USADA - Armstrong

[the big ring]

Hyperbole?

What have a exaggerated?

What "bald assertion" have I made?
.

This is the closest analogy I can think of:

A small, dedicated team of agile developers (the "agile development company" = adc) are halfway through a project, and you're coming in, with a traditional, waterfall SDLC mentality, demanding full documentation for the complete, finished product, declaring the entire project a failure.

The only problem being, you have read none of the minutes of any of the standups, nor looked at any of the use cases / "stories" or documented procedures of this adc team. You've read none of their explanations for their current process either.

You are ignoring the fact that this agile development team (adc) have been operating this exact same way, for the last 10 years, successfully completing project after project, with noone saying a thing about their processes.

But now that the project has a high profile client, suddenly all the waterfall SDLC guys are jumping up and down and declaring a "fair process" is not being followed.

You know what's really crazy?

1. The client's manager helped define the agile development process when the adc was first created.
2. The client signed contracts with the adc agreeing to be subject to their agile process.
3. The client asked the adc to sign a sworn affidavit stating that the client is subject to the adc's agile process - as evidence in a separate court case.

You are jumping in now and saying adc are failing, because they're not following the waterfall process.

You are incorrect.

Replace:
adc with USADA
client with LA
"agile development" with arbitration
"waterfall SDLC" with "legal system"

 

[Berzin]

The tragedy of cheating and doping in sports is just that - and I don't condone it nor support it. Lance did and continues to inspire me though. As an athlete.

He built his athletic persona on fraud, corruption, cronyism, and intimidation. He built his cancer foundation on many of the same premises. Livestrong exists to enrich the founder and aggrandize his persona outside the field of athletics.

Everything about his success is illegitimate. Yet you come on here with this rubbish that he still motivates you.

That is about as pathetic an apologist rant as I've ever read. But I understand clearly that at this point in time, we will see more and more posts like yours popping up here in the Clinic.

The duplicity is cringe-inducing. You don't support cheating and doping in sports, yet you claim to be inspired by one of if not thee biggest sporting frauds modern sport has ever seen.

That's just beautiful.

 

[Rainfox]

He built his athletic persona on fraud, corruption, cronyism, and intimidation. He built his cancer foundation on many of the same premises. Livestrong exists to enrich the founder and aggrandize his persona outside the field of athletics.

Everything about his success is illegitimate. Yet you come on here with this rubbish that he still motivates you.

That is about as pathetic an apologist rant as I've ever read. But I understand clearly that at this point in time, we will see more and more posts like yours popping up here in the Clinic.

The duplicity is cringe-inducing. You don't support cheating and doping in sports, yet you claim to be inspired by one of if not thee biggest sporting frauds modern sport has ever seen.

That's just beautiful.

Berzin, my post was not an apologist one and I'm sad to hear you think of it as a rant. Maybe I wasn't being clear enough. Or thorough enough. There are numerous reasons why Armstrong has inspired me.

But no more than other cheaters also inspire - Maradona (both with dope and with his hand), the NE Patriots franchise or the fact that my favorite athlete of all time is Steve Young (a Mormon - and I've dedicated a lot of my life to fighting the supernatural/religion). It's on and on and it is indeed
ongoing...

I get the hate for Lance though. Especially from amateur, semi-pro and pro riders starting out now or having been victims of the omerta. I get how cleaning this up will clarify a lot. I'm just sceptical and interested in the conspiracy theory more than the dope issue. That's a given.

I come from Denmark BTW. So yes, been following TdF forever. The sport and this event needs a housecleaning. It doesn't start with Lance though.

Finally, as for stating that Livestrong exists to enrich the founder? That's on you and yes, you can take it back. There.

Other than that - sorry if I was not being clear to begin with. Not an apologist for LA and not ranting. As interested in the facts being presented as anyone.

Best,

RF

 

[Benotti69]

Hello there.

Or as Selina Kyle once said by removing the o and the t.. hell here? *smile*

I'm a longtime Armstong fan and (I'll be) a lifelong Livestrong supporter.

Yet I will use a quote from the wonderful Sam Harris to get to the short and sweet of it all, regarding whether Lance Armstrong doped during his TdF victories.

"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, 'Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.'? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

Armstrong inspired me personally, from healthy living to a recent diet regime just before turning 40 this Summer, and he continues to do so. Having lost family members to cancer, I am involved with Livestrong and will do that even after this case is settled.

Did he dope? How is this even still an issue? Logic says he did - to an overwhelming degree! Just judging from the top 30 active pro cyclists 1999-2005.

Therefore, I too find this very puzzling (that USADA doesn't just slam the evidence on the table).. it just furthers the balkanization if you will and it opens doors for Armstrong to go through doors via legal technicalities.

As for the conspiracy theories of UCI etc ? That's really the only interesting thing here. To me, anyway.

The tragedy of cheating and doping in sports is just that - and I don't condone it nor support it. Lance did and continues to inspire me though. As an athlete. It's up to him to look his children in the eye at night, tuck them in and say, 'No, daddy didn't cheat.'. That is too brutal for me and too personal.

PS: BTW! Read Sam Harris brilliant short-book "Lying". Available for iPad and iPhone also. On just that.. lying.

Do you think your Deity doped and cheated his way to 7 Tour de France Victories?

By the way, it is commonly believed he started doping aged 16 and hasn't stopped.

 

[Benotti69]

< more chapter and verse from LieStrong minions>

How many cults have you signed up to in your lifetime?

Reminds me of the quote from Monty Pyton's Life Of Brian.

" I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few. "

 

[spalco]

That is about as pathetic an apologist rant as I've ever read. But I understand clearly that at this point in time, we will see more and more posts like yours popping up here in the Clinic.

It's actually pretty honest imo. He/she admits Armstrong is a fraud and a cheaters, but still likes him personally. You can't argue against emotion.

 

[Benotti69]

It's actually pretty honest imo. He/she admits Armstrong is a fraud and a cheaters, but still likes him personally. You can't argue against emotion.

Nor can you argue with insanity

 

[AussieGoddess]

Cmon Beno give the guy a chance.

You know how I feel about Lance, but I still find him inspirational in many respects too.

Drugs or not, paid for or not, what he has actually achieved on the road is unmistakeable.

 

[Captain Sensible]

. The sport and this event needs a housecleaning. It doesn't start with Lance though.

RF

So who do you wish it to start with instead of LA perhaps some rider who hasn't the money like LA and with no help to cover up from the UCI ? .
Hopefully if LA and pals at the UCI end up in court and found guilty you will get the housecleaning you wish but I've a feeling that's not what you want.

 

[Benotti69]

Cmon Beno give the guy a chance.

You know how I feel about Lance, but I still find him inspirational in many respects too.

Drugs or not, paid for or not, what he has actually achieved on the road is unmistakeable.

AG, i cant see it myself. In terms of the cancer, i feel that it is not a mental fight, but a physical one and how your body repsonds. Lots of strong people have succumbed while others who you would not expect to beat it, have.

This is my experience anyway. A frail young cousin of my partners got severe melonoma and was given 3 months. The doctors didn't want to bother with treatment, but the parents forced them. She is still here 3 years later fully recovered. An uncle, like a bull, didn't even though his prognosis was for full recovery.

I dont see how Armstrong can be inspirational to anyone when everything he does is for Lance. It is all to make Lance look good, the myth.

He didn't beat cancer. He survived cancer. Massive difference.

See you in the other place AG

 

[Kennf1]

Hyperbole?


I couldn't tell you what the USADA requirements are for discovery and I never claimed they didn't meet them. But I do happen to know a little about discovery in the legal system as I develop software specifically for it (by no means am I claiming to be a legal expert. But based on my experience with explaining what I do for a living I can say the average person knows nothing about discovery).

Giving people less than 10 days to prepare a defense is IN MY OPINION absurd. If doing that is within the USADA protocol then their protocol sucks and the term "kangaroo court" is fitting.

It just seems to me that proving LA and company's guilt in an unquestionably fair fashion would be better than doing it in a sketchy one. That way there is no more argument.

You seem to be basing your arguments solely on what Armstrong's lawyers and McQuaid are claiming. No one is being required to prepare a defense in 10 days. You're basing that statement on one paragraph from McQuaid's letter, and to be honest, I have no idea what he's talking about. The arbitration (or arbitrations) will take place in the fall, at which time the "full defense" would be presented, following of course, the "full case" against the respondents. Armstrong's team is already in possession of the information supplied to the Review Board. There is more evidence that has not yet been disclosed, but it will be, pursuant to USADA and AAA rules.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

This is USADA-Armstrong, not a cancer discussion. Everyone stay on topic.

Susan

 

[Rainfox]

AussieGoddess / Spalco.

Thank you.

Armstrong was on other things, but he was also on his bike. And he was phenomenal.

Anyway...



Back to / regarding the USADA case:


Did anyone else stop and take a breath when it surfaced about Ferraris alleged special way of taking testo? Via olive oil, under the tongue?

Lance had a (then very funny) Twitter during his TdF comeback year (where he placed third - and I was/am inclined to think he was clean here), when the tour bus was stopped by the police and they had found a bottle of (cooking) olive oil and said: "What do you need this olive oil for?" - and Lance twittered his response as "Really now?"

However... with this latest rumor (Ferraris delivery system), that Twitter just isn't as funny as back then. Surprised nobody else in here picked up on it. Or maybe they did and if so, sorry.

 

[Benotti69]

AussieGoddess / Spalco.

Thank you.

Armstrong was on other things, but he was also on his bike. And he was phenomenal.

<snip>

And he was phenomenally doped.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

You can't pick your friend'snose.

If you have 15 minutes then read USADAs letter to the UCI:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102034896/42-2-USADA-letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-dated-26-July-2012

It makes excellent reading.

It's writen very clearly and has compelling points. It's in stark contrast to any of the Armstrong filings.

I am going to have to re-read this. first off because it just smashes the myths and lies so elegantly, but secondly, I am looking for either a title or a summation that says

" Dear UCI:
You can pick your friends
You can pick your nose
But you can't pick your friend's nose. "

Because that is essentially what this says.

 

[MarkvW]

And he was phenomenally doped.

And he was competing against other phenomenal dopers in a sport governed by a corrupt ruling body. Nobody is clean here--except perhaps some non-contenders (who supported doped riders).

 

[FitSsikS]

Armstrong was on other things, but he was also on his bike. And he was phenomenal.

(edited by mod)

Evidence gathered by USADA from those listed indicate that he was less than phenomenal.

See how I kept that on topic?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Drugs or not, paid for or not, what he has actually achieved on the road is unmistakeable.

What did he achieve?

-Racing Hero to racing zero. The guy is, at best, near the top end of a national racing scene without the dope.
-We know the UCI had a hand in creating the myth, so the UCI picked their winner more than once. ASO's policy and leadership changes certainly assisted.

I could go on, but the point here is the level of fraud is epic and long-range to the point a more reasonable-sounding view is over-inflated with the myth too.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

And he was competing against other phenomenal dopers in a sport governed by a corrupt ruling body. Nobody is clean here--except perhaps some non-contenders (who supported doped riders).

So long as the truth comes out I am OK with the reality that the sport is rife with doping (as is any other professional sports for all you pollyanna's out there).

At this point it appears that he built a myth on a lie and an empire on the myth. He is a fraud apparently and that is what needs to be his legacy. However if he is clean I can't for the life of me understand why he fights so hard for the truth to NOT be heard...

He just needs to say he did what everyone else was doing to win: cheating. Or he can fight for all the testimony to clear his good name.

Pick one.

 

[Berzin]

Sorry you guys (and gals) have lost me on this. How/when has Lance thrown them under the bus?

I'm not trying to speak for Race Radio (he is more than capable of doing so for himself) but just check out how things went down.

Pat McQuaid makes a statement saying the USADA investigation has nothing to do with the UCI. In other words, he is attempting to distance himself from the whole affair by stating the UCI has nothing to do with it.

Two days later he sends a letter to the USADA in an attempt to stop the investigation by stating they must stop and send the UCI all the evidence they've collected so an "independent" panel of the UCI's choosing can oversee said evidence to see if it indeed warrants further action against Armstrong.

What could possibly happen to make Fat Pat change course 180 degrees so quickly, given that the previous three actors in the USADA's charging letter who got lifetime bans from pro cycling did not receive the same option?

An educated guess would be that Armstrong placed a call to McQuaid right after he made his statement of non-involvement and told him in no uncertain terms that if he goes down without the UCI making a concerted effort to get the USADA off his back, he will rat out not only Verbruggen but Fat Pat himself.

That is the likely scenario that played itself out between the two days in question.

 

[Stingray34]

I think the second biggest POS is McQuaid. I wonder how much Wonderboy is paying him and the UCI these days?

I think McQuaid and Verbruggen are worse than Lance. Those two are a pair of pompous roaches; just typical self-important, self-interested bureaucrats. They could be better people, but they find it easier to be a fetid pair of number twos.

Lance is just being himself, acting according to his nature. He's a slave to his impulses. Lance is pitiful while the other two are reprehensible.

 

[Stingray34]

I'm not trying to speak for Race Radio (he is more than capable of doing so for himself) but just check out how things went down.

Pat McQuaid makes a statement saying the USADA investigation has nothing to do with the UCI. In other words, he is attempting to distance himself from the whole affair by stating the UCI has nothing to do with it.

Two days later he sends a letter to the USADA in an attempt to stop the investigation by stating they must stop and send the UCI all the evidence they've collected so an "independent" panel of the UCI's choosing can oversee said evidence to see if it indeed warrants further action against Armstrong.

What could possibly happen to make Fat Pat change course 180 degrees so quickly, given that the previous three actors in the USADA's charging letter who got lifetime bans from pro cycling did not receive the same option?

An educated guess would be that Armstrong placed a call to McQuaid right after he made his statement of non-involvement and told him in no uncertain terms that if he goes down without the UCI making a concerted effort to get the USADA off his back, he will rat out not only Verbruggen but Fat Pat himself.

That is the likely scenario that played itself out between the two days in question.

This is basically it, but I think it's actually Verbruggen that figured out he's in trouble if the UCI don't try putting the brakes on things and put the heavy on his puppet McQuaid. Verbruggen is a shrewd little weasel, but Phat Pat is a consumate dunce. Replace him with Chumlee and you wouldn't notice the difference, only Chumlee is much thinner.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm not trying to speak for Race Radio (he is more than capable of doing so for himself) but just check out how things went down.

Pat McQuaid makes a statement saying the USADA investigation has nothing to do with the UCI. In other words, he is attempting to distance himself from the whole affair by stating the UCI has nothing to do with it.

Two days later he sends a letter to the USADA in an attempt to stop the investigation by stating they must stop and send the UCI all the evidence they've collected so an "independent" panel of the UCI's choosing can oversee said evidence to see if it indeed warrants further action against Armstrong.

What could possibly happen to make Fat Pat change course 180 degrees so quickly, given that the previous three actors in the USADA's charging letter who got lifetime bans from pro cycling did not receive the same option?

An educated guess would be that Armstrong placed a call to McQuaid right after he made his statement of non-involvement and told him in no uncertain terms that if he goes down without the UCI making a concerted effort to get the USADA off his back, he will rat out not only Verbruggen but Fat Pat himself.

That is the likely scenario that played itself out between the two days in question.

Or, maybe Lance made another donation.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'm wondering if or when David Howman/WADA will opine on this turf war. For that matter, I'm expecting Steve johnson to send a letter to USADA asking that it comply with UCI's requests.

Between doing Olympics events fluff, and inevitably having to defend USADA inside the IOC, my guess is you won't hear much. WADA knows they are the weaker party until the IOC is embarrassed again. My genuine hope is one outcome of this story is a more powerful WADA and weaker sports federations so the positive process is more transparent.

 

[thehog]

I think McQuaid and Verbruggen are worse than Lance. Those two are a pair of pompous roaches; just typical self-important, self-interested bureaucrats. They could be better people, but they find it easier to be a fetid pair of number twos.

Lance is just being himself, acting according to his nature. He's a slave to his impulses. Lance is pitiful while the other two are reprehensible.

McQuaid would prefer it all just to go away and be handled by USADA. If the UCI handle the case he’ll be under extreme pressure to find a resolution. He can already see that it’s obvious of the extreme bias. Future CAS cases with cite the Armstrong case. Other athletes will claim jurisdiction if successful. It’s a no win for McQuaid. He needs to clear it off his desk immediately. Pat wants to hang out with Royals. He has no time for this. Sadly he’ll have to deal with it sooner than he thinks. 2013 re-election is just around the corner and he needs to hold on to his company apartment, travel and entertainment budgets and beer fridge.

Our friend here is Armstrong. He actually holds the aces. His defense is to admit to doping. But only because there was mass doping during his era and that the governing body allowed it to occur and made positive tests disappear with donation(s). He could make himself look really good at the end of it. Tell the hearing that he wanted to be clean but there was no hope with the UCI blind eye treatment of dopers. He could smash the UCI to pieces and probably hang on to his 7 titles. He could point to all the other riders who’ve been caught up in drug scandals but never tested positive because the UCI enabled doping. (I’d also throw some cancer stuff in here as well).

He has more chance with this strategy than pretending to be clean. Lance cannot win by pretending to be clean.

McQuaid/UCI would be powerless to defend it. No chance he could suggest Armstrong made it all up. No possible. Armstrong could show the donation talk about the meetings with lab directors etc.

Question is. Who would you support? Lance or the UCI?