dperreno

No, Lance's issue is that he HASN'T seen the evidence against him, and he likely wasn't going to see any of it until it was presented at the Arbitration. That is what has gotten Lance AND the UCI AND the Texas judge so wound up. So far all we have are the charges and leaked information about witness testimony. The reason the UCI and WADA haven't gotten on board yet is because they have been left out of the process. Without a ruling by the Arbitration Board, it is up to the UCI and WADA to either accept or reject (appeal?) USADA's recommendation. In order to do that, they need to see the evidence as well. Perhaps it is rock-solid, perhaps not, but Lance was unwilling to walk into that hearing blind, and I don't blame him.

gsteinb

The lifetime ban is because in addition to drug use charges there are charges that he was instrumental in the doping program. There's a long list of witnesses. Some of those asked not to go to the Olympics this year, presumably because they know their suspensions are coming. Those witnesses are there to testify to La's role in that.

As to how they go back so far no clue.

As to the relationship between WADA, USADA, the UCI and the Olympics it's been discussed time and again. I'd suggest google at this point.

asgelle

Pure spin. Armstrong has seen much of the evidence and would have received all of it at least six weeks prior to a hearing.

gsteinb

And in response to the repeated refrain that the gubbernent dropped their case..that case was looking into the allegation that federal funds were used to pay for a doping program. They couldn't proce that beyond a ressonable doubt (court!!) so they let it go. The USADA doesn't need to prove that doping program was paid for with federal funds, merely that there was doping (2 year ban) and that it was an organized program and trafficking was involved (lifetime). Their burden of proof is significantly different. Athletes, by virtue of their racing license, agree to this process. They then have the ability to appeal to the CAS.

Shimagnolo

I get the impression from all the "never failed a test" posts, that there is an assumption that in every doping test, the body fluids that were tested actually came from the cyclist who provided the fluids. Not true, at all. Read Will Voet's "Breaking the Chain" for a run-down on all the sleight-of-hand tricks used to provide clean samples. And remember that Willy's involvement ended in 1998, so there could have been even more tricks developed in the last 14 years.

bikepro

Nice job rationalizing bad conduct. We need to decide what is correct and approriate and hold ourselves and others to that standard. When people are allowed to cheat, regardless who they are, or how they cheat, it just makes it harder on honest people.

dperreno

Can you substantiate that? Both Lance and the UCI have requested copies of the evidence and both claim that it has not yet been provided to them. So far, all I've seen is the charges and various leaks about the nature of the evidence (witness testimony, "fully consistent" blood tests, etc.), but not the actual testimony or blood tests. Did I miss something?

Again, I'm not saying Lance is innocent, I'm just saying that Lance has a point in not agreeing to arbitration when he doesn't even know what the actual evidence is. Remember, for him, this is all about having to prove his innocence, not the USADA proving his guilt. He doesn't know what has been promised to the people testifying against him, they could all be making stuff up and as long as they are consistent, what can he do? Say "They're lying?" And so what if they have some emails or statements that Lance made to other people saying "Yeah, I doped." Taken out of context, what does that really mean? Maybe he was being sarcastic. Maybe he was joking. Maybe he was lying. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

Even if he were innocent (which I don't necessarily believe, though it is possible), agreeing to a process like that without knowing what you need to refute is a losing game. In any case, he should be able to take a good look at the evidence against him before deciding whether he wants to defend himself or just take the penalty. He may be guilty as sin, but that doesn't mean that the process doesn't still suck. I don't believe in allowing the ends to justify the means, and it certainly seems as if that is USADA's approach.

Cat4Lifer

For those of you who wonder: why now? Lance was too big an ass and made too many enemies.
Here's an interesting article from cyclingnews.com where former Armstrong team-mate Savoldelli
offers his insight as to why Armstrong got popped:

fietsbob

All the 'no contest' pleas by individuals and corporations in a court of law .
were at least in a coutr with rules of discovery, and to confront witnesses against you. etc.

But this was not going thru a Court.. May have been run by Marsupials,
since I hear The Australians give Cadel the win (#7?) since every one ahead of him fell into suspicion..

Maybe all the money is the problem and the physiological manipulations to the racers
is like animal abuse at the dog track, for the same reason .. Money...
'the root of all Evil'.

gsteinb

Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the case, finding that the arbitration system set up specifically for sports doping cases was sufficient to provide a fair hearing, and that USADA's rules provide for ample time for discovery of evidence prior to the hearing.

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lanc...-usada-charges

Armstrong's attorneys filed the suit in Texas arguing that USADA's procedures were a violation of his constitutional right to due process, and also contended that USADA did not have jurisdiction over the case. They and the UCI claimed that the case belonged in the hands of the sport's governing body because the UCI collected the blood passport samples that USADA used to back up its claims to its review board earlier this year.

USADA filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating that these claims were untrue, citing the World Anti-Doping Agency's code, which states that the body which discovers the anti-doping rule violation has jurisdiction to pursue a penalty.

The judge chose to dismiss the case because "Armstrong's due process claims lack merit" and "the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grant equitable relief on those claims".



https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judg...armstrong-suit

asgelle

Do you keep repeating the big lie hoping people will be fooled? Again, this is completely false. Had Armstrong chosen to go to arbitration, USADA would have had to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence before a panel of arbitrators chosen from AAA and following AAA rules. But you knew that didn't you?

gear

I would appreciate it if you left Bill Russell's name out of this. If you think he cheated in any way, you obviously know nothing about the man.

Campag4life

You and others that want to burn Lance at the stake are simply wrong. When Lance dominated, the sport was rampant with cheating...including all the sweet, jealous and lessor racers that will testify against Lance. They all cheated. In fact, baseball, track, swimming and football are fought with cheaters. Nice guys don't win. Its a shark tank.
This whole witchhunt is a farce and reduces cycling to a fraud. This isn't a smear on Lance. It is a smear on the way the sport of cycling is regulated.Lance knows that others understand this as well including his sponsors.
The editor of Bicycle mag was interviewed on cable news and asked what this will do to Lance's legacy. He said correctly that Lance is the greatest cyclist of our generation which he is without question and won't change.

Mayday328

Glad to see Lance go down. Here is a nice chart on his "500" tests:

paperbackbiker

Okay, first off, I. Glad to find this thread cause no one around me seems to find this story as sad and confusing as I do.

Part of thinks that if lance did dope and another entity helped to cover it up, then this is not lance's fault. If the anti doping agency or even his own doctors caught him and did nothing to turn him in, then lance would have been robbed of a chance to return to cycling after a ban.

Personally, I'm following Phil Liggitt (sp?) on this. Today, Phil says that the uci is weighing the usada's decision before it complies with their findings and that we should reserve judgement until then. He also said we may never know...

It just pisses me off that Greg Lemond, who spoke out a long time ago against lance (in a really arrogant manner) may be proven right.

bikepro

Let's just agree to disagree. I'm not going to convince you, nor you I. This will be the topic of debate for the foreseable future.

Bob Dopolina 

Nice.

I've been looking for a similar graph that addresses his "most tested athlete in history" BS as well but can't find it anymore.

Savagewolf

Whether it's 236 or 500 tests I doubt that many atheletes have had to go through as many tests. Another point is that it's very easy for people to manipulate charts or data to make them fit their needs, like this chart may of well done.

Bob Dopolina 

Seriously?

Look at the number of test track and field athletes go through. They dwarf LA's bogus claims.

How could this chart have been manipulated? It's not a statistic, it's a VERY detaied breakdown of every test done, when and by whom.

Denying fanboys keep on denying...

Rx Rider

wow, manipulating charts now? really?
Most cyclists competed in far more races and tours than Lance did, so they would also have had to do more testing than him. really.

JonnyHK 

And here is where the chart comes from...
https://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

Also, the article that convinced me...
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
https://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

dwellman

Here's the way I see it: I may distrust Lance but I distrust quasi-government agencies more.

Lance wins by default until 1) a positive result is proven, or 2) he makes a positive admission of guilt (like Pete Rose).

I don't think I'd have gone to arbitration either. It's worse than court: decisions are FOREVER. Cannot be appealed or vacated.

Giacomo 1 

As a guy that has to take mandatory and random drug test's for my job, I cringe at the thought that I could pass the test, but be accused of doing drugs by my co-workers and therefore be fired for the mere accusation, here-say, and "testimony" of them. This is apparently what seemed to happen to Lance.

It should be the test, and the test alone. It's pass/fail. Pass your good to go, fail and your out. Anything else and you open up a Pandoras box full of trouble. Testimony from co-workers or team mates should not be allowed to be used against somebody. It is fraught with danger. It is a downright scary thought that it could happen...

kenyan_boy

I thought it was "innocent until proven guilty". But in LA's case it is "guilty until accused proves himself innocent".

Cliff Notes version of the LA-USADA-WADA-UCI drama: "We're sending you to the gallows while we withhold the evidence from you. It is your responsibility that while on the plank you gather sufficient evidence to convince us that you're innocent".

This will continue, to infinity and beyond. This too shall pass.

gsteinb

Why is it is hard to get that it isn't a court if law, and that his innocent under proven guilty comes in arbitration which he's declining?