USADA - Armstrong

[TubularBills]

For the Clinic Image Archive Sticky:

Thomas (Thom) Weisel

Under the subject:

Pimps & Pushers

 

[thehog]

True, the UCI could just try to back out of it and fade away, but what I don't see is how armstrong would possibly go down with out dragging UCI into this and making certain they also go down.

It's probably in the best interests of the UCI that Lance goes full ***.

They have a receipt for the Sysmex. Lance only has his word. Hard for him to take them down. He'd become the bitter doper that he claims everyone else to be....

Wouldn't that be fun! I honestly want to see Lance go full *** on this case. He has to. Tweeting is limp wristed. He needs to blow cycling to pieces!

 

[Velodude]

VD: I appreciate the historical context. I agree that the UCI could not continue to exist in its present form. But who is to say it could not exist in an altered format, without Olympics participation at all.

And again, my question is if a rider or team of professional riders chose to race under UCI-sanctioning (with the UCI not a participant in Olympic sport) why would this ipso facto serve as a ban on those riders from participating in the Olympics under a different aegis.

After all, if the riders rode for differently constituted national federations in the Olympics (and were tested clean), why should they not be permitted to, during the rest of their careers, race wherever and whenever they were permitted to do so.

And someone above also noted that GB cycling couldn't exist without participation in the Olympics. Um, ok. If GB was still permitted to select a national team and participate in the Olympics, because that national team was part of some newly constituted NGB that agreed it would adhere to the WADA Code, does that also necessarily mean that the riders would not also be able to participate in a different structure the other 90% of their careers, one goverened by a restructured UCI that would not be bound to the WADA Code?

Just saying that under the current rules, it is clear that everything is mutually dependent upon and conditioned upon WADA compliance. But it may not have to be that way in the future, if a new professional structure and racing governing body is formed and a majority of teams and riders agree to go such route. .

The IOC flow chart has the IOC only dealing with (their) recognized international sporting federations.

At each OG those international federations are in charge of the arranging of the events for their sports - starters, judges, umpires, referees, commissaires, etc.

You would have mayhem if each national federation became involved in event organization due to the Olympic exclusion of its international federation.

Would not wash.

 

[python]

True, the UCI could just try to back out of it and fade away, but what I don't see is how armstrong would possibly go down with out dragging UCI into this and making certain they also go down.

This is exactly the point that mark has failed to see. The uci, as it has done already during the ongoing armstrong investigation, can suddenly back pedal again depending on where the political wind is blowing. Armstrong does not have that option. The UCI's only card against armstrong.

Short of that political development, which I honestly don't see given the corrupt ioc past, the uci is Armstrong's conspirator and will play it that way as long as the politics dictate.

 

[MarkvW]

This is exactly the point that mark has failed to see. The uci, as it has done already during the ongoing armstrong investigation, can suddenly back pedal again depending on where the political wind is blowing. Armstrong does not have that option. The UCI's only card against armstrong.

Short of that political development, which I honestly don't see given the corrupt ioc past, the uci is Armstrong's conspirator and will play it that way as long as the politics dictate.

Oh, I understand our misunderstanding. You interpret the conflict as a bilateral conflict while I interpret it as a multilateral conflict.

You put the UCI on Armstrong's team because you see this as a game with only two teams. I don't put the UCI on Armstrong's team; I put the UCI on it's own team.

 

[python]

Oh, I understand our misunderstanding. You interpret the conflict as a bilateral conflict while I interpret it as a multilateral conflict.

You put the UCI on Armstrong's team because you see this as a game with only two teams. I don't put the UCI on Armstrong's team; I put the UCI on it's own team.

no, not only you misinterpreted my position again, which I thought was rather directly expressed, you again under uppreciated the uci games.

But why should I bother again when I could not get through you the first time?

 

[Race Radio]

Some may forget that back in 2007 there were many people at the IOC who were sick of the repeated doping issues and were pushing to get the sport out of the Olympics.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/cycling-risks-olympics-axe-senior-ioc-member-11739/

All this and more has taken the sport to the brink of seeing the IOC members lose their patience according to AFP's source.

"Cycling is now a serious point of concern among IOC members," he told AFP. "There is scandal after scandal and it is in serious danger of exiting the Olympics."

"Cycling is dreadful for the image of the Olympic movement and the Games itself."

The IOC member said that it was not all present International Cycling Union (UCI) president Pat McQuaid's fault, adding that the problem had been there well before under predecessor Hein Verbruggen

"Verbruggen has questions to answer from his term as president," he said. "The fall guy has been McQuaid and he is taking all the hits."

He added that it had been a certainty that cycling would come to such a stage of desperation. "The problem in the sport is endemic and it is getting worse and worse and worse.

"They tried to avoid everything that WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) said should be done, and they certainly didn't like the fact there was a new sheriff in town in the persona of **** Pound (WADA supremo, who steps down later this year)."

Pound himself had blasted cycling earlier this month at the IOC Session in Guatemala declaring 'its credibility was in shreds'. "I don't know what the sport of cycling has to go through to shed this image," said the straight-talking Canadian lawyer. "They (UCI) have allowed it to get out of hand. First it was a denial of a problem, and saying that the positive doping cases were isolated incidents and now they accept that it is endemic and organised.

"Their credibility is in shreds. Networks are not interested and sponsors are diving out of the sport."

It was only heavy lobbying by Verburggen, an IOC board member, who saved it.

Verbuggen and McQuaid have made a lot of enemies. Don't know if they can survive it this time.

 

[ToreBear]

A serious question: Let's say UCI chooses to ignore any USADA sanctions imposed on Bruyneel, Armstrong, etc. If UCI is then, as you say, in breach of the WADA Code, is the sanction for that against UCI (and its member federations) and does it extend down to any individual rider who participates in a UCI-sanctioned event? Or would each country be entitled to form its own new cycling federation and send riders as part of such delegations who have not been individually sanctioned or convicted of doping violations? Would riders who participate in UCI-sanctioned races still be able to race in the Olympics, assuming an alternate Olympic cycling structure was set up and organized?

If the IOC says to UCI "Cycling is out of the Olympics" will anyone really care? Booting baseball out of the Olympics has not really hurt the growth of the game, either in the U.S. or nationally, and as some may know, there's a movement for a true "world championship" tournament in baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Baseball_Classic, something that cycling and the UCI could easily replicate (of course there already are world championships in cycling).

What would prevent UCI and the rest of the national federations from just saying to IOC, "the hell with you."

You've gotten some good answers, and perhaps I can add some more.

The UCI/IOC relation is akin to a computer and a usb cycle(or something). UCI is the usb bike. Remove the usb bike and the computer can''t play bike games. Or rather UCI games.

Now the IOC doesn't want to deal with small organizations if they don't have to. If they can have it they want a federation incorporating several events. But that federation also has to be serious, follow the IOC code, be serious about doping, good governance and corruption free(After the Salt Lake scandal the IOC had a serious shakeup, and are trying to deal with their own corruption, well they are not as bad as 15 years ago atleast).

One could say the IOC requires an USB interface. And that interface has to be to a certain standard to fit into the computer.

The special thing in relation to baseball(I know they use a stick and a ball, and the word home run) is that they were probably kicked out because there were so few participants and competition.

But the UCI would get kicked out because they don't want to be a clean sport. Cycling will get a huge image problem.

The UCI AFAIK are made up of the national federations, who have voting rights. Some federations will feel the pain of lack of Olympic eligibility perhaps due to reduction in financial assistance or other benefits. Most of them with struggle with the image of a doping sport. Some more than others since cultural acceptance of doping is different in different countries.

Imagine trying to recruit racers or set up events. Would people want their kids to become good on two wheels and end up doping? Would TV stations be as interested in events? Sponsors?

Getting kicked out of the Olympics would have a huge drag on the future of the sport. Not just the money trickling down from the IOC to the UCI. The federations would weaken, but also the value of the big events like TdF would be reduced. No one wants that to happen.


Hope I gave you some more answers, it's late and my brain is working a bit slower.

 

[ToreBear]

Yes, you are right.

It seems that I have read something much different of what you have written. I should have been distracted while reading.

Sorry for my mistake.

No problem. You are forgiven.

 

[ToreBear]

About why the UCI are so involved in this case

Statement from USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart Regarding Today’s Hearing in Armstrong Lawsuit

View PDF

August 10, 2012

“As we said in court today, Mr. Armstrong agreed to play by the same rules that apply to every other athlete and we believe he should not be allowed to create a new set of rules that apply only to him. The rules already in place have protected the rights of millions of clean athletes both famous and anonymous for more than a decade and were approved by athletes, the U.S. Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations. From the beginning our investigation has been about ridding sport of anyone in the system that uses their power or influence to encourage or assist athletes in using dangerous performance-enhancing drugs. Every alleged offender is innocent unless and until proven otherwise through the established procedures which are Congressionally mandated to provide full due process, including the right to a public hearing where the evidence is presented, witness testimony is given under oath and subject to cross examination, and an independent panel of arbitrators determines the outcome of the case. We respect the federal court process and will await the judge’s decision.”


─ # ─

http://www.usada.org/media/statement8102012

I don't know if this is just a standard issue press release. But if it's not, it could explain why Pat seems to be wrighting weird letters.

I don't get the impression they are going for "a" or in this case "the" doper. It reads to me like they are going after someone else. Of cours mr. Armstrong could be that too of course, but It doesn't sound like he is the big prize.


Of course Mr. Armstrong only inserted the needle, he never injected.

 

[Race Radio]

Some like to pretend that it is only about doping. That everyone was doing it. That there was a level playing field

It isn't and there was never a level playing field.

http://fraudbytes.blogspot.com/2012/08/its-only-lying-about-drugs-guest-post.html

 

[D-Queued]

People have suggested that the UCI has a financial interest in being a part of the Olympic Movement that it cannot afford to lose. Nobody has examined that argument closely.

It was actively discussed in a thread from long ago and far, far away now.

No IOC recognition means no Olympic status for the individual country Sport Governing Organizations.

Olympic status commonly is linked to national/federal funding. Many countries would struggle to sustain their cycling associations, national championships, etc.

In addition, various appointees from National Cycling organizations would no longer be eligible for their country's Olympic Committees, etc.

It may not be the kiss of death for cycling, but it would be a very serious problem.

In the case of the USAC, about 10% of the budget comes from the USOC (~$1 million). British Cycling's annual report doesn't break down the sources of revenue (£20,226,151), but full disclosure can be obtained from the Company Secretary at British Cycling, Stuart Street, Manchester, M11 4DQ.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

It was actively discussed in a thread from long ago and far, far away now.

No IOC recognition means no Olympic status for the individual country Sport Governing Organizations.

Olympic status commonly is linked to national/federal funding. Many countries would struggle to sustain their cycling associations, national championships, etc.

In addition, various appointees from National Cycling organizations would no longer be eligible for their country's Olympic Committees, etc.

It may not be the kiss of death for cycling, but it would be a very serious problem.

In the case of the USAC, about 10% of the budget comes from the USOC (~$1 million). British Cycling's annual report doesn't break down the sources of revenue (£20,226,151), but full disclosure can be obtained from the Company Secretary at British Cycling, Stuart Street, Manchester, M11 4DQ.

Dave.

Thanks a lot for the money information. That helps explain USAC's less than complete support of the UCI.

Does the UCI get any money from the IOC?

 

[Race Radio]

The UCI received $13,500,000 from the 2008 Olympics. They also receive an additional 200-$400,000 per year from various Olympic related revenue streams

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NjI3MTU&LangId=1

This sum was only their share of the 2008 games. It is spread out over 4 years at about $3,500,000 per year.

This number will likely increase substantially for 2012 and the following 4 years

 

[Hugh Januss]

You've gotten some good answers, and perhaps I can add some more.

The UCI/IOC relation is akin to a computer and a usb cycle(or something). UCI is the usb bike. Remove the usb bike and the computer can''t play bike games. Or rather UCI games.

Now the IOC doesn't want to deal with small organizations if they don't have to. If they can have it they want a federation incorporating several events. But that federation also has to be serious, follow the IOC code, be serious about doping, good governance and corruption free(After the Salt Lake scandal the IOC had a serious shakeup, and are trying to deal with their own corruption, well they are not as bad as 15 years ago atleast).

One could say the IOC requires an USB interface. And that interface has to be to a certain standard to fit into the computer.

The special thing in relation to baseball(I know they use a stick and a ball, and the word home run) is that they were probably kicked out because there were so few participants and competition.

But the UCI would get kicked out because they don't want to be a clean sport. Cycling will get a huge image problem.

The UCI AFAIK are made up of the national federations, who have voting rights. Some federations will feel the pain of lack of Olympic eligibility perhaps due to reduction in financial assistance or other benefits. Most of them with struggle with the image of a doping sport. Some more than others since cultural acceptance of doping is different in different countries.

Imagine trying to recruit racers or set up events. Would people want their kids to become good on two wheels and end up doping? Would TV stations be as interested in events? Sponsors?

Getting kicked out of the Olympics would have a huge drag on the future of the sport. Not just the money trickling down from the IOC to the UCI. The federations would weaken, but also the value of the big events like TdF would be reduced. No one wants that to happen.


Hope I gave you some more answers, it's late and my brain is working a bit slower.

I agree with some of what you say, but IOC is not anti-doping they are however anti-doping scandal.
If a sport can not handle it's own business then they may want nothing to do with it. UCI is getting very close to airing all of it's dirty business in public.

 

[JRTinMA]

Thanks JRT. I agree.

This is why you are a respected poster!

 

[python]

This is why you are a respected poster!

Do you have anything to contribute to the subject of the the thread? Please take it to pms otherwise.

 

[BroDeal]

From a Slowb!tch thread. Way to treat the fans still clueless enough to believe him. He must not be sleeping very well.

I did the LSC 100 miler today in Philly. Lance said a few words at the beginning. He started by saying he pounded a few the night before and while he had planned to ride 100 miles that was not going to be the case....

Two thoughts:

-not the smartest thing to say to 2100 riders, many who had come out to ride with him....

-for any of you out there still hoping he can somehow finagle his way into Kona--I would say that he was not acting like the guy who still thinks tht can happen....

And a subsequent post about whether Armstrong was planning to ride:

I think he might have as he was dressed in his kit and had a helmet on. My reaction was more to his comments. I was standing next to a father and young (say 14 years old) son when he talked about his exploits and the son was a bit incredulous when he asked his Dad if Lance wasn't riding because he was drunk....

 

[thehog]

From a Slowb!tch thread. Way to treat the fans still clueless enough to believe him. He must not be sleeping very well.

I did the LSC 100 miler today in Philly. Lance said a few words at the beginning. He started by saying he pounded a few the night before and while he had planned to ride 100 miles that was not going to be the case....

Two thoughts:

-not the smartest thing to say to 2100 riders, many who had come out to ride with him....

-for any of you out there still hoping he can somehow finagle his way into Kona--I would say that he was not acting like the guy who still thinks tht can happen....

And a subsequent post about whether Armstrong was planning to ride:

I think he might have as he was dressed in his kit and had a helmet on. My reaction was more to his comments. I was standing next to a father and young (say 14 years old) son when he talked about his exploits and the son was a bit incredulous when he asked his Dad if Lance wasn't riding because he was drunk....

The slow winding path into self destruction...

(good find btw)

 

[the big ring]

And again, my question is if a rider or team of professional riders chose to race under UCI-sanctioning (with the UCI not a participant in Olympic sport) why would this ipso facto serve as a ban on those riders from participating in the Olympics under a different aegis.

After all, if the riders rode for differently constituted national federations in the Olympics (and were tested clean), why should they not be permitted to, during the rest of their careers, race wherever and whenever they were permitted to do so.

Spoken like someone very new to cycling! Welcome

There are countless examples of UCI excluding riders from races and races from riders. Guaranteed that if a new org takes over IOC - Olympic - NF cycling stream, there will be a clause saying, "No UCI races" or something of that ilk.

Example:

http://worldmasterscycling.com/eligibility.php

The WMCF does care about one thing - no pros and no one racing in UCI world cups and or other UCI Calendar events - even the crazy ones that are found south of the border. So if you got bored this winter and jetted to Central or South America for some miles and the event was on the UCI calendar, looks like Austria is not part of your summer plans.

But there are lots of examples of UCI denying riders racing in races for whatever reason (eg: Lance racing for Mellow Johnnies in the US to get around the UCI ban).

 

[python]

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/Analysis_of_Armstrong_s_Case_2913.html
this balanced legal analysis was published on what many consider a pro-Armstrong site - slow twitch.

the author feels that Armstrong’s contractual claims are a stronger argument than his lack of due process compliants.

While Armstrong's due process claim is the sexier of his two claims, it is far more difficult to prove than his contractual claims. Even if Armstrong succeeds in demonstrating that USADA is a state actor, it will be an uphill battle to demonstrate that he has a Constitutionally protected right to compete as a pro cyclist and triathlete and that USADA's process does not meet the basic standards of procedural due process. Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to see how the Federal Court addresses the issues in Armstrong’s Amended Complaint.

imo, the new documents (from the uci, usac and wada) did not alter the conclusions of the analysis.

 

[Muriel]

I've a question, and be gentle with me here, I "pounded" a few last night so my brain cells aren't quite lined up...

If the UCI signed up to the WADA code in 2004, can any potential USADA sanction pre-date that? I'm stuck in a 'contract agreement' argument that would suggest that different 'terms and conditions' would have applied at that time.

 

[spalco]

That's surely one of the questions the arbitration hearing will have to deal with, but from what I understand, the USADA's argument is, that what Armstrong/USPS did, was an ongoing conspiracy, not just individual incidents of doping and for that reason it's possible to claim responsibility for deciding the legitimacy of performances way down to at least 1999.

 

[BroDeal]

I've a question, and be gentle with me here, I "pounded" a few last night so my brain cells aren't quite lined up...

If the UCI signed up to the WADA code in 2004, can any potential USADA sanction pre-date that? I'm stuck in a 'contract agreement' argument that would suggest that different 'terms and conditions' would have applied at that time.

It seems to me that this whole thing is a giant mess. Beyond the UCI signing up for WADA after most of Armstrong's doping had happened, there have been several versions of the WADA code, each more complicated and expansive than the previous one. Which one applies? Do different versions of the code apply to different years? Was non-analytical positives part of the code in 2004 and 2005?

 

[hektoren]

It seems to me that this whole thing is a giant mess. Beyond the UCI signing up for WADA after most of Armstrong's doping had happened, there have been several versions of the WADA code, each more complicated and expansive than the previous one. Which one applies? Do different versions of the code apply to different years? Was non-analytical positives part of the code in 2004 and 2005?

I fear the end of the German investigation into the Freiburg clinic is a bad omen for Sparks' final verdict. The investigation was more akin to the Federal case against LA, and it remains yet to be seen what german antidoping authorities will do, but the fact alone that the cases are "old", seen in context with Sparks' "why now, why didn't you do anything before"-comment to USADA....
As you point out, which WADA-code applies? Sparks may hit on this, and the fact alone that he's a single person, who might or might not be sensitive to the Lancinator-myth.
I really fear that we're about to get more bad news. Hope not, but fear that we will.