USADA - Armstrong

[wawa8223]

Not to state an opinion about the charges against LA.... But is ANYONE at all surprised that a doping scandal is, yet again, brought to the forefront on the eve of the Le Tour???

 

[mewmewmew13]

Not to state an opinion about the charges against LA.... But is ANYONE at all surprised that a doping scandal is, yet again, brought to the forefront on the eve of the Le Tour???

No
But if Lance would just man up and come clean then this wouldn't be stuck in infinite loop mode.

 

[Race Radio]

Not to state an opinion about the charges against LA.... But is ANYONE at all surprised that a doping scandal is, yet again, brought to the forefront on the eve of the Le Tour???

You can thank Lance for that

This could have been quite for a long time but Lance leaked it to the Washington post in a failed attempt to spin the narrative. Once he went public USADA could do the same.

 

[Microchip]

You can thank Lance for that

This could have been quite for a long time but Lance leaked it to the Washington post in a failed attempt to spin the narrative. Once he went public USADA could do the same.

Do you mean that Lance leaked the story of USADA writing him this week? This story?

 

[joe_papp]

pledge - thanks

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

Word. & thx...


I know it was being argued over in a different thread, the one in which JV appeared and posted multiple times, but when "those guys" are quoted in the media saying, "just trust us and believe in us, cycling is cleaner now than it was, we deserve the benefit of the doubt," etc. the reason why it's nearly impossible for anyone to actually do that and still be able to reconcile w/ past events is because there hasn't been any kind of accounting of how things were. so how can you not feel squeamish about "trusting" the declarations of some rider ("i have values") w/o their firstly owning up to whatever it is that they may have seen and done before, and explaining how that behavior was in conflict with their values and what is actually different now such that they merit our trust.

this is the biggest problem (on the doping front) that I have w/ JV - him all but pleading with us/the public to cut him, his team, his riders, the sport some slack and just accept that things are better, riders are clean, and stop connecting the dots, but without ever owning up to what was going on before, which would serve as a baseline reference point to illustrate the differences that he's claiming exist.

I really think that, for the good of cycling, riders still competing or hoping to ever work in sport again who were active during what's generally accepted as being the doping era should be allowed (and encouraged) to sit for some truth & reconciliation committee and tell all but w/o the risk of criminal, financial or sporting penalties, assuming full, frank, honest confessions. But then any rider who doesn't avail themselves of this, if they're later caught doping, or evidence emerges that conclusively proves they doped, should be banned for life from sport.

You can't force someone to tell the truth or come clean about the past but nor should you allow them to bully you into acquiescing and accepting their claims of having values, being cleaner or otherwise being different than before, if they're not willing to explain truthfully and honestly and in detail what "before" consisted of...

 

[Race Radio]

Do you mean that Lance leaked the story of USADA writing him this week? This story?

Yes, it came from his team

 

[Microchip]

Yes, it came from his team

Okay! Would have never guessed. Well, just like Comeback 2.0 it was a mistake then.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Okay! Would have never guessed. Well, just like Comeback 2.0 it was a mistake then.

He must be slipping.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Okay! Would have never guessed. Well, just like Comeback 2.0 it was a mistake then.

What? Comeback 2.0 produced glorious victory in the Nevada City Crit. Cat 1 shop mechanics all over the western US trembled in his presence after that.

 

[Microchip]

He must be slipping.

...and sliding all over the place. I find it hard to imagine him actually saying what he was quoted as saying. Meaning, how much more can a person take mentally after several straight years of serious stress. In the Men's Journal article, I remember his saying that some days he would feel to crash. Perhaps he's retired to his room and his spokespeople are the ones doing all the talking.

Quote from Velonation:

"At the time Armstrong insisted that he wasn’t wasting time thinking about the process, but he now reveals that it did indeed weigh heavily on him: ‘The most frustrating and confusing thing I’ve ever been through,” he said of the experience. “I was miserable – if people think I was an ******* before… There were days when you just damn near crash – personally and privately.

“I had days where I thought I was ******,” he said, then added, “but I always thought the right decision would be made.”

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...expected-USADA-doping-case.aspx#ixzz1y53qJGJa

 

[Oldman]

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.

And, as many have pointed out; USADA is not pursuing a criminal investigation. That doesn't discount for a second that if a crime has been commited in any country with respect to illegal trafficking, money transfers, etc. that an aggreived jurisdiction wouldn't pursue criminal charges.
Any entity with a contractural fraud issue vs. Lance& Co. would likely chime in with their own litigation. If LA has major exposure it will continue to be the legal expenses and erosion of his fabricated "legacy". At some point all of this may become expensive enough a mea culpa would be a practical choice. Would Lance allow greed to triumph over hubris? Don't know or care.

 

[spetsa]

Word. & thx...


I know it was being argued over in a different thread, the one in which JV appeared and posted multiple times, but when "those guys" are quoted in the media saying, "just trust us and believe in us, cycling is cleaner now than it was, we deserve the benefit of the doubt," etc. the reason why it's nearly impossible for anyone to actually do that and still be able to reconcile w/ past events is because there hasn't been any kind of accounting of how things were. so how can you not feel squeamish about "trusting" the declarations of some rider ("i have values") w/o their firstly owning up to whatever it is that they may have seen and done before, and explaining how that behavior was in conflict with their values and what is actually different now such that they merit our trust.

this is the biggest problem (on the doping front) that I have w/ JV - him all but pleading with us/the public to cut him, his team, his riders, the sport some slack and just accept that things are better, riders are clean, and stop connecting the dots, but without ever owning up to what was going on before, which would serve as a baseline reference point to illustrate the differences that he's claiming exist.

I really think that, for the good of cycling, riders still competing or hoping to ever work in sport again who were active during what's generally accepted as being the doping era should be allowed (and encouraged) to sit for some truth & reconciliation committee and tell all but w/o the risk of criminal, financial or sporting penalties, assuming full, frank, honest confessions. But then any rider who doesn't avail themselves of this, if they're later caught doping, or evidence emerges that conclusively proves they doped, should be banned for life from sport.

You can't force someone to tell the truth or come clean about the past but nor should you allow them to bully you into acquiescing and accepting their claims of having values, being cleaner or otherwise being different than before, if they're not willing to explain truthfully and honestly and in detail what "before" consisted of...

Joe, I know that you take a lot of crap from some on this forum, but I and what I would imagine to be the great majority, appreciate your insight. I guess that you just indirectly answered a question that I had regarding procedure of the investigation. I was curious if WADA code allowed for the USADA to give immunity, not just reduced sanctions to those who cooperate. I am assuming not. Will the proceedure allow for what we all assume to be a handful of active riders to participate in one last TDF before being suspended, or will the procedure be expidited quick enough that the names come out and their respective teams are forced to withdraw them from racing? Do you have any knowledge of this time frame. I would assume that if LA got aholed of the names, they would be leaked and the riders finished.

 

[Walkman]

Word. & thx...


I know it was being argued over in a different thread, the one in which JV appeared and posted multiple times, but when "those guys" are quoted in the media saying, "just trust us and believe in us, cycling is cleaner now than it was, we deserve the benefit of the doubt," etc. the reason why it's nearly impossible for anyone to actually do that and still be able to reconcile w/ past events is because there hasn't been any kind of accounting of how things were. so how can you not feel squeamish about "trusting" the declarations of some rider ("i have values") w/o their firstly owning up to whatever it is that they may have seen and done before, and explaining how that behavior was in conflict with their values and what is actually different now such that they merit our trust.

this is the biggest problem (on the doping front) that I have w/ JV - him all but pleading with us/the public to cut him, his team, his riders, the sport some slack and just accept that things are better, riders are clean, and stop connecting the dots, but without ever owning up to what was going on before, which would serve as a baseline reference point to illustrate the differences that he's claiming exist.

I really think that, for the good of cycling, riders still competing or hoping to ever work in sport again who were active during what's generally accepted as being the doping era should be allowed (and encouraged) to sit for some truth & reconciliation committee and tell all but w/o the risk of criminal, financial or sporting penalties, assuming full, frank, honest confessions. But then any rider who doesn't avail themselves of this, if they're later caught doping, or evidence emerges that conclusively proves they doped, should be banned for life from sport.

You can't force someone to tell the truth or come clean about the past but nor should you allow them to bully you into acquiescing and accepting their claims of having values, being cleaner or otherwise being different than before, if they're not willing to explain truthfully and honestly and in detail what "before" consisted of...

Really good post!

I especially think the bolded part is spot on!

 

[veganrob]

Is it possible this whole scenario was written months ago?
How about the feds had LA dead meat, Lance knew it. They didn't want to put him in jail and out his as the demagogue he really is, so they agreed to drop the investigation and then let USADA do the charging. Lance can then admit he doped, avoid slammer time with Bubba, and then it will all blow over. People have very short memory here, and are very forgiving. LAnce gets to do triathlons in two years and will be an utter failure without PEDS.
Hopefully people like JB get time and a lifetime ban. Cycling can finally clean up its act. That sounds farfetched but with Patty discredited and gone from UCI then some real changes can be made.

Maybe.

Mods, is this worth a new thread

 

[seatpost]

Really good post!

I especially think the bolded part is spot on!

Excellent post, Joe, and I agree with Walkman.

I can't help but think of the AA meeting guideline where a member shares "what we were like, what happened and what we are like now".

 

[Love the Scenery]

I really think that, for the good of cycling, riders still competing or hoping to ever work in sport again who were active during what's generally accepted as being the doping era should be allowed (and encouraged) to sit for some truth & reconciliation committee and tell all but w/o the risk of criminal, financial or sporting penalties, assuming full, frank, honest confessions. But then any rider who doesn't avail themselves of this, if they're later caught doping, or evidence emerges that conclusively proves they doped, should be banned for life from sport.

You can't force someone to tell the truth or come clean about the past but nor should you allow them to bully you into acquiescing and accepting their claims of having values, being cleaner or otherwise being different than before, if they're not willing to explain truthfully and honestly and in detail what "before" consisted of...

I think this is a great idea and the comments on JV are reasonable. However I would have to go look up how the truth and reconciliation commissions have worked around the world, mainly in South Africa; if memory serves me right, they were premised on total unconditional amnesty to every combatant (read doper) with participation in the truth and reconciliation commissions optional. However I could be mistaken.

 

[seatpost]

Word. & thx...


I know it was being argued over in a different thread, the one in which JV appeared and posted multiple times, but when "those guys" are quoted in the media saying, "just trust us and believe in us, cycling is cleaner now than it was, we deserve the benefit of the doubt," etc. the reason why it's nearly impossible for anyone to actually do that and still be able to reconcile w/ past events is because there hasn't been any kind of accounting of how things were. so how can you not feel squeamish about "trusting" the declarations of some rider ("i have values") w/o their firstly owning up to whatever it is that they may have seen and done before, and explaining how that behavior was in conflict with their values and what is actually different now such that they merit our trust.

this is the biggest problem (on the doping front) that I have w/ JV - him all but pleading with us/the public to cut him, his team, his riders, the sport some slack and just accept that things are better, riders are clean, and stop connecting the dots, but without ever owning up to what was going on before, which would serve as a baseline reference point to illustrate the differences that he's claiming exist.

I really think that, for the good of cycling, riders still competing or hoping to ever work in sport again who were active during what's generally accepted as being the doping era should be allowed (and encouraged) to sit for some truth & reconciliation committee and tell all but w/o the risk of criminal, financial or sporting penalties, assuming full, frank, honest confessions. But then any rider who doesn't avail themselves of this, if they're later caught doping, or evidence emerges that conclusively proves they doped, should be banned for life from sport.

You can't force someone to tell the truth or come clean about the past but nor should you allow them to bully you into acquiescing and accepting their claims of having values, being cleaner or otherwise being different than before, if they're not willing to explain truthfully and honestly and in detail what "before" consisted of...

Excellent post, Joe.

I can't help but think of the AA meeting guideline where a person shares "what we were like, what happened and what we are like now". Seems to be very cathartic and effective at motivating the members to stay sober.

 

[Neworld]

What this article http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/jan97/doping.html (admirably posted in another thread by Dr. Maserati) outlines...

Wow, Rhubroma!

That is as clear and beautiful as a Montana big sky in Autumn.

They should add that as a footnote to all the blanks of the revised TdF wins; 1999-2006.

Great read.

 

[Anonymous]

What? Comeback 2.0 produced glorious victory in the Nevada City Crit. Cat 1 shop mechanics all over the western US trembled in his presence after that.

Yeah... the ultimate heartburn.

Lance will have given up more than anyone can possible imagine for a win at Nevada City.

Karma.

 

[BotanyBay]

Word. & thx...


I know it was being argued over in a different thread, the one in which JV appeared and posted multiple times, but when "those guys" are quoted in the media saying, "just trust us and believe in us, cycling is cleaner now than it was, we deserve the benefit of the doubt," etc. the reason why it's nearly impossible for anyone to actually do that and still be able to reconcile w/ past events is because there hasn't been any kind of accounting of how things were. so how can you not feel squeamish about "trusting" the declarations of some rider ("i have values") w/o their firstly owning up to whatever it is that they may have seen and done before, and explaining how that behavior was in conflict with their values and what is actually different now such that they merit our trust.

This is what I've been saying. I'd love to have a beer with JV, but only after he tells the entire story. I don't hate the guy, but until he squares-out the ledger, I have to hold my ground. Apologies in advance to those of you that have lower standards for redemption.

 

[BotanyBay]

Excellent post, Joe.

I can't help but think of the AA meeting guideline where a person shares "what we were like, what happened and what we are like now". Seems to be very cathartic and effective at motivating the members to stay sober.

Exactly. You can't skip parts 1 and 2. You just can't.

 

[Jack Ruby]

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/

"There is a silver lining. The uproar over the USADA’s investigation has given me great faith in the world because it proves that Lance Armstrong is not Jesus Christ. If he were the second coming, then his followers would not be crying out for an end to the investigation; they would be crying out that his innocence will be proven again for the world to see. Let them bring the slings and arrows and let the light of the truth shield the innocent! Yeah, no, not happening here."

 

[Race Radio]

WSJ looks at Dr. García del Moral


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303703004577473003044421504.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

García del Moral told him, "you're not a real professional if you don't take drugs." The rider said, "That really (angered) me." The rider said he responded, "'Well, you're not really a doctor.'"

During the 2000 Tour de France, a French TV reporter named Hugues Huet followed García del Moral and a Postal team support staffer to a rest stop miles from the race, where he watched them dump trash, according to the reporter, who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.

 

[Neworld]

I still don't think Armstrong is truly going to fight this. This is all posturing. ...

We already know the rules. Lance has two options: a) walk away and let it all play out, and b) fight it, but be required to testify.

No way will Lance do the latter...

I totally agree. If he really wanted to fight he would have testified to the Feds right away, up front. Hell he was Twittering Novitsky as Juan Pelota, why not just call him up and say," Hey G-man, lets cut the crap. I'm a rough and tough Texan with nothing to hide, ask me anything...I'm the bomb, you can't touch me."

But now he's getting ready to run away like a little school girl. Not so tough now eh?

 

[TexPat]

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/

"There is a silver lining. The uproar over the USADA’s investigation has given me great faith in the world because it proves that Lance Armstrong is not Jesus Christ. If he were the second coming, then his followers would not be crying out for an end to the investigation; they would be crying out that his innocence will be proven again for the world to see. Let them bring the slings and arrows and let the light of the truth shield the innocent! Yeah, no, not happening here."

Thanks for the link. She has put the argument together nicely. That's a hard stance to take and an unpopular one in Austin. Guess she doesn't get her bikes from Mellow Johns.