What the hell just happened ?

[ultimobici]

Two decades, millions of dollars, and we MIGHT produce ONE conviction, for a relatively minor offense.

If it was just doping himself, I'd have to agree to a limited degree with this statement. However, if what we have heard so far is true and backed up by testimony & evidence, he & Bruyneel were running a trafficking operation as well as coercing others into doping. That is a whole lot more than a minor offence.

You keep banging on about the unfairness of Armstrong not seeing the evidence before deciding whether to fight it or not. This is no different to a criminal being charged with a crime. You don't see the full evidence until you've elected to go to court. If Armstrong was so certain of his innocence he'd have wanted his day in court to clear his name. Instead he feigned weariness and bowed out. Not the actions of a person certain of their innocence, rather those of one who's not sure they can beat the rap this time.

 

[dadane]

And, oh yes, if these overlapping agnecies get it wrong? People die.

Hmm, so nobody has died as a result of PED use in cycling? I must've got my facts muddled.

 

[Animal]

Two decades, millions of dollars, and we MIGHT produce ONE conviction, for a relatively minor offense.

It's "offence".

And anyway, that's the fault of the criminal, lying, twisting cheating, obfuscating, avoiding and delaying.


They need to claim costs from him.

 

[noddy69]

Audited. And whom levies the fines based on what they find? All of them? EASA levie a lot of fines in Dallas? Publically tell the FAA how to run their business? A lot of foreign DCA's shut you down? Hound you for 16 years?

You flight plan, like a blood profile, does its read change when you cross the boundary between the FAA and EASA?

And when there is a serious problem with an airline, do all the those authorities publically blame the other one? Does the EASA threaten to shut you down before you appear before a public tribunal to answer for alleged misconduct? While FAA says, "not so fast!" and the the various DCA's all line up behind you ...

And, oh yes, if these overlapping agnecies get it wrong? People die.

If the USADA or the UCI gets it wrong ... someone cheated to win a race. Certainly not right, but if baseball can handle a massive steroid and growth hormone scandal without ripping itself apart ... perhaps there is something to learn there.

EASA has governance over european affairs, the FAA has authority over the states. However in europe each airspace is governed by its own authority who ultimately have sole authority over their own airspace.
If an airline was to be blacklisted by EASA any european airspace authority could still allow them to fly if they disagreed, and yes there would be sanctions,but it could happen. Just as the FAA could implement one rule and EASA disagree and not implement it.
It does not generally happen however as safety is the overriding concern in aviation. All the bodies are in agreement on this. Within cycling this is not the case where doping is concerned. In public the UCI has said it has no responsibility for the doping that took place under its watch whatsoever. It has been implicated in covering up tests. If you were to use the airline analogy it would be like the FAA covering up concerns over a popular airlines safety compliance record. Or an even better one would be EASA covering it up from the european authorities and when it was uncovered by one and sanctions put in place then asking for ratification on why when they already know why.
This cannot happen however as there are many looking after these concerns all with the sole purpose of the utmost safety of aircraft. Not the case with the UCI who have a vested interest in the growth of cycling and business concerns which have made them lose sight of what it is they are governing.They have a major conflict of interest where doping is concerned and it is why USADA have had to take action. The UCI have no credibility left where doping is concerned and thus are waiting for a report which may or may not implicate them. This may be the reason it is taking longer than expected as to give a corrupt body evidence on its own corruption straight onto the hands of those who perpetrated the actions is more complex than many would imagine.

 

[red_flanders]

YOu don't have to demonize everyone who questions the system.

If you we're questioning the system before it set its sights on Armstrong I'd like your credibility. As it stands...not so much.

 

[Benotti69]

Hmm, so nobody has died as a result of PED use in cycling? I must've got my facts muddled.

Plenty have died.

Most famous Tom Simpson, combination of exhaustion, amphetamines, alcohol and heat.

There were a number of riders who died in the sleep due to EPO.

These are even more a reason to go after the likes of Armstrong.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Ahh Gree

gree0232 posted: If the USADA or the UCI gets it wrong ... someone cheated to win a race. Certainly not right, but if baseball can handle a massive steroid and growth hormone scandal without ripping itself apart ... perhaps there is something to learn there.

I'm not clear on what's okay with a sport using drugs in completely uncontrolled manner. Maybe you can fill your opinion out a little bit?

I'm also not clear on why cheating is okay too? The rules of the game provide the framework for sports drama. In cycling, why not just hop in a car and win the race that way? You are apparently okay with no one following rules while racing bikes. How does this work exactly?

How about clearing those points up for us?

Finally gree0232, I have some great hypothetical news for you. Your teenage daughter is identified as internationally talented in cycling. The second step is to start her on a doping program. What's it going to be because you have to dope your kid so she can be competitive. When do you personally withdraw the blood for later use? When do you let her do the injections herself? You seem to be okay with PED's, so give them to your child at a very early age and get back to us.

Bottom line, all your tough talk means nothing.

 

[Robert21]

There were a number of riders who died in the sleep due to EPO.

A lot of riders have died over the years in circumstances that suggest that doping was a factor, and not just in the early days of Epo use. For example:

Inquiry into Belgian cyclist's death raises new fears over EPO

Tally of deaths reaches eight as drug suspicions rise

William Fotheringham
The Guardian, Monday 16 February 2004

Belgian police launched an investigation at the weekend into a second unexplained cycling death, that of a 21-year-old Belgian amateur, Johan Sermon, who died of a heart attack on Thursday night.

Sermon and Marco Pantani - who also died from cardiac arrest, the investigating magistrate in Italy said - are the seventh and eighth cyclists to die from the condition in just over a year. Although there is no evidence directly linking the recent spate of fatalities to banned drug use, a similar cluster of deaths - mainly in the Low Countries - in the late 1980s and early 1990s is now held to have marked the arrival in cycling of the banned blood booster erythropoietin (EPO).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/feb/16/cycling.cycling1

By 1970 the president of the association of French sports physicians, Professor Chailley-Bert, estimated that more than a hundred cyclists had died as a result of doping.7 During the period 1987-88 alone, eighteen Dutch and Belgian cyclists died of unknown causes. The fact that there did not seem to be anything wrong with them led to a widespread assumption that these deaths were due to overdoses of erythropoietin (EPO).8

http://doping.au.dk/fileadmin/www.d...Verner_Moeller_-_The_Doping_Devil_-_final.pdf

In 1988-1990 there was reports of 15 cycling riders that have died from improper use of EPO: 9 from Netherland, 5 from Belgium and 1 from Germany. Among those we have the deaths of Gerd Oosterbosch (TVM) in 1989, Patrice Bar (IOC-Tulip) in 1990 and of Johannes Draaijer (PDM) in feb.1990. Few years later, there was all in all registered 20 riders and 7 Swedish orientation runners, who had passed away due to EPO. After the first dangerous years, experience was gained about how to keep EPO consumption at a level that didn’t kill you (and techniques was invented to help dillute your blood). Just to reflect: The same story applies for use of amphetamines in 1949-1969, where a total number of 14 riders died (Tom Simpson, Knud Enemark, etc.), before experience was gained how to avoid the accute deaths. IOC banned EPO as an illegal substance in 1990, but since no test existed until 2001, it became VERY FAST the most populair doping product in cycling.

http://forum.teamsaxobanktinkoffbank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5013

 

[gree0232]

Hmm, so nobody has died as a result of PED use in cycling? I must've got my facts muddled.

LA died of PED use? So, catching LA will prevent deaths?

And this 16 year long, highly inefficient process is about saving lives?

The best part, as I look at this section, is that there appears to be a desire to spread this 'system' to other sports. Well, not a desire, a demand if you will, so we can spend 20 years chasing Rafael Nadal next?

I realize there is a lot of passion to get LA, but there is passion and then there is systemized justice.

Do we really think that chasing Wiggo for 16 years because we are already convinced he's a doper, he did talk about cadence after all, and because he's mean, he did call the haters the c word, will be a good thing?

 

[gree0232]

It's "offence".

And anyway, that's the fault of the criminal, lying, twisting cheating, obfuscating, avoiding and delaying.


They need to claim costs from him.

So, now, whenever we catch someone lying ... 20 years, white whale, is the result?

Again, why do we not have an adversarial system like a regular court? Contador dragged on for how long? LA is not done yet, he had an entire cycling career and we still haven't nailed him.

You really think that perhaps there is not a better way to do this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Audited. And whom levies the fines based on what they find? All of them? EASA levie a lot of fines in Dallas? Publically tell the FAA how to run their business? A lot of foreign DCA's shut you down? Hound you for 16 years?

You flight plan, like a blood profile, does its read change when you cross the boundary between the FAA and EASA?

And when there is a serious problem with an airline, do all the those authorities publically blame the other one? Does the EASA threaten to shut you down before you appear before a public tribunal to answer for alleged misconduct? While FAA says, "not so fast!" and the the various DCA's all line up behind you ...

And, oh yes, if these overlapping agnecies get it wrong? People die.

If the USADA or the UCI gets it wrong ... someone cheated to win a race. Certainly not right, but if baseball can handle a massive steroid and growth hormone scandal without ripping itself apart ... perhaps there is something to learn there.

Actually - that is pretty much how it works and anti-doping could learn a lot from how aviation implements its rules.

If an American registered (FAA) aircraft is involved in an incident in the UK then the authority where it happened (UK/CAA) investigates often with input from the FAA. And quite often they disagree on the eventual outcome (manufacturer blames pilots, airline blames manufacturer etc) - but as they operate under agreed rules by ICAO then the system is trusted.

If you do not contest the case then the authority will proceed in your absence and they can and often do render severe sanctions.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So, now, whenever we catch someone lying ... 20 years, white whale, is the result?

Again, why do we not have an adversarial system like a regular court? Contador dragged on for how long? LA is not done yet, he had an entire cycling career and we still haven't nailed him.

You really think that perhaps there is not a better way to do this?

Indeed the better way was not to allow Amstrong pay large sums to that authority - perhaps he would have been insignificant before you would even have heard of him.

 

[zigmeister]

I seem to recall Tygart saying in an interview that an additional witness came forward after USADA issued its sanction.

Why does this matter? If they had a 'mountain" of information that would have sunk Lance anyway, their exact words...who cares if somebody came forward later?

it wouldn't make any difference unless their evidence was borderline and gave people a reason to doubt the sanction to begin with.

If they are so aware of the omerta, and information keeps coming forward from people for the next 5-10yrs...do they just keep delaying things as more information becomes available?

This logic and reasoning is ridiculous and what makes USADA seem like a bunch of amateurs with some kind of vendetta.

Were they going to proceed to arbitration if Lance decided in that manner, and just keep offering up new information on a daily basis when it became available with no disclosure or advanced warning just to build and strengthen their case?

They should have been at a point, as they have stated, where they had so much information, they don't need to add anything else, nor should they.

Hence, give up what you got. If more becomes available later, just make that disclaimer as you hand it over to the UCI and public that people are slowly coming forward and continually providing new things. But this is more than enough to do LA in...so let's have it.

 

[uspostal]

Why does this matter? If they had a 'mountain" of information that would have sunk Lance anyway, their exact words...who cares if somebody came forward later?

it wouldn't make any difference unless their evidence was borderline and gave people a reason to doubt the sanction to begin with.

If they are so aware of the omerta, and information keeps coming forward from people for the next 5-10yrs...do they just keep delaying things as more information becomes available?

This logic and reasoning is ridiculous and what makes USADA seem like a bunch of amateurs with some kind of vendetta.

Were they going to proceed to arbitration if Lance decided in that manner, and just keep offering up new information on a daily basis when it became available with no disclosure or advanced warning just to build and strengthen their case?

They should have been at a point, as they have stated, where they had so much information, they don't need to add anything else, nor should they.

Hence, give up what you got. If more becomes available later, just make that disclaimer as you hand it over to the UCI and public that people are slowly coming forward and continually providing new things. But this is more than enough to do LA in...so let's have it.

I agree, the USADA should of send over the information they had at the time of the life time ban. They could have always send more information along as it became available. I think the way the USADA is going now opens them up to questions about what they had at the time of the life time ban. I hope this extra time is worth the questions is raises.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree, the USADA should of send over the information they had at the time of the life time ban. They could have always send more information along as it became available. I think the way the USADA is going now opens them up to questions about what they had at the time of the life time ban. I hope this extra time is worth the questions is raises.

Isn't it amazing then that the Lance and his expensive lawyers did not ask that question? Then again - they all knew the answer so they didn't want to see the evidence and they don't want you to see it either.

Thankfully the UCI are so inept they decided to keep this dog & pony show going - they might regret what the wished for.

 

[spetsa]

Did I accidentally click on the "This Forum Blows" thread, or is someone/some people (moderators included) just trying to provide examples?

 

[noddy69]

So, now, whenever we catch someone lying ... 20 years, white whale, is the result?

Again, why do we not have an adversarial system like a regular court? Contador dragged on for how long? LA is not done yet, he had an entire cycling career and we still haven't nailed him.

You really think that perhaps there is not a better way to do this?

Of course there is a better way, simply put if we get rid of testing from the UCI and when tests come back positive they are acted upon rather than hiding the results then we wont be handing bans down to athletes after they have cheated other athletes for years and the process will be a fairer one for all concerned.
Unfortunately this was not the case for said doper but you cant have it all.

 

[Bosco10]

I agree, the USADA should of send over the information they had at the time of the life time ban. They could have always send more information along as it became available. I think the way the USADA is going now opens them up to questions about what they had at the time of the life time ban. I hope this extra time is worth the questions is raises.

You know, I support the USADA, but I can't shake the feeling that something is fishy with this delay, even if it's only two weeks.

 

[131313]

Did I accidentally click on the "This Forum Blows" thread, or is someone/some people (moderators included) just trying to provide examples?

Let's cut the LA chamois sniffers some slack here. It's been a very hard month, and this is pretty much the first thing they could grab onto. They've been desperate for something, anything, and this ice cube in an ocean has been their temporary reprieve. Let them enjoy it.

 

[gree0232]

Of course there is a better way, simply put if we get rid of testing from the UCI and when tests come back positive they are acted upon rather than hiding the results then we wont be handing bans down to athletes after they have cheated other athletes for years and the process will be a fairer one for all concerned.
Unfortunately this was not the case for said doper but you cant have it all.

The UCI is the governing body, and the question that arises almost immediately is ... who keeps the USADA and WADA honest if we eliminate that body? Amery Sport?

I think, with a little analysis, there is a clear and better path.

Take for example soccer, baseball, etc. is there any doubt that in sports with even more money to fling about than cycling that doping is somehow not a problem in those sports?

Do we really think ANY of thiose sports with equal, if not greater, doping problems than cycling are going to follow this pattern of justice to rid themselves of the problem?

It is somewhat axiomatic that no one actually supports doping, and whether you like or hate LA, that remains one of the few common grounds upon which to build anything between the two parties.

IMHO, or at least as humble as this forum will allow me to be, is that what we need, if we really want to ride 'sport' of doping, is an independant court - a court of sport if you will in which all cases are referred in a criminal style format to the sport - an independant investigative body, with the ability to exectue search warrants, etc..

It takes the WADA vs. UCI completely out of the equation. It puts the onus on prosecution to lay out the case, and it returns something that I think the current system lacks entirely - credibility. (Not that LA evidence isn't great, but 16 years? Really?)

There is a better way than this, and I for one am a little tired of watching every winner immediately be tarnished with rumors of doping, and then watching the acrimonious agency infighting in which fans line up behind their various agencies ala the American Civil War.

That process makes no sense.

And, as I have alluded to, the Lance haters right now are gloating, but anyone with a sense of objectivity knows that the report is going to be rebutted and when it happens - the reverse finger pointing will be no more helpful than anything else up to this point.

We are all simply waiting for this saga to go to CAS. Why?

 

[zigmeister]

I agree, the USADA should of send over the information they had at the time of the life time ban. They could have always send more information along as it became available. I think the way the USADA is going now opens them up to questions about what they had at the time of the life time ban. I hope this extra time is worth the questions is raises.

This is the big issue IMO. They open themselves up to ridicule and question. Maybe the evidence and facts are overwhelming and LA looks real bad?!?! Of course, we don't know because nobody has seen it yet!!

But now, they have the UCI taking shots at them again publicly.

Were they just going to show up with their paperwork, evidence and documents in disarray and start presenting it in some haphazard manner at the arbitration? What were they going to give LA and his attorneys as part of the discovery? Partial information in some unusable format?

Just makes people sit around and wonder/question what is going on here really. Then, gives the LA lovers another reason to question the situation.

All I know is, this sh&t needs to be real good when it comes out...or the USADA is going to look like a bunch of real morons on this one and open themselves up to endless questioning and ridicule.

The wait continues!!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The UCI is the governing body, and the question that arises almost immediately is ... who keeps the USADA and WADA honest if we eliminate that body? Amery Sport?

I have removed the yak from your post but to address this:

Can you show somewhere that USADA or WADA have been dishonest?
Because I can show lots of things about the UCI - starting with taking payments from the fraud.

And, as I have alluded to, the Lance haters right now are gloating, but anyone with a sense of objectivity knows that the report is going to be rebutted and when it happens - the reverse finger pointing will be no more helpful than anything else up to this point.

We are all simply waiting for this saga to go to CAS. Why?

Rebutted by whom?

It is noticeable in your defense of the Lance that at no point of you said that he is not guilty of doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Let's cut the LA chamois sniffers some slack here. It's been a very hard month, and this is pretty much the first thing they could grab onto. They've been desperate for something, anything, and this ice cube in an ocean has been their temporary reprieve. Let them enjoy it.

Nah. They deserve everything thrown at them.

The ship is sinking and there are no life boats, the SS liestrong was indestructible so these trolls have no choice but to continue till the bow finally sinks below the waves. Not long now and the water is freezing.

 

[piemonster]

Good grief, is there really someone still using "haters" to label anyone who believes LA doped.

Get a grip FFS

 

[Caruut]

The UCI is the governing body, and the question that arises almost immediately is ... who keeps the USADA and WADA honest if we eliminate that body? Amery Sport?

Yet who keeps the UCI honest? I trust an organisation with little self-interest in outcomes a lot more than I trust one with an enourmous amount of self-interest in outcomes.

I think, with a little analysis, there is a clear and better path.

Take for example soccer, baseball, etc. is there any doubt that in sports with even more money to fling about than cycling that doping is somehow not a problem in those sports?

Do we really think ANY of thiose sports with equal, if not greater, doping problems than cycling are going to follow this pattern of justice to rid themselves of the problem?

So because they have drug problems, the problem in cycling doesn't matter?

It is somewhat axiomatic that no one actually supports doping, and whether you like or hate LA, that remains one of the few common grounds upon which to build anything between the two parties.

Nobody supports doping? I assume you're unfamiliar with the history of the UCI's workings, because if you aren't, that's really a bare-faced lie.

IMHO, or at least as humble as this forum will allow me to be, is that what we need, if we really want to ride 'sport' of doping, is an independant court - a court of sport if you will in which all cases are referred in a criminal style format to the sport - an independant investigative body, with the ability to exectue search warrants, etc..

It takes the WADA vs. UCI completely out of the equation. It puts the onus on prosecution to lay out the case, and it returns something that I think the current system lacks entirely - credibility. (Not that LA evidence isn't great, but 16 years? Really?)

We have an independent court - CAS. We also have an independent body, WADA. The only reason those two can't function properly is that non-independent bodies with interest in suppressing positives are allowed to be involved in the process - that's clearly ridiculous. The way to take WADA vs. UCI out of the equation is to take the UCI out of the equation.

16 years is a generous number, but even so the only reason it has taken that long is because of the UCI's corruption. If they weren't involved, we can only imagine what the last 20 years of cycling might look like.

There is a better way than this, and I for one am a little tired of watching every winner immediately be tarnished with rumors of doping, and then watching the acrimonious agency infighting in which fans line up behind their various agencies ala the American Civil War.

That process makes no sense.
And, as I have alluded to, the Lance haters right now are gloating, but anyone with a sense of objectivity knows that the report is going to be rebutted and when it happens - the reverse finger pointing will be no more helpful than anything else up to this point.

We are all simply waiting for this saga to go to CAS. Why?

We are waiting because a corrupt body with a reputational and financial interest in the case has the power to try and slow down proceedings. That's the reason why this process is so convoluted. Not WADA, not USASA, the UCI and Lance.