Why is Lance Still Racing?

[MarkvW]

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.

The UCI's strength is the monopoly of available races that it asserts over its license holders. If the UCI gets too loosey-goosey with that (anticompetitive?) monopoly power there might be unintended consequences.

Lance is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Elagabalus]

Laura Lyn you've just been called a clueless troll by BroDeal. What do you have to say for yourself? R U a clueless troll? Explain ...

 

[palmerq]

guys enough of the insulting posts like this, it is not acceptable, stick to the topic or i shall infract you. goes for everyone... stop constantly accusing people of being trolls and insulting report it to the moderators and we shall deal with it

 

[Elagabalus]

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.

It seems to me that lance lives by the maxim there is a wisdom that is woe, but there is a woe that is madness. And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can either dive into the blackest gorges, and rise from them again and invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains, so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they are floating. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Oldman]

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.

The UCI and USA Cycling aren't calling any shots. Lance is performing as TW's dancing monkey and no one big loses money as long as he continues. Lance talks and both the UCI, Tailwind buddies are all deep in sh*t.

 

[MarkvW]

It seems to me that lance lives by the maxim there is a wisdom that is woe, but there is a woe that is madness. And there is a Catskill eagle in some souls that can either dive into the blackest gorges, and rise from them again and invisible in the sunny spaces. And even if he forever flies within the gorge, that gorge is in the mountains, so that even in his lowest swoop the mountain eagle is still higher than other birds upon the plain, even though they are floating. Wouldn't you agree?

Thanks for a post that honestly expresses what you think.

 

[BroDeal]

guys enough of the insulting posts like this, it is not acceptable, stick to the topic or i shall infract you. goes for everyone... stop constantly accusing people of being trolls and insulting report it to the moderators and we shall deal with it

What do expect when someone posts complete crap about what might happen at race later this year when the race was held last month. This is someone who has absolutely no clue what they are talking about or they are deliberately being clueless just to clog up the thread.

 

[TubularBills]

guys enough of the insulting posts like this, it is not acceptable, stick to the topic or i shall infract you. goes for everyone... stop constantly accusing people of being trolls and insulting report it to the moderators and we shall deal with it

How about you do your job instead of questioning our intelligence. Enough of this already.

LL is an obvious baiter.

Or are you on the payroll?

Consider it reported.

 

[MarkvW]

How about you do your job instead of questioning our intelligence. Enough of this already.

LL is an obvious baiter.

Or are you on the payroll?

Consider it reported.

"Or are you on the payroll?"

WTF are you talking about?

 

[TubularBills]

"Or are you on the payroll?"

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Jack Aubrey]

"If it was any other rider currently under suspension from the UCI, we would have reacted the same way."

Lance isn't currently under suspension from the UCI. They are waiting the 'reasoned decision.'

 

[jam pants]

LL's here to obfuscate and threadcrap. As trolling goes, it's as if someone(s) with experience and a focused agenda are on the other end of the keyboard for that account.

 

[131313]

"If it was any other rider currently under suspension from the UCI, we would have reacted the same way."

Lance isn't currently under suspension from the UCI. They are waiting the 'reasoned decision.'

Nice try, but you're wrong. He's suspended by the UCI, as USADA and the UCI are both signatories to WADA. The UCI can challenge the sanction, but so far they haven't done so.

Based on your logic, Hamilton was "never suspended" by the UCI.

Try again. Bottom line: despite the babble on this thread, USAC is selectively enforcing rules to the benefit of Armstrong. It's as simple as that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

By their multiple actions to date, the owners of the race are very committed to the myth. Going without USAC sanctioning is not a big deal. The event gets their own event insurance and they are back in business. It's not expensive relative to what USAC offers. In fact, the race will keep at minimum a few more dollars per entry.

I'm not sure why this thread is even open because Wonderboy is free to ride any non-USAC bike races that will have him. He's free to do any non-WADA regulated events anywhere.

 

[MarkvW]

Nice try, but you're wrong. He's suspended by the UCI, as USADA and the UCI are both signatories to WADA. The UCI can challenge the sanction, but so far they haven't done so.

Based on your logic, Hamilton was "never suspended" by the UCI.

Try again. Bottom line: despite the babble on this thread, USAC is selectively enforcing rules to the benefit of Armstrong. It's as simple as that.

What has USAC done that they are forbidden to do? What has USAC not done that they are obligated to do?

As I read the Code (Rule 10.9), the doped athlete becomes ineligible the on the date ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Armstrong's ineligibility was imposed on August 24 (per the USADA website). Nobody need do anything further. Armstrong IS ineligible.

Seems to me USAC is doing everything it can to avoid a fight with USADA/WADA. If they really were "selectively enforcing" their rules, then there will ultimately be the devil to pay in the form of violations of the WADA Code.

What example of selective enforcement are you presenting? AFAIK Armstrong is only trying to compete in unsanctioned events.

 

[reginagold]

If any banned rider is allowed to ride non sanctioned events with licensed riders, it makes the ban meaningless for all practical purposes. The banned rider can still benefit from the training effect and publicity of competition with the elite. To prevent that in the past, UCI and USAC have told their licensees they would be punished if they competed in non-sanctioned events that were welcoming to banned riders. The current discussion here is why aren't they giving similar public warnings to their licensees about competing in non-sanctioned events with Mr. Arm-strong.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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

If you are the holder of a UCI Professional license, many events are off-limits, especially ones not sanctioned by the UCI. Amateurs with local UCI licenses (ex. USAC) don't have any restrictions of which I'm aware.

It looks like they have a bad case of multiple personality syndrome over at USA Cycling. Wiesel is trying hard to keep the myth alive on the Wonderboy freak show museum page: http://www.usacycling.org/lance-armstrong.htm You'll notice they don't list the TdF wins.

At least a few of the other wins listed should be vacated too. One of you USAC members should notify USAC about that. Page 4 of the 2011 USAC annual report has a list of some likely candidates to do the revision: http://www.usacycling.org/forms/media/2011-USA-Cycling-Annual-Report.pdf WARNING: that's a pdf.

 

[131313]

What has USAC done that they are forbidden to do? What has USAC not done that they are obligated to do?

As I read the Code (Rule 10.9), the doped athlete becomes ineligible the on the date ineligibility is accepted or otherwise imposed. Armstrong's ineligibility was imposed on August 24 (per the USADA website). Nobody need do anything further. Armstrong IS ineligible.

Seems to me USAC is doing everything it can to avoid a fight with USADA/WADA. If they really were "selectively enforcing" their rules, then there will ultimately be the devil to pay in the form of violations of the WADA Code.

What example of selective enforcement are you presenting? AFAIK Armstrong is only trying to compete in unsanctioned events.

I understand it's hard to follow with all of the random babble in this thread, so I'll re-post what I wrote earlier:

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."

So, it's pretty clear: USAC and the UCI are not interested in enforcing the rules against their current license holders now that the rider's name is "Lance" and not "Tyler".

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Oh man, the only thing those clowns are consistent about is being inconsistent.

Yet another disgraceful decision from the UCI management committee.

Edit: or is it USAC making the decision?

 

[BigBoat]

USAC is not interested in sanctioning Lance, this was obvious a few months ago. Lance is not interested in sanctioned races anyways because he'd be beaten by talented youthful dopers and or young pros who's skills are sharper and quicker.

But really, as far as dopers go Contador is climbing past Lance steadily in his grand tour career. I also dont think any ex teammates will be 'coming out' about the doping that went on with Contador either.

 

[MarkvW]

I understand it's hard to follow with all of the random babble in this thread, so I'll re-post what I wrote earlier:

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."

So, it's pretty clear: USAC and the UCI are not interested in enforcing the rules against their current license holders now that the rider's name is "Lance" and not "Tyler".

Lance is retired and lifetime banned. Why should we care?

If the UCI is now going to let its licensed riders race with whomever they want, in whatever races they want, . . . Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that weaken the UCI and open the door for rival leagues? If the UCI wants to be that stupid, why stop them?

And wouldn't there be antitrust problems with such anticompetitive behavior?

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Lance is retired and lifetime banned. Why should we care?

If the UCI is now going to let its licensed riders race with whomever they want, in whatever races they want, . . . Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that weaken the UCI and open the door for rival leagues? If the UCI wants to be that stupid, why stop them?

And wouldn't there be antitrust problems with such anticompetitive behavior?

The reason we care is, as 131313 said, selective enforcement of rules to favor Armstrong.

UCI have taken trouble to establish a monopoly. They claim the right to prevent riders taking part in non-sanctioned events right up there in their constitution. They have enforced that rule in the past too.

The antitrust stuff is a separate issue. Anti competitive measures in any not-for-profits shows the organisation has lost sight of its core objectives. But I digress.

I'm confused as to why USAC is deciding who licence holders can and can't ride with, instead of the UCI deciding. Does USAC have a rule preventing riders from non-sanctioned events too? Or are they enforcing (or not) on the UCIs behalf?

What am I missing here?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Does USAC have a rule preventing riders from non-sanctioned events too? Or are they enforcing (or not) on the UCIs behalf?

USAC is the UCI's American proxy. If the federation weren't run by one of the guys behind the Armstrong myth, then I bet he would have been treated like a more or less ordinary rider. Meaning, USAC would enforce the USADA ruling. We know this case to be very different.

Meanwhile Pat and Hein figure out a way to keep whatever dirty secrets they share with Wonderboy and Weisel hidden before USADA report more scandals. Since the guy that owns USAC is up to his ears in Wonderboy's sporting fraud, Weisel has some extra incentive to keep the myth alive.

We saw in the Bauge whereabouts case where the French federation went easy on Bauge and the UCI stepped in and made sure the rules were more or less followed to WADA and the head office's satisfaction. But, this is different.

Bottom line:Expect more confusion and stall tactics from both the UCI and USAC.

 

[131313]

Lance is retired and lifetime banned. Why should we care?

well, he's not retired, and a ban doesn't mean much if he continues to race; isn't that the whole point of banning someone?

If he wants to compete against his buddies on a group ride, that's fine, but the rules are clear about license holders racing with banned athletes, and the precedent has already been set. The bigger issue to me is "why the selective enforcement"?

If the UCI is now going to let its licensed riders race with whomever they want, in whatever races they want, . . . Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that weaken the UCI and open the door for rival leagues? If the UCI wants to be that stupid, why stop them?

I'd rather see true reform at the UCI, both within the leadership and the way officials are elected and power apportioned. I'm not all that thrilled with the "professional league" model, personally.

And wouldn't there be antitrust problems with such anticompetitive behavior?

Why is it that these questions only come up when Armstrong is involved? Rules that enforced are for the last decade suddenly need intervention from the court system? It sounds just like the ridiculous jurisdiction issue WRT the USADA. To answer your question, I have no idea, but historically license holders have been bound to the terms of the license agreement. People are free to race with Armstrong if they choose to do so, and their licensing body is free to suspend them for it. USAC has done it in the past, so they should be enforcing their rules now. Simple.

 

[MarkvW]

well, he's not retired, and a ban doesn't mean much if he continues to race; isn't that the whole point of banning someone?

If he wants to compete against his buddies on a group ride, that's fine, but the rules are clear about license holders racing with banned athletes, and the precedent has already been set. The bigger issue to me is "why the selective enforcement"?




I'd rather see true reform at the UCI, both within the leadership and the way officials are elected and power apportioned. I'm not all that thrilled with the "professional league" model, personally.



Why is it that these questions only come up when Armstrong is involved? Rules that enforced are for the last decade suddenly need intervention from the court system? It sounds just like the ridiculous jurisdiction issue WRT the USADA. To answer your question, I have no idea, but historically license holders have been bound to the terms of the license agreement. People are free to race with Armstrong if they choose to do so, and their licensing body is free to suspend them for it. USAC has done it in the past, so they should be enforcing their rules now. Simple.

Good luck with "true reform" at the UCI. Festina was "fool me once, shame on you." USPS is "fool me twice shame on me." Anybody up for believing in meamingful change at the UCI? I want the UCI to weaken and face competition and/or (meaningful) unionization.

I couldn't care less who Lance races with--in compliance with the WADA Code. If some pros want to dork around with a permabanned 40 yearold disgrace, it just illustrates how filthy the sport is.

People should be free to race in any race that will have them. Anticompetitive restraints are just a tool for the fatpats of the world to use to maintain control.