather support where you least expect it and carries much more dire long term consequences for Tryhard's employment prospects than it does for Lance. Listen, if, and it is a big if, he actually gets sanctioned by the American Arbitration Panel for a violation in 2004, and the ensuing 2 year backdated ban, covered by his retirement, then maybe you're right, he may not bother....however if their decision goes any further than that, then we are in it for the long haul, in my opinion. Which at least means we get to hang out with each other here some more

Nothing in the USADA filing is against the WADA code. Armstrong's lawyer, Luskin, has been interviewed multiple times in the last few days. He has said they are still deciding on if they will respond to the charges. He has mostly focused on questioning USADA's legitimacy and has indicated he may go the Federal route.

As far as the Tri stuff, Ironman should have a statement later today on his eligibility. It would be odd if they went against their written position.

Ultimately it will fail.

 

[zlev11]

Let me say first of all I have no doubt in my mind that Armstrong doped to win all of 7 those Tours.

But, it would be an absolute joke to go through this whole process to take his Tour wins away. Say he loses them all, and then you look at the results from 2002 and see Rumsas still there in third place, after his wife was caught DURING THAT RACE with performance enhancing drugs in her car. To see 2003 with guys like Vinokourov and Tyler Hamilton sitting on the results page, able to keep their result. That is absolutely comical. I guess you can't absolutely PROVE they doped for that Tour, but it's pretty obvious everyone in that Top 10 was doing transfusions.

On the other hand, does anyone think it's possible for a clean Joseba Beloki to finish 9 minutes behind Armstrong in 2001 and 7 minutes behind in 2002? Has there ever been any whispers about him? I know ONCE was pretty dirty, but has there ever been anything against Beloki himself?

 

[JA.Tri]

I really don't understand what tanget you are going on with "precedent" because that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

The case is about how somebody got away with doping for 15 years without getting caught by the testing procedures. We know this, but the general public does not. Go read some of the stuff on the comments sections on ESPN, etc. This is what I mean by saying it is an indictment on testing in sports in general in the eyes of the public.

It's mostly BS in that testing can be beaten and there is incentive to cover up positives. This is human nature. This is the argument I used when FL got caught when jingoistic clowns were saying the French set him up. That's crazy....the last thing they should have wanted was for a TdF champion to fail a drug test. Just because that time it was exposed is the exception...it was luck that AC's AAF came to light for example.

Do you think the athletic agencies around the world are glad to see this, coverups and worthless testing programs? I highly doubt it. So in terms of self preservation, and what is really the point here on this stuff that happened long ago in a peleton full of dopers, I just don't get. IMO the benefit is not worth the pain, and there will be alot of pain before this is over.

Marion Jones and Lance, among others (and plenty of suspected), have demonstrated how difficult it is to identify those using PEDs.

To then argue that all drug testing is a waste of time/worthless is not without some merit but it ignores what might have happened if that "worthless" testing had not occurred.

 

[DirtyWorks]

With the US Congress pressing the big US Sports (NFL, MLB) to clean up because they enjoy monopolistic privileges I doubt they'd interfere with USADA's pursuit of Armstrong. In fact, just the opposite. It takes public scrutiny away from Roger Clemons; a far bigger sports star on US terms than the little Texas fraudster.

In the U.S. cycling is the perfect sport to target to send an anti-doping message. A minor Olympic sport far, far below the likes of Tennis(!) with only a few deep pockets (Weisel, Trek dude, Sinyard) behind it. Cycling is so well-known as *the* dirtiest sport in the West, it is ripe to be made a public example. The mere mention of the possibility of doping in U.S. Tennis would generate way more political discontent than Tailwind's doping program.

The other largely invisible player in this is USOC and even bigger, the IOC. Both operate with so little transparency and yet somehow manage to have a supra-national reach and billion-dollar budgets. Whether or not the story blows up to the point where the IOC begins to see Hein and Pat as liabilities remains to be seen.

 

[Anonymous]

Nothing in the USADA filing is against the WADA code. Armstrong's lawyer, Luskin, has been interviewed multiple times in the last few days. He has said they are still deciding on if they will respond to the charges. He has mostly focused on questioning USADA's legitimacy and has indicated he may go the Federal route.

As far as the Tri stuff, Ironman should have a statement later today on his eligibility. It would be odd if they went against their written position.

Ultimately it will fail.

Messick is smart enough to see what's happening here, don't you think?

 

[Anonymous]

Let me say first of all I have no doubt in my mind that Armstrong doped to win all of 7 those Tours.

But, it would be an absolute joke to go through this whole process to take his Tour wins away. Say he loses them all, and then you look at the results from 2002 and see Rumsas still there in third place, after his wife was caught DURING THAT RACE with performance enhancing drugs in her car. To see 2003 with guys like Vinokourov and Tyler Hamilton sitting on the results page, able to keep their result. That is absolutely comical. I guess you can't absolutely PROVE they doped for that Tour, but it's pretty obvious everyone in that Top 10 was doing transfusions.

On the other hand, does anyone think it's possible for a clean Joseba Beloki to finish 9 minutes behind Armstrong in 2001 and 7 minutes behind in 2002? Has there ever been any whispers about him? I know ONCE was pretty dirty, but has there ever been anything against Beloki himself?

Festina. Yes. Manolo's top Grand Tour rider for a few years... hard to believe he wasn't doing what everybody at that level was doing.

 

[straydog]

Nothing in the USADA filing is against the WADA code. Armstrong's lawyer, Luskin, has been interviewed multiple times in the last few days. He has said they are still deciding on if they will respond to the charges. He has mostly focused on questioning USADA's legitimacy and has indicated he may go the Federal route.

As far as the Tri stuff, Ironman should have a statement later today on his eligibility. It would be odd if they went against their written position.

Ultimately it will fail.

Remember who owns WTC....and the quote regarding "suspended pending further review"

we'll see....

WADA's code clearly states that it's statute of limitations is 8 years. As is USADA's. Trying to rewrite that code isn't going to wash for Tryhard in the long run, and possibly not even in the short term. What he really wants is a confession of some sort, and is hoping that by threatening everything that he has that LA will fold. Really don't see it happening.

 

[JA.Tri]

If Lance is found to have doped during periods that impacted on any race then his standing in that race should be deleted.

To argue that nobody s/b awarded Lance's position is to tar them with the same brush. Lance will have held onto his titles until proven guilty. That same right should apply to whom so ever comes immediately after Lance.

 

[Benotti69]

Marion Jones and Lance, among others (and plenty of suspected), have demonstrated how difficult it is to identify those using PEDs.

To then argue that all drug testing is a waste of time/worthless is not without some merit but it ignores what might have happened if that "worthless" testing had not occurred.

But the dope testing caught so many others. Look at the list

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

Armstrong had UCI, Lab director in Lusanne , USAC all on his side. Hard to test positive when so many are trying to prevent it

 

[BillytheKid]

True. It is odd that all of Lance's key competitors were sanctioned and he was not. It was an injustice that he was protected by the UCI.

Good thing USADA is correcting that injustice

Puerto took down Basso and Ulrich, but a lot of the Spanish riders associated with it walked...like the blood bag marked AC. A simple DNA test might have linked it to any rider with those intitials. It was never done.

Alberto Contador was called into court, but walked away from that one. Ulrich was not so lucky.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Let me say first of all I have no doubt in my mind that Armstrong doped to win all of 7 those Tours.

But, it would be an absolute joke to go through this whole process to take his Tour wins away.

I see many of this kind of comment. The bottom line is this is the UCI is to blame for keeping the sport on par with Entertainment Wrestling. We can be assured that Pat will repeat the message that 2012 will be the "cleanest racing year ever." Until the team-wide doping stories break sometime around 2015.

You somehow want cycling to remain a legitimate Pro sports endeavour after all of this and that's not going to happen. Unless the UCI (and the IOC too!) radically changes, it's a PED friendly Professional sport.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sure he might have made the choice. The bigger question is who offered it to him? The ringleader portrayal of the failed GJ investigation is laughable. I beleive doping is broadly excepted in most of sport. Or there's lot of looking the other way.

When only a selective few are proscecuted, then you wonder if that's justice or injustice. Who's protected and who's not.....

You think they pulled Armstrongs name out of a hat?

Also, a "selective few have been prosecuted"? Have a look at the TdF 2005 top 10, Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich, Mancebo, Vino, Leipheimer, Rasmussen, Evans, Landis, Pereiro, Moreau.
Who are the selective few there?

 

[Escarabajo]

And yet, about 1/2 of the tested 1999 Tour samples tested retrospectively were NOT positive for EPO. The reason people believe that no one was clean is largely because of the myth perpetuated by Armstrong, both in the media and to his teammates. Vaughters himself corroborated that fact. He's been selling that "everyone was doing it" line for over a decade, all while denying it publicly himself.

Sure, the guys on the podium were jacked to the gills, but I suspect there were more clean(er) guys groveling through the 99-03 tours than people realize. It wasn't everyone.

That does not mean that they were clean.

Microdosing could have been and option. There is the HGH, testosterone and other recuperation meds that are difficult to trace down.

 

[zlev11]

I see many of this kind of comment. The bottom line is this is the UCI is to blame for keeping the sport on par with Entertainment Wrestling.

You somehow want cycling to remain a legitimate Pro sports endeavour after all of this and that's not going to happen unless the UCI dramatically changes its doping practices.

Oh I completely agree, looking back at the sport as a whole during that time period, it's a joke. But it's the same thing with the way they took away Ullrich's results, it looks like even more of a joke to see his name crossed out on the results page of certain races and still see Basso, Mancebo, etc. on there. The fact that Mancebo (one of my favorite riders at the time, no less), a proven doper that served a ban, inherited a podium in 2005 because Ullrich was disqualified, is ridiculous. It would be the same with Armstrong. It would be more effective to simply prove he doped, make it common knowledge, but not waste the time to take all of his Tours away and just accept the whole race as dirty, not unlike Riis in 1996.

 

[straydog]

And yet, about 1/2 of the tested 1999 Tour samples tested retrospectively were NOT positive for EPO.

....and therefore 1/2 of them were!

so 50 percent of the peloton tested were positive for EPO...well, so it's maybe not "everyone" but I am pretty sure I know which 50 percent was nearer the podium.