Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[JuniorD]

LA is a textbook sociopath and a coward. It's pretty sad that he's complicit in defrauded clean riders from making their mark in the history books.

[ewenm]

JuniorD said:

LA is a textbook sociopath and a coward. It's pretty sad that he's complicit in defrauded clean riders from making their mark in the history books.

Finally, someone who works for USADA on the LA case. Can you tell us how you decided it was a priority over current international athletes (Gatlin for example, caught 3 times and yet still not banned for life...)?

Edit: for clarity, I have no certainty whether LA is guilty of doping or not. It seems pretty likely but I can't claim to *know*. I don't understand why USADA have decided that this is a good use of their time though. Seems like a lot of grandstanding and playground point-scoring to me while other CONVICTED dopers still get to compete now and deny others Olympic medals.

Edited by ewenm on Friday 24th August 09:40

[Derek Smith]

ewenm said:

Finally, someone who works for USADA on the LA case. Can you tell us how you decided it was a priority over current international athletes (Gatlin for example, caught 3 times and yet still not banned for life...)?

Edit: for clarity, I have no certainty whether LA is guilty of doping or not. It seems pretty likely but I can't claim to *know*. I don't understand why USADA have decided that this is a good use of their time though. Seems like a lot of grandstanding and playground point-scoring to me while other CONVICTED dopers still get to compete now and deny others Olympic medals.

To be fair to the ADA with regards prioritising, this was not a case against LA alone but one against Postal and its members after a series of high profile allegations. Others have 'come clean' and admitted that they cheated but LA stood to lose most because of armstrong.org. Had he followed the trend he would probably have lost the most. As it is now he can suggest that he is not convicted and in the USA this is vital when it comes to what the media can suggest, even if they have proof.

Further, he has been 'robust' in his defence of his company. Only someone with a lot of clout could possibly challenge him.

There have been cases before where industries have been set up around athletes where there is considerable doubt that they did not use drugs but, even after they have died from causes which also indicate steriod use, the media must not even suggest they might have been drug taking.

I agree that those who cheat with drugs should not be allowed to compete in the sport, or any other one come to that. But the courts have decided that it is a cruel punishment. We have to live with it.

LA is more or less current though. It is not as if he hasn't been dogged with doubts as to his honesty, or indeed that he never failed a drugs test, five or six according to some commentators (Tour de Suisse for example). There hasn't been a let-up since he 'retired'. Andreu's missus, LeMond, Hamilton, Anderson et al have, by various means, kep it ticking over. It is a shame that LA didn't opt for arbitration. Or that he gave money to the UCI.

Sometimes the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. We can't say he's guilty of course, but what we do know is that, once it came to giving sworn evidence, he backed away.

Further, and a small point I suppose, but one thing which irritates me is that he, or at least his team, keep suggesting he's the most tested athlete in history. This is not so. They also suggest that he had 500 drugs tests in that time. I mean, if that was true he must have been anaemic. Whatever the true figure I would suggest it is not more than 500.

[Derek Smith]

• ********CORRECTION************

Armstrong's companies are:

Livestrong.com, and

Livestrong.org.

Apologies for titling them incorrectly.

[DJRC]

Im fully with Ewen on this.

To go after LA when they seem to be happy with Gatlin is an indication of things screwed way outside my normal world of perception. I find it hard to take such an organisation's moral tone with much degree of sincerity when they announce they can just strip titles away on their own and when they happily allow the likes of Gatlin to take Olympic medals away from guys like Gay.

Think Ill stick with guys like Wiggo, Cav and Cuddles...there is an upfront honesty there that appeals to my weird nature and trusting nature. They appear human, vulnerable, not remorseless, perfect, unthinking robots.

[JuniorD]

ewenm said:

JuniorD said:

LA is a textbook sociopath and a coward. It's pretty sad that he's complicit in defrauded clean riders from making their mark in the history books.

Finally, someone who works for USADA on the LA case. Can you tell us how you decided it was a priority over current international athletes (Gatlin for example, caught 3 times and yet still not banned for life...)?

Edit: for clarity, I have no certainty whether LA is guilty of doping or not. It seems pretty likely but I can't claim to *know*. I don't understand why USADA have decided that this is a good use of their time though. Seems like a lot of grandstanding and playground point-scoring to me while other CONVICTED dopers still get to compete now and deny others Olympic medals.

Edited by ewenm on Friday 24th August 09:40

Sorry, I don't see how your post and question is pertinent to my quoted post?

[ewenm]

JuniorD said:

Sorry, I don't see how your post and question is pertinent to my quoted post?

You seem so certain about it, I assumed you've seen the evidence against LA and so would know why USADA see this case as such a priority. My mistake.

[johnfm]

Derek Smith said:

johnfm said:

Derek

You weren't one of those coppers who 'knew' someone was guilty when the only evidence seems to be the testimony of a criminal were you?

I have to say that I would not class Betsy Andreu as a criminal.

What we have here is an allegation of conspiracy where some of those thought to be involved have confessed to being so and have implicated LA, not necessarily by name but by circumstances. There is lots of circumstantial evidence including LA's refusal to, in actuality, go on oath when saying the things he put in his press release.

Why not opt for arbitration? He picks one of the tribunal I believe and his choice helps pick another (although I’m not too certain of the MO.) Then all he has to say is what he’s said to the press although, of course, if what he says is proved to be a lie he can, as others have, go to prison.

We’ve had a lot of obfuscation from the LA side. The dependence on passing drugs tests (many would contest the 500+ quoted by the LA side) as proof positive is rather pathetic. Anyone who knows the barest minimum of drugs testing in those days knows that they are easily ‘confused’.

Many cyclists who have been convicted or confessed to drug abuse have passed many tests themselves.

I accept that many (ex)cyclists appear to dislike LA intently. Lemond is hardly a fan. One might think that this could be them getting back at LA but when one looks at the cost to them it does beggar belief that so many would do it as they have to admit to being involved.

Just think that LA was involved with Ferrari.

I find it difficult to believe that LA would give up, and lose so much, if he was indeed innocent. It is easy to say he’d lose $millions in trying to fight it but I think it likely he will lose even more by not challenging the ADA.

It’s such a shame. He was inspirational in his comeback from cancer. Now it appears it is all a wee bit mucky and we were fools to believe in fairy stories.

You have to accept that drug taking was endemic in those days, some suggest with the acceptance and connivance of the authorities. Remember the support Delgardo got when he was found to have taken a masking agent in le Tour in the late 80s? The cycling press, including the Channel 4 commentary team, rushed to his defence.

I remember a little dig in a magazine article on drug taking in another sport to the effect that many professional cyclists on the TdF stood up to the pressure from team managers to take drugs. They were called spectators.

This doesn’t excuse it but it does make it more understandable.

I have the feeling this will release many more stories of those days.

It is sad but if he had decided to fight the allegations, or even go to arbitration, then we might have had a hope that we hadn’t all been willing to put good sense aside when cheering him on.

el stovey said:

It's not really testimonies of criminals in this case though is it. It's testimonies of ex team mates, friends, other dopers, his old DS, connections to a doctor famous for doping and bribes to the UCI.

Good points there.

Edited to apologise for the endorsement of Stovey's comment. I feel it is more than a litle patronishing. Not meant to be of course.

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 24th August 08:36

Well, that all makes sense. I took your previous comment out of context.

[Nom de ploom]

should I feel cheated about this? one of my personal sporting heroes?

to this date he has still never failed a drugs test. FACT.

amid the conjecture, allegations and anecdotal evidence and testimony, I don't think we should lose sight of that fact.

I'm not saying there isn't any smoke, and this is somewhat of an elephant in the room but where is the smoking gun for the USADA?

if he had failed tests (notwithstanding the length of this mans' career and the number of times he has been tested) the USADA would publish and shout it from the roof tops "we have our man!!!!" they would shout...after all this time...

[TEKNOPUG]

Because all that proves is that he didn't fail any drug tests....

Can it be proven that every drugs test he ever took was completely infallable? That there were no errors, no bribery of officials or corruption? No deliberate tampering of evidence? That the tests were even designed to find whatever the current performance enhancing susbstance of the day was?

[Asterix]

So they can't prove he doped but they will act as if he did anyway.

Surely there's a constitutional thing for the yanks to stop that sort of thing regardless of the reality?

[Nom de ploom]

I don't know if any of those questions have answers at this stage...

I'm left thinking though that if it were me facing allegations and I knew I was innocent I'd be in court fighting it to clear my name.

should we read absentia as admission of guilt?

[samwilliams]

Nom de ploom said:

...
if he had failed tests (notwithstanding the length of this mans' career and the number of times he has been tested) the USADA would publish and shout it from the roof tops "we have our man!!!!" they would shout...after all this time...

I think they're suggesting that they will release the evidence in due course, but there are ongoing investigations (into other associated people) that mean they can't at this stage.

[Asterix]

Nom de ploom said:

I don't know if any of those questions have answers at this stage...

I'm left thinking though that if it were me facing allegations and I knew I was innocent I'd be in court fighting it to clear my name.

should we read absentia as admission of guilt?

I wondered if he's running out of money, or at least taking a huge hit due to lawyer's fees and the fact that whatever business he's into has slumped because of it hanging over him.

[marcosgt]

Asterix said:

Nom de ploom said:

I don't know if any of those questions have answers at this stage...

I'm left thinking though that if it were me facing allegations and I knew I was innocent I'd be in court fighting it to clear my name.

should we read absentia as admission of guilt?

I wondered if he's running out of money, or at least taking a huge hit due to lawyer's fees and the fact that whatever business he's into has slumped because of it hanging over him.

Guilty or not, this doesn't say much good about American 'Justice'.

A man accused of something with no substantial evidence (that's ever been put into the public arena anyway) is 'guilty' because he decides to give up lining lawyer's pockets.

Have the Americans abandoned "Innocent until proven guilty" altogether now?

I was never an Armstrong fan and wouldn't be surprised if ANY cyclist was found guilty of doping, but where's the evidence? Not the say so of some other drug cheats (unhelpful though that is), but the failed drugs test, the evidence of dealing from unsullied witnesses or anything other than an amazing track record of wins.

Seems like a McCarthy-ist witch hunt, especially when proven drugs cheats are winning Olympic medals for the US...

M

[fadeaway]

Has LA ever made a public statement categorically stating that he didn't take drugs or dope? The only quotes I've seen are from him saying he was never caught and/or never failed a test?

By the way, if he had 500 tests and none of them were ever positive then he is cheated and bribed officials. Those tests will give false-positives, so over than many tests you'd statistically have to have some fails. (unless he means that no A and B samples ever both failed)

[samwilliams]

marcosgt said:

Guilty or not, this doesn't say much good about American 'Justice'.

A man accused of something with no substantial evidence (that's ever been put into the public arena anyway) is 'guilty' because he decides to give up lining lawyer's pockets.

Have the Americans abandoned "Innocent until proven guilty" altogether now?

Alternatively, you could view it as he's offering no defence. You can't avoid losing something by refusing to play.

[Asterix]

samwilliams said:

marcosgt said:

Guilty or not, this doesn't say much good about American 'Justice'.

A man accused of something with no substantial evidence (that's ever been put into the public arena anyway) is 'guilty' because he decides to give up lining lawyer's pockets.

Have the Americans abandoned "Innocent until proven guilty" altogether now?

Alternatively, you could view it as he's offering no defence. You can't avoid losing something by refusing to play.

Next you'll be saying there is a God as no-one can prove he doesn't exist. Trying to prove a negative is quite difficult.

[GnuBee]

What stops the USADA from placing the substantial, or as called in another post avalanche, of evidence into the public domain?

The accusations are serious to say the least - whilst Amstrong is the most recognised name the charges are against a number of people and extend far beyond a bit of doping and cross over into supply, incitement to use blah blah.

This is a sad day, not perhaps at the personal level of Armstrong, but it once again places a shadow over cycling. People will care not about the time when the alledged offences took place they'll simply see it as yet another cycling drug story when the sport seemed to be making genuine progress in this area.

[odyssey2200]

Question.

Who organises and runs the Tour de france?

If the organisers are happy that Lance passed all the tests, do they have the right or obligation to strip him of his wins on the basis of unproven allegations from another body?