Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
IroningMan said:
Has anyone (else) ever picked up a ban - in any sport - on the basis of 'I saw him do it' alone?
Various sprinters (athletics) have been banned without failing a test (Marion Jones springs to mind, Balco in general), but I'm not sure it's every been purely due to an accusation from another person (doper themselves or not).Silver993tt said:
ell of course he's going to say that. He's got a book to sell.
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.
No the chances are not diminishing. I'm all for people taking a sceptical/critical view on proceedings, but that statement is just baseless fluff.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.
"It is imminent, by the end of the month,"
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/usada-head-reports-de...
ewenm said:
IroningMan said:
Has anyone (else) ever picked up a ban - in any sport - on the basis of 'I saw him do it' alone?
Various sprinters (athletics) have been banned without failing a test (Marion Jones springs to mind, Balco in general), but I'm not sure it's every been purely due to an accusation from another person (doper themselves or not).
I don't know how many of the convicted failed tests rather than were accused by othersReport 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.
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.
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. 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.
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 said:
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.
I don't understand why that Leveson bloke needs to take so long to write up his report. I mean he heard it all in open session so how long can it take to write it down? After all, the odd mistake in transcription here and there won't make any difference.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.
I mean he promised the report "as soon as I reasonably can" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964165 ) he must just be rubbish at typing.
Joking aside, if it was all ready to go months ago, they would be having the arbitration hearings for Bruyneel et. al. IANAL, but there is a difference between having the evidence/testimony and having it ready for presentation. There is also a difference between having it and having it ready to hand over in a consumable form. Not to mention the double, probably triple checking that they will be doing to ensure everything is watertight.
aspender said:
I don't understand why that Leveson bloke needs to take so long to write up his report. I mean he heard it all in open session so how long can it take to write it down? After all, the odd mistake in transcription here and there won't make any difference.
I mean he promised the report "as soon as I reasonably can" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964165 ) he must just be rubbish at typing.
Joking aside, if it was all ready to go months ago, they would be having the arbitration hearings for Bruyneel et. al. IANAL, but there is a difference between having the evidence/testimony and having it ready for presentation. There is also a difference between having it and having it ready to hand over in a consumable form. Not to mention the double, probably triple checking that they will be doing to ensure everything is watertight.
But they were sufficiently confident to throw it all at Armstrong months ago...I mean he promised the report "as soon as I reasonably can" ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18964165 ) he must just be rubbish at typing.
Joking aside, if it was all ready to go months ago, they would be having the arbitration hearings for Bruyneel et. al. IANAL, but there is a difference between having the evidence/testimony and having it ready for presentation. There is also a difference between having it and having it ready to hand over in a consumable form. Not to mention the double, probably triple checking that they will be doing to ensure everything is watertight.
IroningMan said:
But they were sufficiently confident to throw it all at Armstrong months ago...
That's how it works. Use the criminal legal system as an analogy:1. Person becomes suspect
2. Suspect is charged if police think they have enough evidence
3. Suspect may fess up or plead guilty in which case straight to sentencing.
4. Else, police continue to build case and present to CPS.
5. CPS decide yes or no
6. If yes, it goes to court - before/at which the defendants get to understand the evidence
The time between 3 and 4 and 4 and 5 can be significant.
In this case (specifically in relation to Armstrong, not those who have chosen arbitration):
1. Armstrong et. al. become suspects
2. USADA send charge letter in July - this outlines the charges, not the detail. They didn't throw everything at them. LA or the other charged can only guess what there may be in terms of evidence
3. Armstrong decides not to contest (chooses not to bother to even get to the point of finding out the evidence) , others simply accept the charge, others choose to go to arbitration.
4. USADA continue to build case to point where it can be presented and be watertight, at which point it is given to the UCI.
5. UCI can choose to appeal the decisions presented by the case through CAS if they want a fight.
The analogy obviously isn't perfect, but demonstrates the fact that significant time gaps occur in these matters. You don't spend man years of effort building a presentable case before proceeding with charging. Otherwise remand or bail wouldn't exist (other than to wait in line for a court date)
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.Will be interesting when it all comes out either way.
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!
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.Will be interesting when it all comes out either way.
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!
Having just finished reading Tyler Hamilton's book I thought I would jump in here, stock my head in a potential bear trap, and pass comment on this whole affair from the perspective of someone who has a passing interest it the Tour de France. I appreciate that this may mean I am a million years behind those who follow events more closely.
I am not naive enough to believe that Hamilton doesn't have his own agenda, and there are points where he paints Armstrong as some sort of boogie man, but in the main he comes across as someone well aware of the mistakes he has made and willing to take responsibility for his actions. Based on the book I am left with the impression that:-
- the scale of doping, and the advanced techniques of the dopers, was on a scale I had never previously considered. As far as I can tell pretty much no one was riding clean, with the peloton being made up with 'slightly doped up' to 'very doped up' riders.
- given the scale of cheating being adopted by many of the big names I simply can't see how Armstrong wasn't taking part given the results he has achieved. I appreciate that some people are more talented than others, but to able to beat guys who were using EPO and numerous transfusions 7 times is, IMHO, a feat that would be beyond superhuman.
- the circumstances around the criminal case being dropped are very suspicious. It would appear that the weight of evidence collected was massive, but political pressure shut the whole thing down in order to avoid another Bonds style debacle. This is a shame as I suspect that the case would have put the argument to bed once and for all.
- given the appeal the Bruyneel, Marti and Celaya have lodged there is still hope that the truth will come out. To my eyes if these three lose their appeals then there is no doubt that Armstrong doped.
I am left wondering, sadly, whether I will be able to follow the tour in future without being incredibly cynical whenever I see a strong performance by a team. Already I have niggling doubts, probably completely unfounded, about the way that Team Sky dominated this year's race. I guess that is the true damage done by the dopers of the past and the UCI's ineptitude and unwillingness to address the problem in a timely manner.
I am not naive enough to believe that Hamilton doesn't have his own agenda, and there are points where he paints Armstrong as some sort of boogie man, but in the main he comes across as someone well aware of the mistakes he has made and willing to take responsibility for his actions. Based on the book I am left with the impression that:-
- the scale of doping, and the advanced techniques of the dopers, was on a scale I had never previously considered. As far as I can tell pretty much no one was riding clean, with the peloton being made up with 'slightly doped up' to 'very doped up' riders.
- given the scale of cheating being adopted by many of the big names I simply can't see how Armstrong wasn't taking part given the results he has achieved. I appreciate that some people are more talented than others, but to able to beat guys who were using EPO and numerous transfusions 7 times is, IMHO, a feat that would be beyond superhuman.
- the circumstances around the criminal case being dropped are very suspicious. It would appear that the weight of evidence collected was massive, but political pressure shut the whole thing down in order to avoid another Bonds style debacle. This is a shame as I suspect that the case would have put the argument to bed once and for all.
- given the appeal the Bruyneel, Marti and Celaya have lodged there is still hope that the truth will come out. To my eyes if these three lose their appeals then there is no doubt that Armstrong doped.
I am left wondering, sadly, whether I will be able to follow the tour in future without being incredibly cynical whenever I see a strong performance by a team. Already I have niggling doubts, probably completely unfounded, about the way that Team Sky dominated this year's race. I guess that is the true damage done by the dopers of the past and the UCI's ineptitude and unwillingness to address the problem in a timely manner.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff