USADA - Armstrong

[Clemson Cycling]

Main advantage of folding, I think, is that a) he can maintain a position of above it all, saying the process is a joke, not worth his time to respond to; b) he avoids getting into a situation where he’s at risk of perjury. But if he doesn’t contest the ban, he stands to lose a lot of money. I think Betsy said he could owe as much as $12 million for the SCA case. Even for him, that is not chump change. There might be much more in connection with voiding his Tour titles, I don't know. Plus he will never be able to run the Ironmans, unless they change the rules, and if they do, it will just make him look even more like a joke.

Don't forget this guy was making $50 million + a year in his prime

 

[Deagol]

If you can't refute the accusations against you, then attack the accusor. This has been his modus operandi from the beginning.

That was appalling and grotesque enough when directed at Frankie, Betsy, Greg, Simeoni, Floyd, Tyler et al, however against USADA is merely ridiculous.

Let's just hope the judge doesn't buy it. Still many of the fans do, judging by some comments floating around the internet.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

More

USADA is responsible for the results management aspect of drug testing for athletes that fall under their jurisdiction. Results management includes communicating the results of drug tests with athletes as well as the adjudication of athletes suspected of committing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), which can be the result of a positive drug test, as well as other methods including all forms of credible evidence. According to the Code, an ADRV consists of the following:

The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample. (positive test)

Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection.

Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by anti-doping organizations with jurisdiction over the Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. Click here for more information on whereabouts.

Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control.

Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.

Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted anti-doping rule violation.

When evidence meeting one or more of the above violations is found, an independent anti-doping review board will make the recommendation whether USADA can move forward with sanctions on an athlete. Athletes can either accept or challenge the sanction through an established legal process. In the United States athletes can take a case before an arbitration panel with a final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.


Soooooo, when you look at the above post and the rest of the information in this..... claiming USADA has no jurisdiction is like saying Vegas has no prostitutes

Guys you do a great job. Now the Q is: Does Sparks know all this? And if not, and he gives a wrong verdict (ruling in favour of Armstrong), can USADA make a plea (assuming their attorneys know as much as you all do)?

 

[mr. tibbs]

His Dogsbody.

To rid of vermin. It asks him to.

 

[Anonymous]

Don't forget this guy was making $50 million + a year in his prime

Perhaps.

Probably not too many years he raked in that kind of money.

After taxes, probably 26-27 million.

With any luck, he loses the qui tam case, SCA sues and wins, perhaps USPS goes after salary paid and it may not be real surprising if some of his endorsement contractee's can prove damages.

Regardless, LA will take an enormous hit. If this thing ended right now his lifestyle will never be the same.

I'm guessing he's not sleeping real well these days.

 

[MarkvW]

Since the Armstrong filing does not mention Bruyneel, I would think there would be no reason it would apply to him.

Susan

Armstrong's case can't possibly have any binding effect on anybody else's case until Armstrong's case is finally decided. That means finishing up the case with Judge Sparks and then finishing up the appeal of that case in front of the Court of Appeals (because USADA will appeal if it loses). We're talking months here before the case becomes final.

Assume that Armstrong (1) finally won against USADA in federal court, (2) that USADA still had the case (it hadn't gone to CAS), (3) that the facts that caused Armstrong to win are the same facts that apply to Bruyneel, and (4) that Bruyneel filed a lawsuit against USADA. If all those things happen, then Bruyneel would likely be able to use the Armstrong case in his own case against USADA. USADA would also likely voluntarily apply the federal decision to Bruyneel, if (1), (2), and (3) were operative.

Hard to see how any such scenario could play out before Bruyneel's USADA arbitration hearing takes place.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Please, lets not go there. Pantani is a tragedy of the sport, as is Armstrong - but we shouldn't stoop so low as to forecast fate on anyone.

Remember the tragedy of Vandenbroucke and Simpson. At least we can honor them as tainted saints.

Armstrong regrettably deserves the same. Though he introduces uniqueness via misguided and tainted youth, he's been a loser since birth; At least give him that.

As said, i feel sorry for Pantani, and all the others. But never ever for Armstrong. He hates people, destroys them, so he deserves the worst ending for himself. Those kind of psychopaths spoil human co-existence (not only in sports). No sympathy for him.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

Perhaps.

Probably not too many years he raked in that kind of money.

After taxes, probably 26-27 million.

With any luck, he loses the qui tam case, SCA sues and wins, perhaps USPS goes after salary paid and it may not be real surprising if some of his endorsement contractee's can prove damages.

Regardless, LA will take an enormous hit. If this thing ended right now his lifestyle will never be the same.

I'm guessing he's not sleeping real well these days.

His USPS salary was probably quite small compared to what Nike and those cancer drug companies were paying him

 

[MarkvW]

His USPS salary was probably quite small compared to what Nike and those cancer drug companies were paying him

No. It wasn't quite small.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

As said, i feel sorry for Pantani, and all the others. But never ever for Armstrong. He hates people, destroys them, so he deserves the worst ending for himself. Those kind of psychopaths spoil human co-existence (not only in sports). No sympathy for him.

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

 

[Clemson Cycling]

No. It wasn't quite small.

They spend $32 million to sponsor the team from 2001-2004 ($8 million/year). Then you consider that they had to pay other cyclists and all of the management. You can do the math. It does not get close to the $50 + million Armstrong was making yearly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6019436

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong's case can't possibly have any binding effect on anybody else's case until Armstrong's case is finally decided. That means finishing up the case with Judge Sparks and then finishing up the appeal of that case in front of the Court of Appeals (because USADA will appeal if it loses). We're talking months here before the case becomes final.

Assume that Armstrong (1) finally won against USADA in federal court, (2) that USADA still had the case (it hadn't gone to CAS), (3) that the facts that caused Armstrong to win are the same facts that apply to Bruyneel, and (4) that Bruyneel filed a lawsuit against USADA. If all those things happen, then Bruyneel would likely be able to use the Armstrong case in his own case against USADA. USADA would also likely voluntarily apply the federal decision to Bruyneel, if (1), (2), and (3) were operative.

Hard to see how any such scenario could play out before Bruyneel's USADA arbitration hearing takes place.

Am I missing something? Wouldn't a favorable ruling for Lance mean that each of the other people could file a similar complaint with the knowledge that the judge has already granted what they too will ask for? Especially if the "state actor" issue is being adjudicated?

 

[Northern rider]

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

"There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been responsible for such a massively comprehensive doping program and endemic corruption as Armstrong has been."

That's what you should have written.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

No i hate liars, and people who attack others w/o reason (Lemond) or to hold up omerta (attacking Bassons, Simeoni), or to intimitate others to hold up a lie (from A Andreus to Z Zabriskie maybe). All that applies to Pharmstrong but to none of the other doped riders.

Not sought after like Epo-Lance? Pantani got slaugthered in italy. Ullrich got the biggest witch hunt in sports ever, in germany.
Opposed to the Uniballer: He got softhanded, b/c everybody was feared until Floyd had the balls to tell the truth. After all, your post is the complete opposite of reality.

Clemens? A bully like your beloved "hero". Just remember his psycho outbursts on the mound in the WS.
Bonds? The 2nd biggest fraud behind your idol. His headsize grew bigger eek during his career (great article written in DER SPIEGEL of how the team ordered bigger helmets for him later in his career compared to the early years in MLB). He stole the HR records of Aaron and Maris. This guy should be attacked until his "records" are off the books.

Jesus, don´t you see that you defend criminals who only think me, me, me, no matter what? Open your eyes and live in the real world. There is no Santa Claus.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

lol. LA attacks because he's guilty as sin and it's the only thing he knows how to do. It's also known as desperation. When the gig is up, it's up. Most rational people understand this.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

They spend $32 million to sponsor the team from 2001-2004 ($8 million/year). Then you consider that they had to pay other cyclists and all of the management. You can do the math. It does not get close to the $50 + million Armstrong was making yearly.

I don't know what their source is but figure here is $125M net worth at the time of (undated) reporting, although toward the end they do refer to 2010 in a future tense, so guessing somewhere between 2009-2010;

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/lance-armstrong-net-worth/

Whether events since that time has increased or decreased his net worth are subject to speculation.

Actually, with simple search I see more of same is readily available and current dated;

http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/athletes/lance-armstrong-net-worth/

How accurate? Who knows...

 

[131313]

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that.

First, that's not even close to being true. Any other rider with the same number of adverse findings would have been suspended long ago. If there's any difference in how he's been treated, it's been that he's gotten preferential treatment, not that he's been singled out. Most of the the other riders haven't been "sought out" to the same extent for the simple reason that they've been found guilty!

And if someone is guilty, I certainly CAN blame them for fighting. They're wasting my sport's resources and my tax dollars... This a completely illogical argument.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know what their source is but figure here is $125M net worth at the time of (undated) reporting;

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-athletes/lance-armstrong-net-worth/

And let's try and remember that net worth does not equal cash on hand.

I seem to remember LA taking a bath on a house he sold in TX. If he's forced to liquidate in a down real estate market and a down stock market then whatever his net worth was is not indicitive of what it is now.

 

[Maxiton]

Let's stay on the subject of LA-USADA, please. There is already a Rasmussen thread you can use.

Susan

Sorry. I actually thought we were posting those in the Sky thread.

 

[Pedaaldanser]

Since it wasn't addressed yet and I'm quite curious too I'll repeat the question asked by Ninety5rpm:

Are the 1999 (and 2000-2005) samples still available? If so, can USADA obtain them and do relevant retroactive testing on them with modern tests? Why or why not?

 

[Fatclimber]

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

So you're calling LA a scapegoat??? Jesus... He's the only contender during his reign that hasn't been busted. Give me a freakin break.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They spend $32 million to sponsor the team from 2001-2004 ($8 million/year). Then you consider that they had to pay other cyclists and all of the management. You can do the math. It does not get close to the $50 + million Armstrong was making yearly.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=6019436

The problem with your argument is that LA was not making anything close to $50+m/pa.

Sorry this is a pretty flawed argument and one I cannot understand. There is not a single rider in the doping era that has been sought out in the ways Armstrong has been. He has chosen to fight instead of fold, and I don't know that you can blame him for that. The only way for him to do this was to attack those that came at him. He could have bent over and taken it but he choose to fight back. The same happened to Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds, where they were the scapegoats for a whole league that recorded record profits during the reigns. It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation that we have seen and they never had a whole sport come at them and try to pin the sports darkest days on their shoulders. Call me a fanboy or a troll but at the end of the day forums are designed for balanced debate and that is not what you get in this forum. If they were attacked in the same way LA LA man were I think they would have fought instead of caving. If you are going to hate doping hate everyone that did it and continues to dirty the sport.

I wont call you a fan or a troll - just you have little understanding of the history of the sport.
Pantani was caught for a HCT of 52% in the 99 Giro -and he was immediately vilified, and unlike LA and an American fanbase that might not understand, the Italians had no hesitation in referring to Pantani as a doper.

 

[BroDeal]

Perhaps....

He was never making $50M a year. At the height he was making $20-23M. After taxes he would have cleared a bit north of $10M. At the same time he was spending crazy money on stupid stuff like a private jet.

Right now he is spending four or five hundred K a month on lawyers, and his marketability has been seriously damaged. He already paid millions on lawyers during the federal investigation. Paying huge legal bills for the USADA case will leave a bit of a mark. Then there may $10-15M at stake with the SCA. The qui tam case could be another round of costly litigation.

He will be bleeding money for several years. At the same time his earning power will radically decrease. It all adds up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Since it wasn't addressed yet and I'm quite curious too I'll repeat the question asked by Ninety5rpm:

Are the 1999 (and 2000-2005) samples still available? If so, can USADA obtain them and do relevant retroactive testing on them with modern tests? Why or why not?

The anti-doping laboratories are not obliged to keep samples beyond (IIRC) 3 months after testing. So it is unlikely that many samples remain.

As for the 99 samples, while they appear to have been stored a lot has already been used for testing, the A sample and the subsequent test for EPO.
Ultimately, I do not see USADA needing to rely on tests as they have witness testimony.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Am I missing something? Wouldn't a favorable ruling for Lance mean that each of the other people could file a similar complaint with the knowledge that the judge has already granted what they too will ask for? Especially if the "state actor" issue is being adjudicated?

They could file, but unless there is a decision at the appellate level, the trial judge is not bound, only guided, by his colleague's decision. Distinguishing cases from one another is an art form--Johan's case may be found to have a critical difference from Armstrong's. Don't ya just love the uncertainty of the law?