How did Landis pass every test but the last one? he didn't really take something that night that made the difference the next day, did he?
Lance Armstrong Formally Charged with Doping by USADA
- Thread starter Time to Mo Vaughn
- Start date
Lance is now accusing the USADA of selectively prosecuting him.
Trouble is, his effectiveness in the TDF, and his status as a dominant American captain of a cycling team, makes him stand somewhat alone anyway. What other Lance Armstrong comps are there? Tyler Hamilton/Floyd Landis? Well, that does not work due to their obvious ties to Armstrong and his subsequent drug test failures and multiple bans. Who should the USADA "really" be going after instead of Armstrong?
I mean it would be one thing if Lance wanted to come forward somehow and make a similar deal, but he's committed to a "never used" stance at this point. So I really don't see how this can be "vendetta" like - unless he's alleging that the USADA head was also responsible for all of the other accusations which have previously been made. Which I don't think is the case.
Trouble is, his effectiveness in the TDF, and his status as a dominant American captain of a cycling team, makes him stand somewhat alone anyway. What other Lance Armstrong comps are there? Tyler Hamilton/Floyd Landis? Well, that does not work due to their obvious ties to Armstrong and his subsequent drug test failures and multiple bans. Who should the USADA "really" be going after instead of Armstrong?
I mean it would be one thing if Lance wanted to come forward somehow and make a similar deal, but he's committed to a "never used" stance at this point. So I really don't see how this can be "vendetta" like - unless he's alleging that the USADA head was also responsible for all of the other accusations which have previously been made. Which I don't think is the case.
Selective prosecution is a poor argument. That they also could be going after other competitors does not negatively reflect on a case against him. Not to mention that there are good reasons for them to be gunning for him over other U.S. athletes.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/tour-de-france/teammates-to-testify-against-lance-armstrong/story-fn8s9i81-1226418109647
Well, now they'd rather go after a retired rider than current riders? The supposed deal is so sweet, it does begin to strain their credibility (I don't doubt Armstrong doped, but he has passed every test.)
"Here's the deal, you testify that you and Armstrong doped together, you'll get a slap on the wrist. Deny it, and we'll end your racing career with accusations and you can go get a real job in this rotten economy."
They are older guys (especially Hincapie) and there future livelihood gets dinged by confessing, but I think this is an opening for the Armstrong defense. "Liars (Hamilton and Landis) and those who were too scared to stand up for the truth. That's what you've got? How did all those tests turn out?"
I hope they have more if they really want to win. And is there a trial? A judge? A jury?
Here's the problem with cutting deals to witnesses. Even though the deal is contingent upon "telling the truth" or the dirtier version of "telling what we rehearsed", the witnesses don't give a shit. They know they're between a rock and a hard place, they're disengaged and don't have any loyalty to the side asking the questions. When cross examination comes up, they're sometimes more friendly with that side than the side that calls them. It leads to wildly inconsistent testimony that often leaves holes in the story, mainly because they just don't give a shit. They don't want to be there, they fucking hate the position they're in, and they don't care about the outcome of the case.
If your case is 100% based on the testimony of multiple witnesses you've cut deals with, you're pretty much fucked. The testimony will be all over the board, and if its not, you're screwed because it will reek of over-rehearsal. But it becomes less of an issue if there is not a jury, and on that I don't know.
If your case is 100% based on the testimony of multiple witnesses you've cut deals with, you're pretty much fucked. The testimony will be all over the board, and if its not, you're screwed because it will reek of over-rehearsal. But it becomes less of an issue if there is not a jury, and on that I don't know.
It will also depend on the number of former riders and how detailed their testimony is as a whole. I'd be somewhat inclined to believe 10 guys (even with sweet deals) saying pretty much the same thing **if** there's other corroborating evidence or testimony. The 1999 EPO test for Lance may not be enough.
I'm curious to know if there's any hard evidence at all.
One possible defense Lance's team might explore is the "placebo" defense. I don't think it's a crime (or violation in this case) to tell someone you're giving them magic juice, when you're giving them ordinary orange juice. Or oil in this case. Seems like there's a proof difficulty there. On the other hand, blood doping is a bit more difficult to pass off this way - "and so we reintroduced the unaltered blood, just to make him believe that he could accomplish more on the bike. . ."
I'm curious to know if there's any hard evidence at all.
One possible defense Lance's team might explore is the "placebo" defense. I don't think it's a crime (or violation in this case) to tell someone you're giving them magic juice, when you're giving them ordinary orange juice. Or oil in this case. Seems like there's a proof difficulty there. On the other hand, blood doping is a bit more difficult to pass off this way - "and so we reintroduced the unaltered blood, just to make him believe that he could accomplish more on the bike. . ."
There are people that believe Lance didn't cheat? I've only followed this casually... but I had no idea.
Barry is black.
Lance showed a generation you can overcome cancer and then win repeatedly in the dirtiest sport there is, in its dirtiest period and people in America will consider you clean and you'll get to bang Sheryl Crowe.
Lance showed a generation you can overcome cancer and then win repeatedly in the dirtiest sport there is, in its dirtiest period and people in America will consider you clean and you'll get to bang Sheryl Crowe.
I think Lance was cheating but that being said, likely no person in the history of athletics has been tested more than he was, and he passed every one of them...usually in cycling, a doper gets caught somehow, some domestique or trainer or somebody gets caught with the treasure trove of blood builders and medications or the guy fails a test, and he didn't, so I don't think he should be stripped of his Tour de France titles (and I don't give a crap about dirty Floyd Landis's testimony, he'd say anything if you shoved a microphone or a tape recorder in his face at this point).
Now if his blood samples taken in 08 and 09 that USADA say are dirty are dirty, then fine, he should be suspended for life going forward but I don't think that they have the jurisdiction or the right to then go all the way back through his career and take away all of his titles.
Now if his blood samples taken in 08 and 09 that USADA say are dirty are dirty, then fine, he should be suspended for life going forward but I don't think that they have the jurisdiction or the right to then go all the way back through his career and take away all of his titles.
Nobody knows what the USADA has on Armstrong, so making judgments about whether this is a fair punishment or not is premature.
To wit, an interview with USADA CEO Travis Tygart:
Deadspin via VeloNation
I'm a PED agnostic, but I am fascinated witnessing people's cognitive determinations based on whether the press liked a specific athlete or not. According to the standards of reasonable doubt held by the anti-steroid fire-breathers, Armstrong should have been the biggest villain in sports for years.
To wit, an interview with USADA CEO Travis Tygart:
Deadspin via VeloNation
I'm a PED agnostic, but I am fascinated witnessing people's cognitive determinations based on whether the press liked a specific athlete or not. According to the standards of reasonable doubt held by the anti-steroid fire-breathers, Armstrong should have been the biggest villain in sports for years.
I just find this whole thing very sad. Call me naive, I prefer a sporting romantic, but I always wanted to believe he was clean and that the yellow wristband I've worn for the last 7 years or so meant something.
Maybe Livestrong can still mean something and I have to divorce myself from the Lance of the professional cyclist and cheat and just concentrate on the cancer survivor and charity worker. This creates a more fundamental problem to me and the way I view athletes as it's now become obvious that it's time I put away the rose-tinted spectacles.
My disgust & hatred for any pro athlete who cheats knows no-bounds, whoever they may be, even if one of my sporting heroes is now shown to be a fraud. Sad.
Maybe Livestrong can still mean something and I have to divorce myself from the Lance of the professional cyclist and cheat and just concentrate on the cancer survivor and charity worker. This creates a more fundamental problem to me and the way I view athletes as it's now become obvious that it's time I put away the rose-tinted spectacles.
My disgust & hatred for any pro athlete who cheats knows no-bounds, whoever they may be, even if one of my sporting heroes is now shown to be a fraud. Sad.
Well he definitely still means something to cancer survivors - whether or not he cheated, his wins in the TDF have given him an amazing amount of wealth and opportunity to help others. So far that help has come in at the tune of $500 million...half a billion bucks to his foundation. Yes, I know not every penny goes to cancer research - but an awful lot of it does. And an awful lot of his time does. Whatever your personal opinions are about his professional life and whether or not he's a cheat, that yellow band still signifies something that's bigger than cheating, bigger than sport, bigger than the USADA - it signifies hope for a lot of people. I hope people can see that he's done so much good with his spoils and riches that some may see as "ill-begotten." I know I see it.
The fundamental difference between Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong is that the bulk of Bond's alleged doping took place during an era where the rules of his sport were ambiguous on the matter, while Armstrong's offenses occurred at a time where the rules of cycling clearly and firmly prohibited what he was doing.
Barry Bonds, like many ball players of his day, exploited the grey area created by MLB's ambivalent regulatory approach towards doping (and yes I know about the "Vincent Memo". A comprehensive, clearly communicated and enforced anti-doping policy is made up of more than a one-page letter).
Lance Armstrong, like many cyclists of his day, appears to have gone to great conspiratorial lengths to systematically violate well established rules set in place by UCI, and to engineer his way around constant enforcement efforts.
Armstrong's choice not to fight these charges is disappointing. I was looking forward to this thing really being contended - to being fought publicly, and ultimately ending in total public shame for Armstrong, or in a more or less final vindication. I am glad to hear USADA will in due time share what they have on him.
Of the three options facing him, either asserting his innocence and fighting, admitting he was caught and manning up to his acts or just giving up without admission as he is, he has certainly chosen the path of least character...although I guess it seems that's what he has been doing as an athlete for so many years already.
Barry Bonds, like many ball players of his day, exploited the grey area created by MLB's ambivalent regulatory approach towards doping (and yes I know about the "Vincent Memo". A comprehensive, clearly communicated and enforced anti-doping policy is made up of more than a one-page letter).
Lance Armstrong, like many cyclists of his day, appears to have gone to great conspiratorial lengths to systematically violate well established rules set in place by UCI, and to engineer his way around constant enforcement efforts.
Armstrong's choice not to fight these charges is disappointing. I was looking forward to this thing really being contended - to being fought publicly, and ultimately ending in total public shame for Armstrong, or in a more or less final vindication. I am glad to hear USADA will in due time share what they have on him.
Of the three options facing him, either asserting his innocence and fighting, admitting he was caught and manning up to his acts or just giving up without admission as he is, he has certainly chosen the path of least character...although I guess it seems that's what he has been doing as an athlete for so many years already.
Forgive the naivete, but exactly why is it a given that Armstrong is guilty merely because he's no longer choosing to fight the charges against him? What if his statements are true and he simply lacks the energy to continue? What am I missing here?
I know, I know, it's silly of me to think he's anything but dirty, Still, there seems to be a general conclusion that's being drawn and I'd like to know why that is.
I know, I know, it's silly of me to think he's anything but dirty, Still, there seems to be a general conclusion that's being drawn and I'd like to know why that is.
This step will also kill his ambitions in Ironman triathlon. No way WTC will let him race as a professional triathlete. The USADA charge forced WTC to suspend him earlier this year from racing Ironman; they can't let him back in after this. His life as a professional athlete is done.
[quote name='Trautwein's Degree' timestamp='1345809526' post='4294898']Testing is completely worthless.[/quote]Melky Cabrera, Bartolo Colon and Manny respectfully disagree.
I don't think you are missing anything.
The USADA is a self-important group of fanatics that does not respect the rule of law or the concept of due process. Armstrong appears to have concluded that to contest the charges in a forum that would resemble a kangeroo court is to lend credence to the process, and he's decided not to take part.
None of this means that he isn't dirty - he almost certainly is. But unless there is physical evidence that has not been reported, we're not going to see proof of that from a process where almost all of the evidence against Armstrong was strong-armed from individuals under threat of punishment.
As to those who would compare Bonds and Armstrong, there are certainly similarities - especially with regard to the character of the two men in question and the maniacal, jihad-like focus of those who have pursued them across decades with no sense of perspective and no respect for due process. Bonds ultimately had the "good fortune" to have his case heard in a courtroom governed by strict rules of evidence, which is why he was not convicted of perjury. Armstrong had no such luck, which means he will be destroyed because a witch had to be burned for others to feel purified.
At the end of the day, I have little sympathy for Lance Armstrong. I have nothing but disgust for the USADA.
But, but...without presumed guilt we won't get our daily dose of self-righteous indignation!!
Tearing down our heroes is of course an American pastime, and much of the time the objects of said game are well-deserving of the honor. But it's just very interesting to me that he's automatically assumed to be lying and guilty when he says he no longer has the will to continue the fight, which has been going on since...when, 1998?
Again, I realize these are all very naive questions.
Tearing down our heroes is of course an American pastime, and much of the time the objects of said game are well-deserving of the honor. But it's just very interesting to me that he's automatically assumed to be lying and guilty when he says he no longer has the will to continue the fight, which has been going on since...when, 1998?
Again, I realize these are all very naive questions.
And now the United States can resume not caring about cycling. Oh wait, we already did that when Lance Armstrong retired.
We don't need to ban doping in cycling, we need to ban cycling. They are all cheating.
We don't need to ban doping in cycling, we need to ban cycling. They are all cheating.
There are still cheaters; there always will be, but I think it's gotten infinitely better. The wattage outputs from the top riders now are much more in line with what they should be and you see top riders crack from time to time going up steep climbs and they'll start climbing and then hit the wall and have to drop back into a group, that's something you hardly ever saw in the late 90s or earlier in the 2000s.
Well the USADA has a job to do just like everybody else. Shouldn't your issue be more with WADA?
I don't have a horse in this race (cyclist in this tour?), but I think it's useful to consider context. Armstrong put together a superlative string of success in a period we know to be one of the dirtiest in all of sports, in a sport that we know to be one of the dirtiest. So many successful cyclists during this period were found (or admitted) to have doped. When one guy wins seven in field full of PEDs-users, there will always be a cloud of suspicion.
Between this setting, some circumstantial evidence (Landis's admitted doping), and testimony of teammates (and others), this all puts Armstrong's cleanliness in deep question. Physical evidence is of course necessary for firm knowledge, so it doesn't help that testing regime itself is woeful and easy to beat, by most accounts.
The tone of this Tygart guy seems all personal and witchhunt-y, but his character doesn't change the fact that there is legitimate question about Armstrong's victories. He could be a Michael Phelps or he could be a Mark McGwire. We'll probably never know.
OK, then how come Greg LeMond, three time Tour winner (and likely could have won 5) not get put through the same process?
Armstrong may well be a cheater, but the tenor of much of the investigation strikes me as fantastically vindictive and personal. The object doesn't seem to be to clean up the sport, the object appears to be to tear Armstrong down at all costs.
Armstrong may well be a cheater, but the tenor of much of the investigation strikes me as fantastically vindictive and personal. The object doesn't seem to be to clean up the sport, the object appears to be to tear Armstrong down at all costs.
LeMond didn't turn into an asshole until after he retired.
(I hate the presumed guilt, I hate the witch hunting, but if anyone brought it on himself, it is Lance - being an asshole to basically everyone in the sport while you are dominating its signature event is a good way to paint a bright target on your back)
(I hate the presumed guilt, I hate the witch hunting, but if anyone brought it on himself, it is Lance - being an asshole to basically everyone in the sport while you are dominating its signature event is a good way to paint a bright target on your back)
I think mostly timing, partly LeMond's style himself. The 80s drug-testing regime was less rigorous and there fewer people caught. If wiki is to be believed, LeMond has a vigorous anti-doping stance and spent some time trying to get Landis to admit doping. This all probably unfairly insulates him.
Agreed. Tygart seems to be treating this awfully personally.
He never denied that. In fact (I think) he admitted freely that he took tons of stuff that is banned durring his cancer treatments. It's the reason he survived the treatments.
Duriny my cancer treatments I took lots of white blood cell boosters that are strictly banned by USADA and had I bbeen tested by USADA I would have failed, but they alowed me to go about my daily life while getting pumped full of tons of very tixic chemicals that destroyed my cancer. They also damaged white blood cells, hence the booster.
While cancer treatment almost always includes steroids, your interpretation wasn't the meaning intended. If I were to guess, this lack of clarity was brought you by the punctuation-hating AP style guide.
Here's a rephrase: "During his cancer treatments in 1996, Armstrong informed doctors that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and PEDs" Which implies that these drugs were unrelated to his cancer treatment (and thus presumably part of his cycling endeavors). Maybe that's not what his wife said, but that's the meaning the articles are trying to convey.
EDIT: Really, why would you need to inform the people treating you that you're on allopathic steroids? The point of this claim is to say that Armstrong admitted to having doped prior to cancer / treatment.
Betsy is Frankie Androu's wife.
And, the re-phrase should be "Frankie and Betsy Androu said that Armstrong told his oncologists that he had used a cornucopia of steroids and PEDs."
Your own presumption of guilt has fucked with your ability to parse language even when you are correcting someone else (or you didn't read where the quote came from, but since you mention Betsy "his wife" I kind of assumed that you did). The power of negative thinking. Nothing against you personally, I'm talking more about the general rhetoric.
And, the re-phrase should be "Frankie and Betsy Androu said that Armstrong told his oncologists that he had used a cornucopia of steroids and PEDs."
Your own presumption of guilt has fucked with your ability to parse language even when you are correcting someone else (or you didn't read where the quote came from, but since you mention Betsy "his wife" I kind of assumed that you did). The power of negative thinking. Nothing against you personally, I'm talking more about the general rhetoric.
Thanks, that's me mis-reading, and not noticing that it was corrected above.
This doesn't follow at all. I have no presumption. I was parsing the accusation, not the accuser. Nice try, though.
Assuming that the TdF goes along with the USADA's demand to officially vacate the titles that Armstrong won, your new Tour de France champions:
1999: Alex Zulle, admitted blood doper.
2000 - 01: Jan Ullrich, big-time blood doper
2002: Joseba Beloki, accused blood doper, cleared on a technicality
2003: Jan Ullrich, see above
2004: Andreas Kloden, accused blood doper
2005: Ivan Basso, admitted blood doper
(copied from a post by someone else on another board)
1999: Alex Zulle, admitted blood doper.
2000 - 01: Jan Ullrich, big-time blood doper
2002: Joseba Beloki, accused blood doper, cleared on a technicality
2003: Jan Ullrich, see above
2004: Andreas Kloden, accused blood doper
2005: Ivan Basso, admitted blood doper
(copied from a post by someone else on another board)
I misunderstood the timing there, thanks.
He would do this because it could cause SERIOUS health risks if he didn't. If his doctors didn't know everything that was going on in his body they wouldn't be able to treat it properly.
True, and completely reasonable. This is why I said "allopathic" - presumably the doctors treating him know that they're treating him with. I think the reference to "performance enhancing drugs" was to drive that point home. The whole idea of this accusation is to drive doubt about Armstrong's credibility by claiming he admitted doping when the chips were down.
Yeah, I think part of the reason there was no outcry about Lance was that everyone's known for decades that all the cyclists cheat--PED use goes back at least to 1924. Same reason every successive steroid user gets less backlash, while the early suspects were demonized.
All but 3 winners from Armstrong back to 1976 either tested positive, admitted use, or were sanctioned (or some combination thereof). It's more than half of champions going back to 1950. That's not counting people who've had persistent rumors but were never caught. And there are years (e.g. 2003, 2005) where there are only 2 riders in the top 10 finishers at the Tour (Armstrong aside) who haven't been caught doping by test or confession.
It has more to do with the American need for heroes. Nobody gets more hype and become more overblown than an American star. America loves to create gods not heroes.
But the USA also has free press that often does its job and due process shows there is no god. And when a hero falls? Big deal. He inspired us for a while sold papers served his purpose. The fall serves a purpose too, because now that he rose so high, so ridiculously high over-inflated USA USA USA high, his fall tells the public he wasn't better than us, and that feels good too.
It is a narrative structure everyone loves it. The Brits are better at the tearing down part.
2nd thing. If your job is to stop cheating and some motherfucker cheats himself to godlike status, and flaunts the rules if has to fucking burn like a bitch. How can anyone call going after a huge star that cheated petty? They didn't spend ten years taking away an Panamerican games bronze in water polo. This guy was one of the biggest celebrities in sports painting himself like a fucking saint. How can anyone call that petty? I am glad there are guys in he USA going after their own guys. It shows integrity and is the free press truth side of a democracy. If you look the other way as your heroes cheat you are the USSR or some backwards ass place, or what the rest of the world thinks the USA is. But thank fuck the USA isn't like those other places.
If the guy cheated to win a few races it would mean very little to me. But he created an industry out of his own integrity and will, so fuck him and everyone he let down by believing the hype.
Donations to LiveStrong Foundation were up something like 25% in the last few days. Lance's fans will always be his fans, and those who don't like him will now say "i told you so." so really, nothing is going to change for him. I don't believe the USADA can summarily strip him of any of this TdF wins. The International Cycling Union is who decides that.
So, if Lance's victories get "stripped", does that mean they automatically go to the presumed 2nd place finisher? I don't believe an American finished 2nd in any of those 7 years, which means that the "winner" would be outside the jurisdiction of the USADA. So who determines if the new "winners" are clean? And will the governing body making such determination go through the same efforts as the USADA to investigate the "winners"?
I think this is why folks will continue to support Armstrong over the USADA. I can't imagine anyone really believes that "justice" is served by stripping Armstrong of his wins, given the PED-infested history of this sport.
I think this is why folks will continue to support Armstrong over the USADA. I can't imagine anyone really believes that "justice" is served by stripping Armstrong of his wins, given the PED-infested history of this sport.
I think it will be a big clusterfuck for the TdF because several of the second place winners actually have already been charged by the ICU for doping during those years so they might have to drill down a bit to find someone "cleanish"