Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[London424]

Efbe said:

pablo said:

Efbe said:

Agreed.

Maybe I am being naive in thinking that almost every competitive sport is not fraught with doping. Why wouldn't it be, football, tennis, F1 all have so much money invested it would almost seem ridiculous that drugs were not used, especially as the bar always seems to be raising for these sports.
In reality reaction times, speed and strength don't change, yet records are tumbling. The speed of serves is increasing, the speed of 100meters always being broken, reaction times of drivers decreasing, and footballers are able to run at full sprint for much longer, and endure much more without their accuracy being affected.

Thinking about it, it's pretty obvious.

its not naive, just cynical. of course speed and strength change, I think you are under massively estimainting the improvements in training and nutrition made in the last decade alone.

you dont have to go too far back before you get to a point where footballers were eating a giant portion of steak and potatoes the night before a game.

incidentally, football has a pretty good drug testing regime, partly due to the lifestyle of the footballer and the places they can sometimes be found of an evening....

it's hard to provide examples with football, as what makes a great footballer be quantified easily.

If we look at the increased performance in cycling:



and compare the increase in performance since the 60s until a decade or so when drugs are supposed to have left cycling, against 100meters times:



then against serve speed in tennis:


what we see is that after doping left cycling the performance has dropped, and has stopped increasing like it was.
The progression of the other sports look very like the progression of cycling whilst drugs were still common place.

I am no expert on this, and there will be much better data sources out there. yes nutrition will have improved, even if Bolt claims to live off KFC, training may have improved a bit, though I am a bit more dubious when it comes to running training. but the improvements seem too much for just this.

I don't think tennis is the best example there as I think that's almost all technology driven, same for golf. You can't compare long drive stats as the clubs and balls are so technologically advanced compared to even 5 years ago as to make comparison meaningless.

[London424]

el stovey said:

HundredthIdiot said:

Indeed. Sky shunned Millar yet welcomed Barry and Leinders. Why?

And now we have Sky rider Alex Dowsett defending Lance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Wiggo has also given Lance far too much respect in my view.

Barry told Brailsford he hadn't doped, obviously it was a lie.

Unfortunately the USADA report also mentions Sean Yates SKY DS who not only tested positive for doping himself in 1989 but also worked with Armstrong in Discovery and also worked with Astana. I thought Leinders was no longer with SKY.

Just found this. You're right...his contract is not being extended.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renew...

[London424]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19917856

So we have 5 former teammates testifying against Lance and they are either retiring or have got 6 month bans.

So basically they miss no significant races and will be back at the end of Feb having been able to complete their winter training routines.

Really sending a strong message about cheating there! Almost as bad as the Contador "ban".

[London424]

When DJRC says it would be a blood bath if it went to court is you'll have lots of these witnesses being introduced. (DJRC, please correct me if I've misunderstood your point)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/van-den-broeck-and...

Former teammates that saw nothing, were encouraged by the team, respected his work ethic etc etc.

So then you have the word of ex-temamates who have doped and lied for the last 15 years against others who didn't.

To be clear, I think he's as guilty as it comes, just that it would be awfully messy. Hornetrider posted that the criminal stuff might get reopened so we might just see it anyway!

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

IroningMan said:

Derek Smith said:

It is probablyh the drug taking that nearly killed him via cancer.

How did you find the time to fit all that medical training into your extraordinarily busy working life?

That is a rather silly thing to say. I read things. I look up things. The evidence is there. It isn't hidden. The connection between testicular cancer and drugs is hardly in dispute. Look it up yourself and you will find that it doesn't take an awful length of time, or effort come to that, to find out such things. It takes a little longer than making silly statements though.

Come on Derek, I hardly think that quip is even close to being accurate. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of pro riders that have taken the same as him and I can't recall seeing even the tiniest percentage being diagnosed with cancer in general, let alone testicular cancer specifically.

[London424]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Articles like this make me wonder about why the federal case was dropped under such suspect circumstances.

My guess would be that they don't think they could secure a conviction against him. He is still very popular, even after this report.

With a jury of 12 people with a lot of he said she said testimony they obviously didn't think there was enough to convince 12 Americans he was/is guilty.

That's not to say more won't come out of the woodwork not it's truly out in the open. You only have to see cases like Jimmy S and Catholic Priests etc that once the spotlight is on it, a lot more people are willing to provide information.

[London424]

JuniorD said:

Even if you think the case against him is weak, the case in defence is even weaker. There's only so much that can be batted away. I suspect that the holes in the dyke will only multiply when more people bring forth evidence. There must be a tonne more people with something to tell. It could take years, but it will come.

You've still got to convince a jury though. Cancer survivor, Livestrong work...there is a lot of emotional attachment to him for many Americans.

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

[London424]

el stovey said:

London424 said:

JuniorD said:

Even if you think the case against him is weak, the case in defence is even weaker. There's only so much that can be batted away. I suspect that the holes in the dyke will only multiply when more people bring forth evidence. There must be a tonne more people with something to tell. It could take years, but it will come.

You've still got to convince a jury though. Cancer survivor, Livestrong work...there is a lot of emotional attachment to him for many Americans.

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

Convict him in the law courts of what? Who's taking anyone to court?

Earlier today rocksteadyeddie linked to an article wondering why the Federal case was dropped. This is a continuation of my views on the matter.

[London424]

el stovey said:

London424 said:

Earlier today rocksteadyeddie linked to an article wondering why the Federal case was dropped. This is a continuation of my views on the matter.

That was a completely different case covering defrauding sponsors, it had a completely different remit and limitations.

Are you sure? The Federal case dropped earlier this year was on the same/similar topic. i.e. doping

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/753...

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

It is just my opinion with no experience of the legal system. The only reason that I can think of the Federal case not progressing would be because they didn't think they could secure a conviction.

Assuming that the testimony would be allowed (I've got no idea if it would or wouldn't).

The 11 riders could testify, and the cross-examination would be along the lines of "so you admit to lying and cheating over 15 years, yet we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth now". "Isn't it true that in testifying against LA that you cut a deal to continue your career/sell books etc".

The defence team would then have 11 other riders that could testify that they weren't pressured, didn't see anything, have never been linked to doping and act as strong character references.

As I've said before, I think he's guilty. I just don't think it would be as cut and dried in the court of law as the report makes it look.

[London424]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

If you haven't already done so watch his sworn testimony from the SCA case. As a total amateur internet jockey who knows nothing about these things he looked very uneasy under pressure, and struggled to control his emotions. I suspect a decent prosecution lawyer would have him in knots, particularly if LA had already had to sit and hear teammates after teammate, and friend and friend look him in the eye and tell him he doped.

That would assume that he would testify. He might not in a defense case.

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

It is just my opinion with no experience of the legal system. The only reason that I can think of the Federal case not progressing would be because they didn't think they could secure a conviction.

Assuming that the testimony would be allowed (I've got no idea if it would or wouldn't).

The 11 riders could testify, and the cross-examination would be along the lines of "so you admit to lying and cheating over 15 years, yet we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth now". "Isn't it true that in testifying against LA that you cut a deal to continue your career/sell books etc".

The defence team would then have 11 other riders that could testify that they weren't pressured, didn't see anything, have never been linked to doping and act as strong character references.

As I've said before, I think he's guilty. I just don't think it would be as cut and dried in the court of law as the report makes it look.

I'm not sure it is the function of the ASA to prosecute. They've appear to have fulfilled their remit in this case. It is now up to someone else to view the evidence and see what is to be done.

I agree. My whole point was in relation to the Federal case that was dropped and the reasoning behind it. They obviously had the view that of admissible evidence and the testimony against LA of proven and admitted cheats and liars that they wouldn't be able to secure a conviction.

The USADA report doesn't need to pass that test. They could have written that LA was the Tony Montanna of the pro tour, taking out rivals etc if they wanted. It would then be for LA to challenge this.

With what is in the report we all know he won't be taking it anywhere near a court and he will be keeping his fingers crossed that it blows over. (Not likely IMO).

[London424]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/lance-armstro...

LA stepping down from LiveStrong.

[London424]

pablo said:

Chris Stott said:

Besides having a reputation in tatters and a legacy that's gone from greatest GT rider ever to biggest doper ever, LA's biggest problem now seems to be where his next $ is coming from.

One would suspect that Lance has a book coming out soon.....

He has more than enough money to never have to work again.

[London424]

WeirdNeville said:

Chris Stott said:

Besides having a reputation in tatters and a legacy that's gone from greatest GT rider ever to biggest doper ever, LA's biggest problem now seems to be where his next $ is coming from.

I want to know when the asset stripping starts?
He's lived a lavish lifestyle for over a decade now, on the basis of fraud. His cheating has deprived others of a livelyhood and chances (ignoring for a moment that only the team dog WASN'T on dope it seems) throughout his reign. As far as I'm concerned, his house, his life, are the products of theft.

So when do people start clawing back their money?

And, I'd be wanting to take a very close look at Livestrong and it's work and finances. Hiding behind charity work is despicable, especially when as far as I can see the charity does little useful work (and by that I mean funding research or assisting sufferers, as opposed to paying armstrong to give motivational lectures about how you can survive cancer and win bike races provided you have no moral compass).

You can make that case for more than half the peloton. They've all made money (salary, prize winnings, sponsorship etc) from doping.

If you go after LA you should be going after them all.

[London424]

WeirdNeville said:

London424 said:

If you go after LA you should be going after them all.

I think the point that needs to be made is you will not profit from doping in the long run. Many of the peloton hammer out their work for little reward at great personal cost. The lesson should be "if you win by cheating, you will not profit".
He should have all his stuff stripped from him, to set an example to others that even if you are doping now, and not getting caught now, it may well come back to bite in later life and your risk taking will have been for nothing.

I think you might be underestimating what these guys earn. They aren't doing it for the love of the sport, it's their living.

Granted there may only be 1 or 2 "stars" of their teams, but the reward for all is pretty good to ride a bike. I also believe most teams pool any winnings and share equally amongst the team at the end of the race.

Here's a link to just the TdF prize money pot (no salaries in there).

http://www.roadcycling.co.nz/TourdeFrance/prize-mo...

I agree he should be targeted, but lets not pretend he's the only one who's done very well out of cheating. So if you go after him, you go after them all IMO.

[London424]

Looks like Dr Ferrari was a very busy man. From reading this, there are going to be a lot of very nervous riders. If not for doping then money laundering/tax evasion.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveals-s...

[London424]

WeirdNeville said:

London424 said:

I think you might be underestimating what these guys earn. They aren't doing it for the love of the sport, it's their living.

Granted there may only be 1 or 2 "stars" of their teams, but the reward for all is pretty good to ride a bike. I also believe most teams pool any winnings and share equally amongst the team at the end of the race.

SO what you're saying is, the domestiques should be grateful to Lance for raising the profile of the sport to a point where they earn decent money, and so they should STFU?

An interesting angle!

Seriously though, if they want to clean up the sport (and I'm not even sure they do) the nthey need to ensure that the people who have gained the most through cheating suffer the most, financially and legally. That way, people setting out now on a path to being the next armstrong or Wiggins (and I'm in no way insinuating that wiggins dopes!) will see that those who triumph through doping get vilified and stripped of everything. The incentive needs to be taken away.

The question remains - where would Armstrong be now if he had never doped? The answer: No-where, IMO. That's where he should be set back to.

Haha That wasn't quite my angle. More pointing out that cyclists are earning a pretty decent amount of money, even if they aren't the stars.

To clean up the sport you go after everyone equally, not pick and choose your target. For example, where would Hincapie be without doping? Has ridden LA's coat-tails as the trusted Lieutenant and made a lot of money (even has his own clothing company which he wouldn't as a nobody). Why shouldn't they go after him in exactly the same way?

[London424]

I assume all other riders associated with doping will also have their winnings etc recouped?

[London424]

pablo said:

BlackVanDyke said:

el stovey said:

It's OK to accept donations from athletes when you're the governing body?

So corrupt.

The UCI is right at the root of the problem.

They're unbelievable. If FIFA or the IAAF got up to this kind of bullst they'd have been out on their arses a decade ago.

I would suggest you dont investigate UEFA, FIFA or the IAAF too deeply....

Haha...I was going to say the same thing!