Shimagnolo

Lengthy interview with Michael Ashenden, which included discussion of bio-passport: https://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

StanSeven

From my post above (#13)

fly:yes/land:no

so what did you intend to do by criticizing the doj for wasting 10.5 million? did you not want us to extrapolate that because the doj went to trial and loss in one instance, that is proof that the usada officials are after publicity with regards to lance? dubious logic methinks. surely, then, you would not object if i made similar assumptions that because lance won 7 tours during which, 65% of the riders in the top 10 and 82% of the top 5 have been convicted or implicated in doping, that lance was also proved to have doped.

Racer Ex 

Your post? Correct.

Incorrect. He sat on the USADA review board that decided if the case should go forward.

Showing someone your wee wee doesn't mean you can't render a logical decision.



He reviewed the evidence and rendered judgement. Judges comment on cases after they have rendered judgement all the time. And the comment was after Lance tweated about Griffiths misdemeanor plea.

He's not an arbitrator. He's a member of the panel that reviews evidence and decides if it warrants moving forward. Sort of the doping Grand Jury.

See my above comment. He's done hearing the matter. And at the moment it's not even going to arbitration. The parties can either accept the charges or fight them. USADA is waiting for their response.

dbf73

Clark Griffith was sentenced today

https://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/163886676.html

Not very credible per the judge. I wouldn't trust that guy to make line calls in a rec tennis match. Don't count me in the Lance fanboi crowd but USADA's antics sure push me in that direction. Griffith may have been on grand jury equivalent but everyone knows you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. I'm still waiting to hear how a body that wasn't in existence during his first Tour can take it away.

calamarichris

The beauty of the internet is our words are preserved. The ugliness of the internet is that sockpuppets like this Cadan create profiles to denounce Lemond, the USADA, and make statements that all racers dope, then they just vanish. This clod's post history reads like one of Lance's legal/PR team.

merlinextraligh

Probably a Livestrong intern.

Cat4Lifer

I've read a few pages of REPORT ON PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE WORLD ANTI-DOPING CODE AND THE USADA PROTOCOL. And they are really acting like a prosecution team just looking for the win and not looking for truth.

Some quotes that seemed odd & BS to me:

"[Lance's] goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals..."
-pg 6

versus

"At the end of the 2000 season George Hincapie asked Lance Armstrong to introduce him to Dr. Ferrari. Hincapie felt that he had been putting in a great deal of work but was not getting the results that he wanted. Armstrong said that he would contact Ferrari on George’s behalf."
-pg 46

"Most perniciously, Johan Bruyneel learned how to introduce young men to performance enhancing drugs, becoming adept at leading them down the path from newly minted professional rider to veteran drug user…In June of 2000 at the end of the Dauphiné Libéré Johan Bruyneel explained the process of blood doping to a young Tyler Hamilton."
-pg 110

"Tyler Hamilton, David Zabriskie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde. Four young men at the outset of their careers were among those Johan Bruyneel ushered down the road toward performance enhancing drug use."
pg. 115

RedHerring

Why is the federal government subsidizing a pro sport. USADA gets big tax money to stay afloat so why are they involved with a pro sport? Do the Feds fund doping controls for the NFL? Nope.

Commodus

Why is the sky high? Why is grass green? Why do idiots troll? Some things we'll never know...

Bacciagalupe

Yeah, that's kind of... their job.

The USADA are supposed to act like investigators and prosecutors. In this instance, their job is to gather evidence of doping, and if it's sufficient, sanction the rider. The rider has the right to challenge that decision, in which case the USADA and the accused rider will submit their evidence to an arbitration panel, which makes the call. (The decision can also be appealed to the CAS.) Thanks to Armstrong, this process was given a thorough review and cleared as legally valid, by the US courts.

I'm not sure what "truth" you're trying to dig out, but whatever it is, it isn't going to exculpate Armstrong. He still doped from at least 1999 to 2005, he still lied about it for over a decade, he still viciously attacked everyone who publicly discussed his doping, he still committed perjury specifically to wring millions out of SCA Promotions, he still tried to prevent LA Confidentiel from being published, and sued the Sunday Times for excerpting it, he almost certainly used USPS and sponsor funds to pay for doping products and doctors, and on and on and on.

Armstrong also did absolutely nothing whatsoever to fight against a rampant culture of doping -- in contrast, he dived into it head-first and used it to his advantage. You may not be a fan of Vaughters, for example, but at least he made a public decision to put together a clean pro cycling team. I'm sure a charismatic and influential leader like Armstrong could have made the same decision and committed to putting together a clean team -- except that, among other considerations, collecting yellow jerseys and Nike sponsorship dollars were more important to him than "racing clean."

I.e. Armstrong is a lying, manipulative, vindictive, self-absorbed, selfish and extraordinarily litigious cheater who should no longer be allowed to compete on an elite level, and ought to be held responsible for his actions.

Bashing the USADA doesn't change that, and it doesn't improve the anti-doping efforts of the sport.

Bashing the UCI, on the other hand....

guadzilla

^^^ Standing applause

Cat4Lifer

And they seem really good at it.

Gallo

zombish but relevant

I think it is quite obvious that there are three types that respond to this type of thread

Type 1 I hate Lance

Type 2 I love Lance

Type 3 love/hate Lance

In all of the groups there are many sub groups within these groups I cannot describe them all

in the type 1 I think a fair amount of them are racer types that have seen the bs and will not tolerate the drugs. I really cant blame them.

in type 2 we have the followers that will always justify the means. It is a strange cult like following that changes with the wind.

in type 3 we have the fans those that recognize the dark side of Lance and find it repugnant. The doping viscous attacks, the lawsuits,the win at all costs and the lies. But also are drawn to the beating cancer story, the wins, the charity and the advancement of cycling.

Being the type 3 myself it is difficult to participate as any thing said is railed by the type 1 and are simply labeled a fanboy or used and misused by the type 2 as a justification for Lance in a pissing contest with the type 1.

As a rather confused blended type 3er myself I am hopeful this vetting process promotes a clean sport and that the testers become smarter than the cheaters and the at the end of the day pro cyclists and their teams are scared to death of doping and run a clean program.

dbf73

Not quite - the judge wasn't convinced it was bad enough to intervene for purposes of preliminary relief but he did express some reservations about the process.

Bacciagalupe

Armstrong's case was tossed out. The judge explicitly stated that Armstrong's case was without merit, that the arbitration met the appropriate standards, and the courts should not intervene unless the organization is "wantonly" violating its rules -- e.g. refusing to give Armstrong access to the evidence prior to the hearing.

His concerns were that the "charging letter" didn't have enough detail -- but he recognized the USADA could easily remedy that situation, and Armstrong was going to get more detail before the arbitration hearing. The subsequently issued Reasoned Decision should make it beyond obvious that, as the judge surmised, the USADA could have easily listed more detail in its charging letter.

The second issue he was concerned about conflicts between the desire of the USADA to proceed, and the UCI to stop the process. However, he also interpreted this as yet another reason why the industry should handle things on its own.

(https://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/...-doping-agency)

He wasn't roundly condemning the USADA or the arbitration process, only pointing out that this might be "bad for the sport."

dbf73

did you read the actual opinion or just ESPN's "summary" with some quotes? He didn't roundly condemn the process but he didn't anoint it with holy water either.

Bacciagalupe

Both. The ESPN article is a pretty good summary.

Gallo

Sparks opinion if you read it pretty much blasted everybody in the process and for more than one reason. While it would appear to those that did not read it is that he sided with USADA. He quite effectively slammed the door shut on US court involvement. There was and is a process of arbitration in place for athletes and made the right decision to not be involved in any way what so ever. He lectured Armstrong's attorney for being long winded and irrelevant and warned USADA that their tactics bordered on unconstitutional and issued a rather stiff and terse warning toward USADA.

In his summary he says the following:

"As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally
perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together
to accomplish their shared goal the regulation and promotion of cycling. However, if these bodies
wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the
involvement of the United States courts."

Judge Sam Sparks

Cat4Lifer

If that doesn't scream "the process was given a thorough review and cleared as legally valid" by the courts, then nothing does.

Gallo

I would suggest you read the linked document below including the footnotes. I would disagree that the court validated anything other than upholding the process of arbitration in place and US Courts position to stay out of the way and not rule on the matter. If you read the document Judge Sparks has unkind comments and statements toward both parties.

Footnote38

lndeed, it is hard to imagine a situation more illustrative of Judge Posner's famous words, that "there can be
few less suitable bodies than the federal courts for determining the eligibility, or the procedures for determining the
eligibility, of athletes to participate in the Olympic Games." Michels v. US. Olympic Comm., 741 F.2d 155, 159 (7th
Cir. 1984) (Posner, J., concurring). By the same token, this Court simply has no business telling national and
international amateur athletic organizations how to regulate their respective sports.

While all this is moot as it has moved to a different level. I wish the US Courts as a whole would consistently show the wisdom that Judge Sparks did regarding this case.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/103360421/Memorandum-Opinion

Commodus

I would suggest that anyone who is actually familiar with the case would understand exactly why and when the USADA proceeded...indeed it could not have happened otherwise, given the timing of the federal case and the emails from Floyd. The judge showed remarkable ignorance regarding the details of the situation, frankly. Of course he didn't need to learn these things, since he was only interested in the legality of his court's involvement.

Gallo

Then enlighten us to when and why USADA had to proceed and how Judge Sparks showed remarkable ignorance.

I am in no way defending Armstrong. The doping and lying to me was not nearly as heinous as the obtrusion of justice and litigious bullying tactics he employed. I think there is more pain to come to Mr Armstrong for this behavior.

I would also question that the mindlessness of USADA and their goals to pursue Armstrong for past events which they tried and never succeeded in producing physical evidence when it would have been pertinent. I am curious as whether or not it was misappropriation when using funds that could have been used in other areas: ie testing current athletes for current events and not just cycling. Developing tests that make it more difficult to cheat successfully.

By their own tactics of giving other cyclists during this same time period immunity committing the same offence for offering testimony against Lance and never offering the same deal to Armstrong speak of a authority with limited goals. So simply give me a whale and dope all you want does not move sport forward in my view.

While I will not lament over the suffering Lance will continue to go through as he has himself to blame.

I also will not defend tUSADA as I think it is a broken system and in need of a major overhaul.

Commodus

/shrug. draw a timeline. start with Floyd's emails, include all events up to the reasoned decision. it could not have happened otherwise. who was offered immunity? sentences were reduced based on WADA guidelines...Lance too could have received a reduced sentence had he cooperated. sorry bro, USADA did their job. Lance's PR job notwithstanding.

Gallo

sorry bro you did not answer the question

/shrug

1) Why did USADA have to proceed

2) How is Judge Sparks ignorant

new questions

How many tiles and wins have been stripped besides Lance from cyclists during the time period in question that are associated with this investigation?

How many cyclists that are associated with this investigation admitted they were doping during the time period in question to USADA?

How many other athletes in the history of sport have been stripped of any title for doping with no physical evidence.


I know hide behind the excuse of I am a fanboy or I have been misled by the Lance PR machine. It is so much easier than actually answering questions.

The point that he doped is moot, I will not disagree nor will I feel sorry for Lance having to sleep in a bed that he made.

I would also point out that I think (this is an opinion which is why I start with I think) USADA was more interested in trophy hunting for personal gain than doing their job of regulating sport which covers beyond cycling. I would be happier with USADA if they invested in research and development of tests to catch all current cheaters with their resources rather than chase ghosts from history past.