Why is Lance Still Racing?

[babastooey]

I have had to wear glasses since I was 7 but they help me see fine.

The people who shut up and don't ask questions are generally the ones who get overrun by totalitarian dictatorship.

And it is humbling -- to ask a question is an admission -- I don't know as much as you do on this issue and I want to know more.

Is it wrong to want to know more?

Or does it imply that people who ask questions have an open mind -- meaning, they haven't made their mind up, and need information in order to do so? And that open minded people are somehow bad?

Anyway, the right attitude is to accept people who ask questions as opportunities, to educate one more person as to what is happening and to help them arrive at the proper conclusion. It helps to be positive. Not positive as in testing positive for a doping test, but rather, upbeat and optimistic.

 

[9000ft]

To give the clinic regulars reason to live?

 

[webbie146]

It is unforgettable. It shows his truly sociopathic persona. To pick on a innocent person to try and start a fight after assualting him proves what kind of white trash Armsrong is. The worst kind.

Why anyone would want this kind of loose cannon at their event is beyond comprehension? But humans are beyond comprehension most of the time.

LMAO hahaha... Yea it's 'unforgettable' wow amazing..
Some of you haters are amazing lol..

Shows his 'truly sociopathic persona' hmm nice line. Yea indeed it does, I have never done anything THAT BAD.

haters gonna hate I quess..

 

[D-Queued]

LMAO hahaha... Yea it's 'unforgettable' wow amazing..
Some of you haters are amazing lol..

Shows his 'truly sociopathic persona' hmm nice line. Yea indeed it does, I have never done anything THAT BAD.

haters gonna hate I quess..

And you have probably never worn the yellow jersey either.

Can you consider the context? Dispassionately?

After all, surely Lance would respect fans as well as first amendment rights, and wouldn't assault anyone - correct?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK3LqhnUnj8

Having done all those drugs over such an extended period, Lance must think he is a rock star or something.

When Musicians Attack! Ten Brutal Fan/Star Encounters

Dave.

 

[LauraLyn]

Here is the part I am also a little confused about.

Lance and Levi previously raced the Leadville 100 back when Lance was a USAC license holder. If Leadville is non-USAC, does that mean that they should have been fined? Perhaps back then nobody cared?

I focus on your word "potential" fines. In other words, fining is a possibility but not an actuality. Therefore, USAC/USADA can use discretion when fining racers. In other words, in the case of this year's events (post-Lance-ban), will they fine USAC license holders for racing with Lance or won't they? Or, perhaps, should they or shouldn't they? This is the sort of discussion I am trying to get going.

. . . .

So the reasoning becomes, to eliminate doping and to hold that the ban on Lance should be a real ban, and not just a ban in name only, riders who race with Lance should be sanctioned. The rule you quoted me allows them to do this.

On the other hand, if Leadville is USAC, then why is Lance allowed to race? Therefore, if they allow Lance, they should be stripped of their ties to USAC and the USAC license holders who are entered in the competition should be informed beforehand that participation would result in bans and/or fines.

I think now is the time for USAC/USADA to get that information out, . . . .

I agree, lots of confusion. And it all caused by USA Cycling and the race organizers, both those of Leadville and the Alpine Odyssey. Leadville is USAC sanctioned and has been so for years. Alpine Odyssey is one of the Leadville races. This year the organizer of Alpine Odyssey, Dave Ochs, "unsanctioned" the race so that Lance could race. So the Alpine Odyssey is now no longer a USA Cycling event, but still a qualifying event for the Leadville 100. At the end of the day, it does not make sense and it seems still that both Leadville and USA Cycling are allowing Dave Och's to play with the rules to get Armstrong back in the racing picture.

USADA would have nothing to do with "fining racers" in this event or any other event because of the question raised here. This is USA Cycling's "discretion" as you correctly suggest, and you can be sure that "discretion" is the word of choice here. They do not say they will fine UCI license holders, only that they can.

The reasoning is, Not just racing with Lance, but racing with any banned rider. (I'm not sure I agree with this suggested reasoning from USA Cycling.)

It is not the job of USADA to clear up the mess Dave Ochs is making with his circus; USA Cycling (and Leadville) should be acting. They are not. They are passively allowing this mockery.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . .After all, surely Lance would respect fans as well as first amendment rights, and wouldn't assault anyone - correct? . . . . Having done all those drugs over such an extended period, Lance must think he is a rock star or something.

When Musicians Attack! Ten Brutal Fan/Star Encounters

Dave.

Classic Lance. The bully. Needle Man should have held on to Lance's Jersey when Lance reached out at him.

 

[LauraLyn]

. . . . Is it wrong to want to know more?

Or does it imply that people who ask questions have an open mind -- meaning, they haven't made their mind up, and need information in order to do so? And that open minded people are somehow bad?

Anyway, the right attitude is to accept people who ask questions as opportunities, to educate one more person as to what is happening and to help them arrive at the proper conclusion. It helps to be positive. Not positive as in testing positive for a doping test, but rather, upbeat and optimistic.

Keep asking. Keep saying what you think. Don't be put off by insults or bullying. That is the way Lance Armstrong dealt with people who didn't agree with him or his "peleton think."

Stay the course.

 

[LauraLyn]

Velonation today: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...g-Alpine-Odyssey-100k-race.aspx#ixzz26YldTHs2

'“USA Cycling does not permit, sanction, license, or participate in the Alpine Odyssey in any manner, and therefore does not govern whether a banned rider can ride. If the Alpine Odyssey were a USA Cycling event, Lance Armstrong could not ride,” a spokesman told VeloNation in response to questions on the matter.

The statement underline USAC’s recognition of the ban handed down last month by the US Anti Doping Agency USADA, . . . '

I do not agree with Velonation's editorial conclusion of the USA Cycling statement. Stating: "If the Alpine Odyssey were a USA Cycling event, Lance Armstrong could not ride." is still a long ways from stating: "USA Cycling accepts fully the decision and sanctions of USADA with regard to Lance Armstrong and the two others in the same case, and USA Cycling will fully implement the sanctions."

It is the latter statement that USA Cycling needs to make, if it wants to begin to rebuild its credibility. They also need to explicitly ask all riders not to compete in events where banned riders participate, whether or not the USA Cyling has something to say about it and whether or not there are threats of sanctions to USA Cycling license holders who do compete in those events.

 

[frenchfry]

Here is the part I am also a little confused about.

Lance and Levi previously raced the Leadville 100 back when Lance was a USAC license holder. If Leadville is non-USAC, does that mean that they should have been fined? Perhaps back then nobody cared?

I focus on your word "potential" fines. In other words, fining is a possibility but not an actuality. Therefore, USAC/USADA can use discretion when fining racers. In other words, in the case of this year's events (post-Lance-ban), will they fine USAC license holders for racing with Lance or won't they? Or, perhaps, should they or shouldn't they? This is the sort of discussion I am trying to get going.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, athletes, especially in the sports of cricket, rugby, and cycling were suspended and/or fined if they competed with or against South African athletes. This was because the whole world was against the apartheid regime. It was somewhat effective at bringing about change, although it was perhaps only the 10th most important thing.

So the reasoning becomes, to eliminate doping and to hold that the ban on Lance should be a real ban, and not just a ban in name only, riders who race with Lance should be sanctioned. The rule you quoted me allows them to do this.

On the other hand, if Leadville is USAC, then why is Lance allowed to race? Therefore, if they allow Lance, they should be stripped of their ties to USAC and the USAC license holders who are entered in the competition should be informed beforehand that participation would result in bans and/or fines.

I think now is the time for USAC/USADA to get that information out, especially since Lance is more or less defying their ban against his ability to enter competitions. Otherwise, the wind is knocked out of their sails and they could be seen as a paper organization.

I agree with you, life would be so much simpler (and better) if dopers like Lance and Levi would just crawl into holes and leave us alone.

 

[AlpineClimbr]

I focus on your word "potential" fines. In other words, fining is a possibility but not an actuality. Therefore, USAC/USADA can use discretion when fining racers. In other words, in the case of this year's events (post-Lance-ban), will they fine USAC license holders for racing with Lance or won't they? Or, perhaps, should they or shouldn't they? This is the sort of discussion I am trying to get going.

You're confused because you are lumping USA Cycling (USAC) and the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) together.

The USAC is an administrative organization of cycling event in the US and they fall under the international organization, the UCI. Race organizers decide if they want their races affiliated with the USAC or not.

The USADA is the US arm of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and is responsible for anti-doping for all other Olympic sports and numerous others. Because the UCI is the organization that administers Olympic cycling, they have to follow the WADA code. In the US, the USADA is responsible for anti-doping of cycling events sanctioned with the USAC and with cyclists licensed with the USAC.

The USADA doesn't care if USAC licensed pros race in unsanctioned races in the US, but the USAC does. The USADA could, however, take a whiz quiz from a USAC licensed pro at an unsanctioned race, but it would officially be an 'out-of-competition' drug test.

The USADA, USAC, and WADA have nice websites with tons of useful information.

 

[LauraLyn]

Lance took fifth today in the Alpine Odyssey:

http://my3.raceresult.com/details/r...aderboard - Men&CertificateLink=1&format=view

He tweeted:

"Fun day racing @LTRaceserie Alpine Odyssey today. I was one of the many who suffered out there I'm sure!"

 

[Irish2009]

First 3 are "male pro", so if these are pro under USAC they could be sanctioned?

 

[LauraLyn]

First 3 are "male pro", so if these are pro under USAC they could be sanctioned?

I don't see USA Cycling (or UCI) sanctioning anyone for riding with Lance. And I do not see even that that is so important. It would be much better if riders/athletes themselves boycotted all events where Lance or LiveStrong or . . . any one of his many businesses are involved.

USA Cycling is just blowing hot air.

 

[reginagold]

As I recall, the cycling authorities were pretty clear that anyone who competed, even in non-sanctioned events, w banned dopers Landis or Hamilton, would be punished. Different for LA somehow I guess.

 

[LauraLyn]

As I recall, the cycling authorities were pretty clear that anyone who competed, even in non-sanctioned events, w banned dopers Landis or Hamilton, would be punished. Different for LA somehow I guess.

Different rules for different folk.

But should we be surprised. It seems to be everywhere the case in life. Even here in The Clinic. Better not to get upset about it and just keep our eye on the ball.

But it is good you point it out. Sometimes it takes courage to point out injustices, especially when those responsible are part of the injustice.

 

[babastooey]

You're confused because you are lumping USA Cycling (USAC) and the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) together.

I know what you are saying, however....

These two must act together in order for anything they do to mean anything.

If USADA hands out bans and penalties, then it is up to USAC to enforce those penalties, or USADA may as well not even exist.

I contend that if USADA's goal is to eliminate doping through testing and judge/jury/prosecuting, then they should also put pressure on USAC to enforce their bans.

When USAC allows its license holders to race with Lance, the organization is, in effect, defying the ban handed out by USADA. When I say that USADA needs to sanction these riders, what I am really saying is that USADA needs to pressure USAC to sanction these riders.

Obviously, USADA can act against offending riders not only when someone tests positive. Lance didn't immediately test positive to bring the USADA action against him, his was a case built up with evidence spanning back many years, albeit evidence a great deal of us have not seen presented as of yet, but hopefully that fact will change over the coming months.

Therefore, I see no reason why USADA couldn't go after these riders if USAC refuses to. To do nothing would make both of them paper organizations.

 

[Turner29]

As I recall, the cycling authorities were pretty clear that anyone who competed, even in non-sanctioned events, w banned dopers Landis or Hamilton, would be punished. Different for LA somehow I guess.

I do not remember any such statements. While I am strong on sanctioning dopers, I cannot see how anyone can be banned from a non-sanctioned event.

 

[131313]

I do not remember any such statements. While I am strong on sanctioning dopers, I cannot see how anyone can be banned from a non-sanctioned event.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2375657

"Gerard talked to Tyler and basically explained the situation and came to a resolution that Tyler would not compete," USA Cycling spokesman Andy Lee said. "If it was any other rider currently under suspension from the UCI, we would have reacted the same way."

Unless, of course, that cyclist is named "Lance Armstrong". There's already precedent for this, but it's obvious that USAC and the UCI have no interest in enforcing their own rules.

 

[Oldman]

Different rules for different folk.

But should we be surprised. It seems to be everywhere the case in life. Even here in The Clinic. Better not to get upset about it and just keep our eye on the ball.

But it is good you point it out. Sometimes it takes courage to point out injustices, especially when those responsible are part of the injustice.

Both the UCI and USA Cycling reached out aggresively to our region when a local rider, serving his ban was participating in a local training series. The local promoter and all participants were to avoid the circumstances...no gray area. Everything got resolved here but apparently USA Cycling's memory isn't sorted out.

 

[TubularBills]

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=2375657

"Gerard talked to Tyler and basically explained the situation and came to a resolution that Tyler would not compete," USA Cycling spokesman Andy Lee said. "If it was any other rider currently under suspension from the UCI, we would have reacted the same way."

Unless, of course, that cyclist is named "Lance Armstrong". There's already precedent for this, but it's obvious that USAC and the UCI have no interest in enforcing their own rules.

Sent an email to USA Cycling questioning the double standard.

Encourage others to do the same.

Send it to everyone in the organization HERE:

http://www.usacycling.org/usa-cycling-staff-contacts-directory.htm

 

[BroDeal]

It seems to me that this is worse than the other situations mentioned. It is not just a banned athlete showing up at an unsanctioned race. As I understand it, the promoter changed the sanctioning so a banned rider could participate.

The whole Leadville series should be made off limits to license holders.

 

[reginagold]

Bet you a fresh BB that McQuaid and Co. told USAC to lay off LA unless/until UCI "accepts" USADA actions. USAC's letter in support of UCI claims that was sent to the judge in Texas and all that. Others here know details, I'd guess. So USAC remains controlled, practically speaking, by UCI in the matter of enforcing ban on LA. Link in earlier post about Hamilton showed desire to enforce ban originated w UCI, right?

 

[LauraLyn]

It seems to me that this is worse than the other situations mentioned. It is not just a banned athlete showing up at an unsanctioned race. As I understand it, the promoter changed the sanctioning so a banned rider could participate.

The whole Leadville series should be made off limits to license holders.

It seems to me that there are business interests between the organizers or the Leadville series and Lance Armstrong. I think the race yesterday was just a preliminary to this year's Leadville 100. I would not be surprised if Leadville unsanctions that race this year so Lance can participate.

This is still part of a power struggle between Lance Armstrong, his business interests, and USADA.

 

[LauraLyn]

Bet you a fresh BB that McQuaid and Co. told USAC to lay off LA unless/until UCI "accepts" USADA actions. USAC's letter in support of UCI claims that was sent to the judge in Texas and all that. Others here know details, I'd guess. So USAC remains controlled, practically speaking, by UCI in the matter of enforcing ban on LA. Link in earlier post about Hamilton showed desire to enforce ban originated w UCI, right?

It doesn't seem clear who is calling the shots between UCI and USA Cycling regarding Lance. I have had the impression that they are not completely in agreement. Both support Lance, but they have different strategies. The USA Cycling one is the more interesting (and more difficult) one to follow.

 

[BroDeal]

It seems to me that there are business interests between the organizers or the Leadville series and Lance Armstrong. I think the race yesterday was just a preliminary to this year's Leadville 100. I would not be surprised if Leadville unsanctions that race this year so Lance can participate.

This is still part of a power struggle between Lance Armstrong, his business interests, and USADA.

Jeebus. How long do we have to put up with this clueless troll. At least Polish and even BPC knew the sport.