Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
TedMaul said:
listening to the 5live podcast........ recommend anyone listen to it, or the iplayer version.... i am astounded, esp treatment of Basson from LA....
Here's a link, it's 2 hours long but incredibly interesting, good piece of journalism - I think there is a film in this!http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ngqxd/5_li...
king bike.Rocksteadyeddie said:
Presumably Trek and Oakley will be close behind.
Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
This, in a nutshell, summarises Lance's current situation perfectly. Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
big news re Nike & Livestrong indeed - link here for anyone who wants to read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608
it's all tumbling down around him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608
it's all tumbling down around him.
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Presumably Trek and Oakley will be close behind.
Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
What's Bogata like this time of year Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
Rude-boy said:
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Presumably Trek and Oakley will be close behind.
Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
What's Bogata like this time of year Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop. The only issue he has is the small matter of having perjured himself under oath.
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Followed by the teary confession, no doubt using all the good work he has done in raising money for cancer awareness as a backdrop.
They would be crocodile tears.He's denied it too many times and ridiculed too many doubters for anyone to take a tearfilled public appology/admission seriously.
TedMaul said:
So here's a question, given all the history and testimonies.
If I was made say either President of UCI or maybe started out a new team, what could I do to persuade Joe Public that my sport/team are clean? How can credibility and faith be restored??
A. Have a cast-iron contract with UCI-approved drug-testers to allow instant & immediate access to all your riders at any time of day, any time of year. If I was made say either President of UCI or maybe started out a new team, what could I do to persuade Joe Public that my sport/team are clean? How can credibility and faith be restored??
B. No more Team Buses, nowhere to hide!
C. I haven't really thought this through!
Edited by Digger on Wednesday 17th October 14:07
HundredthIdiot said:
TedMaul said:
If I ... maybe started out a new team, what could I do to persuade Joe Public that my sport/team are clean?
Lose.Yet if you had the money then you could afford to lose, and in the process highlight those who might not be playing by the rules.
To answer the question I would say to have a total open door policy as to testing and the results of those test. To contract a well known independent party (with a reputation to lose) to carry out random tests x times a year at times of their choosing and to publicise their findings 24 hours after sending the results to you. Make it clear that anyone who fails the test will have their contract terminated immediately with a $100,000 (or higher) penalty clause that forces them to pay back any salary and bonuses from your team in the last 12 months.
The above are just a few thoughts at random. I am sure that you could do it, although you will never be able to win and not face such accusations. All you can do is make sure that you keep your nose 100% clean and that if there is so much as a hint of proof that one of your team is doping then kick them out and be very loud and public about it.
If you are buying the best and still not winning and are very sure that it is down to others doping then you get very vocal about how clean your team is and how it would be so much better if everyone was as open with their testing and results, etc. Basically if you have the money you can clean up the sport, but it is going to cost and you will not be on many Christmas Card lists.
London424 said:
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).
I don't think that cheating in a race on foreign soil is something that breaks the law in the USA. Whilst there might well be some concomitant offences, one has to ask if it would be worth their while proceeding on such information. I don't know. What I do know is that there appears to be a prima facie case against him. In other words he has something to answer. He has chosen not to. 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).
In any criminal case there is a great deal of post-charge preparation, in fact more normally than goes into the evidence to charge. But it is detail work in the main, dotting the Is and negating possible defences. In this case the circumstantial evidence is clear, the witness testimony is even clearer, so I see little problem in a beyond reasonable. I can't see what else a prosecutor would require.
Now that he's abandoned the charity and Nike have dumped him I don't think blowing over in the short to medium term is likely.
Rude-boy said:
Perhaps in the short term.
Yet if you had the money then you could afford to lose, and in the process highlight those who might not be playing by the rules.
To answer the question I would say to have a total open door policy as to testing and the results of those test. To contract a well known independent party (with a reputation to lose) to carry out random tests x times a year at times of their choosing and to publicise their findings 24 hours after sending the results to you. Make it clear that anyone who fails the test will have their contract terminated immediately with a $100,000 (or higher) penalty clause that forces them to pay back any salary and bonuses from your team in the last 12 months.
The above are just a few thoughts at random. I am sure that you could do it, although you will never be able to win and not face such accusations. All you can do is make sure that you keep your nose 100% clean and that if there is so much as a hint of proof that one of your team is doping then kick them out and be very loud and public about it.
If you are buying the best and still not winning and are very sure that it is down to others doping then you get very vocal about how clean your team is and how it would be so much better if everyone was as open with their testing and results, etc. Basically if you have the money you can clean up the sport, but it is going to cost and you will not be on many Christmas Card lists.
A number of teams have attempted various bits of what you've described and still been accused.Yet if you had the money then you could afford to lose, and in the process highlight those who might not be playing by the rules.
To answer the question I would say to have a total open door policy as to testing and the results of those test. To contract a well known independent party (with a reputation to lose) to carry out random tests x times a year at times of their choosing and to publicise their findings 24 hours after sending the results to you. Make it clear that anyone who fails the test will have their contract terminated immediately with a $100,000 (or higher) penalty clause that forces them to pay back any salary and bonuses from your team in the last 12 months.
The above are just a few thoughts at random. I am sure that you could do it, although you will never be able to win and not face such accusations. All you can do is make sure that you keep your nose 100% clean and that if there is so much as a hint of proof that one of your team is doping then kick them out and be very loud and public about it.
If you are buying the best and still not winning and are very sure that it is down to others doping then you get very vocal about how clean your team is and how it would be so much better if everyone was as open with their testing and results, etc. Basically if you have the money you can clean up the sport, but it is going to cost and you will not be on many Christmas Card lists.
Running tests on your team (regardless of how "independent" you claim the testers are) has been used as a tactic by dirty teams to keep one step ahead of the official testers by making sure that doping products/byproducts are not detectable. If you know a rider is "glowing" you can take extra precautions. It's also an excellent excuse to be carrying around a bunch of medical supplies.
One of the biggest problems is that it's not as simple as "failed tests" any more. EPO-type products are in the system for such a short period of time that detection has become a statistical exercise based on measured blood values. Consequently, sanctions cannot be career-threatening, or the bio passport system would have to be rebalanced even further in favour of the cheats in order to reduce the risk of false positives.
If you look at Sky, there are many people who think they're dirty on the basis of unbelievable performances this year after several years of mediocrity, coinciding with hiring several staff with dodgy pasts (Yates and Leinders). There's also Michael Barry's past which seems to conflict with their hiring bible. If they hadn't won, those people would think they were clean.
There have just been too many false dawns.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff