Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[London424]

Looks like the USADA are feeling the pressure to release the information. It will come out in stages from the looks depending on other cases etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

[London424]

Tyler Hamilton's book is out in the next couple of days and, as you would expect, pulls no punches regarding LA.

I've attached a link, if anyone's interested, to a magazine review.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/med...

[London424]

So who's going to buy Hamilton's book? I'd like to get the insight into all the background but feel a bit dirty myself knowing he is profiting from all of it.

[London424]

Looks like the UCI are getting a bit impatient.

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=840975...

[London424]

el stovey said:

telecat said:

el stovey said:

Silver993tt said:

Disastrous said:

Assuming he's guilty, which it sadly sounds like, he's played this an absolute blinder. This will, IMO, allow enough doubt to surround the issue that it will be impossible to be sure.

Politics next for him??

He's totally innocent until there is concrete evidence proving otherwise, which there clearly isn't. The USDA's actions confirm this as they can't provide anything that will prove any illegal activities to a court of law. I'm sure that LA will follow all of this with a string of law suits to many that have been accusing him without any factual evidence that will stand up in a court of law and I'm sure that will include many members of the public who have been slandering his name by using media channels such as this.

He's been found guilty by USADA. He gave up the chance to have the evidence heard in front of an independent panel.

That's it he's guilty.

Who on earth is LA going to sue? He's the guilty one.

All they have done so far is state he's guilty of doping. I'm pretty certain Anybody could do that. Producing the evidence to back it up is another thing and they haven't or cannot do that.

Yep they are the USADA and that's all they need to do. They've gathered evidence and followed the correct US procedure to find him guilty of doping. He turned down the chance to defend himself. Therefore he's still guilty.

I'm not sure what other process people thing he should be facing. It isn't a criminal case.

And if the file they hand to the UCI is seen as being worthless the UCI will reinstate him. Time will tell what they've actually got on him.

[London424]

el stovey said:

London424 said:

And if the file they hand to the UCI is seen as being worthless the UCI will reinstate him. Time will tell what they've actually got on him.

The UCI are a bunch of corrupt jokers. They accepted money from Armstrong when they were supposed to be policing him. Why was Armstrong donating money to the UCI?

They may well be, but at the end of the day they need to submit the file to the UCI. They are the World governing body and I believe they will be the ones that have to sign off on the case.

[London424]

ewenm said:

DJRC said:

Balco involved some very public trials though didn't it?

I don't know how many of the convicted failed tests rather than were accused by others

Look up Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens for how much of a joke they were in trying to prosecute them.

[London424]

aspender said:

Report will be with the UCI by October 15th:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-still-finali...

Bear in mind that the information it contains is pertinent to ongoing cases involving Bruyneel and Celaya who have both opted to go to arbitration so don't expect it to get into the public domain any time soon.

This is what I can't really understand. They have been working on this for years now and charged him in June.

The UCI have said fine, send over the file so we can review it. It's now been the best part of 3 months and they've now pushed the deadline back by 2 weeks.

What's taking so long?

I understand ongoing investigations against others, but as said above, the public don't need to know all details, but surely this should have all been ready to go months ago.

[London424]

But in this instance haven't they charged, convicted and sentenced him all at the same time? There is no gap in proceedings.

Will be interesting when it all comes out either way.

[London424]

aspender said:

London424 said:

But in this instance haven't they charged, convicted and sentenced him all at the same time? There is no gap in proceedings.

Will be interesting when it all comes out either way.

Remember this is not a legal proceeding. As I said, the analogy doesn't match exactly.

They charged, and in the charges gave indication of the standard tariff of punishment for the charges that would be applied.

Armstrong made the decision not to contest the charges. This was his decision alone. If he decided to go to arbitration like Bruyneel then he would still be waiting for that to happen (as Bruyneel is) What do you expect USADA to do here other than say "well fair enough, then the punishment will apply."

As signatories to the WADA code under which all this has happened, the UCI and ASO are bound to comply with the decision. USADA is bound to provide them with the decision. UCI have the right to appeal it at CAS if they wish.

It isn't complicated to understand, and it isn't hard to see why formal presentation of the evidence/testimony cannot be produced at the drop of a hat. Rushing these things is how mistakes happen. Finding those mistakes is why lawyers make their money!

I'm not struggling to understand it, just seems a little bit strange. Especially when you've had months and promised to deliver it by end Sept, to then move it to mid Oct.

[London424]

Chris Stott said:

Robsti said:

So why the dodgy doctors?

It's a fair question, and one where the official reply of 'expertise in handling saddle sores' seems a bit... well... smelly!

But I still don't think SKY would allow itself to be exposed to the bad publicity that would come from a positive doping result for one of their riders.

Another thing that occurs to me is the role of David Brailsford in both SKY and UK cycling... if people really think SKY are doping, surely by association, this also calls in to question the integrity of the British national cycling team that have been so successful at the last 2 Olympics? The fall out from a positive test from any of the big names in this organisation would be horrendous for the individual, the team and the country.

Better hope that they don't ps off any people who become ex-teammates

[London424]

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/848...

According to this the details come out later today.

[London424]

aspender said:

202 pages:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decis...

I'm on p25 and it's brutal reading. I'm amazed it's taken this long for something that was so extensive to be kept pretty quiet.

[London424]

Disastrous said:

This has to be game over on the 'is he innocent?' debate, surely?

I would say so! I'm only on p56 and for the most part the reconstruction of events has been taken from eye witness statements...so they might still claim that there is no smoking gun (it might be later in the report).

[London424]

What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!

[London424]

el stovey said:

London424 said:

What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!

You can see why though, LA had massive influence in cycling. Anyone who spoke up against him ended up getting sued, journalists were vilified, Lance was like Jesus, especially after he survived cancer. Armstrong was untouchable. Anyone thinking about breaking the Omerta looked at black sheep Floyd Landis and decided to keep quiet.

I can certainly see that. But, Landis and Hamilton etc came clean a while back, with Lance retired, these other riders could have supported them. In my view they didn't as they still wanted to earn money from cycling rather than "come clean". They've only done that recently now they are retiring.

[London424]

funkyrobot said:

Efbe said:

are you not worried by the complete dominance of the British cycling team?

What this LA thing has done is set to question every cyclist out there.

What about other sports?

If I recall correctly, cycling has always been the most tested sport.

What would happen if other sports were tested to these extremes?

I'm pretty sure we can put to bed that cycling has effective testing.

[London424]

DJRC said:

hornetrider said:

Silver993tt said:

Still waiting for USDA to provide any "evidence" they have to the UCI but the chances of that are diminshing as each day passes and meanwhile without any, LA is still totally innocent.

Gone a bit quiet, chap. What do you think of the evidence now?

That in reality its overwhelmingly circumstantial. Its also got the production and editing values of a pre GCSE student piece of course work and the quality of something not even my Italian suppliers would fail to manage.

For the much anticipated "big bang" of evidence, its...limp. On the surface it is highly damning and given some of the folks involved I would be happy to believe them. Put it before a cpl of experienced litigation brawlers on trial in a courtroom though and I sure as hell wouldnt bet on its chances of remaining intact.

For the record I think Lance is highly likely of being as guilty as Tom Williams with a joke shop blood capsule, but that doesnt change how the USDA have gone about this or the evidence they have provided. Put it in a court of law and its flimsy. Armstrong could potentially be humiliated quite badly by a string of witnesses against him, but he would maul the USDA in return and his lawyers would maul every witness and rip the dossier to shreds. Anybody who thinks it wouldnt be a mutual bloodbath on either side is guilty of massively delusional and naive thinking.

I agree with this. It would end up very messy in the law courts. Probably why the Federal prosecutors decided not to go ahead with the case at the beginning of the year.

[London424]

Digger said:

London424 said:

What I also find frustrating is that all of the testimony being used is by riders that didn't have the balls at the time to do or say anything about it, but are happy to have helped in recent weeks now they are approaching retirement. Very cowardly!

Perhaps cowardly, but possibly understandable, when you look at say, Christophe Bassons and the way he was villified by L.A. & presumably others in the peloton? If it was indeed only L.A. who behaved like that to a fellow professional my views on him will be even nearer to verging on disgust! Bassons story could make for an interesting read.

I can understand to a degree. What frustrates me the most is that there are riders such as Hincapie who have retired this season and have only recently spoken out. He could have come forward any number of times when others have stepped up, but hasn't as he wanted to continue making money from cycling.

If I was a bit more cynical I would suggest that George will be writing a tell-all book in due course as he'll have no income from cycling.

[London424]

Vocal Minority said:

Just throwing in my tuppence on Sky from earlier- will read the depressing Armstrong stuff over lunch.

In all seriousness, I think a lot of people have a dig at Sky, as a). some segments of the British sporting public really hate a winner (an extreme extension of underdog syndrome - (see people STILL refusing to believe Murray is even competent even though he won a slam) and b). people like a conspiracy theory (especially in the face of massed opinion) as it makes them feel more intelligent than others. (I am talking about the ones who focus specifically on sky rather than generally - as at least they seem to be paying more attention).

My theory on Sky is that they are probably clean. My logic is that the team has been incredibly openly and consistently damning of doping - usually proferring this opinion without prompting. Many other teams are quiet on the issue and when they get caught serve the ban and come back.

But if Wiggins or Brailsford ever got shown to be dopers not only would it be the end of the road professionally, because of their open stance on the issue their personal reputations will be in complete tatters. It would be game over for basically everything they have worked hard for. Gone.

That is why my money is on them being clean. The stakes are too high for them on this issue.If they were dopers they would be much better served keeping their heads down on the issue.

Anyway. Back to the present...

I do think Sky are clean, but, you could argue that Mr Armstrong took that exact same stance. Consistent denial of doping, its hard work, most tested person ever etc etc.

It also doesn't help that Sky say they have a zero tolerance policy to doping yet have a Doctor on the team that is associated with doping and Michael Barry has now admitted to a doping past.

They've also been the dominant team this last year or so and have also seen some pretty dramatic improvements from riders. So you can see why some people might ask the question.