Whether it applies retrospectively or what the status of a "comment" is I don't know.
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Flying Dodo
It'll soon be summer
Although Hamilton's book will explain a lot, I'm sure some details about how Lance managed to get away with it for so long won't be fully known. He's never going to change his line about never testing positive.
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
"I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...
But also Article 2.1.2 itself says:
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample.
i.e. it would appear that testing the B sample alone and getting a positive is not in itself enough. It has to be measured in the A sample and that measurement be confirmed by the B sample if requested. This is further supported by Article 7.1 which requires the process to be kicked off by an adverse finding on the A sample and 7.2 requires that the athlete is informed and can request a confirmatory test of the B sample. As you note they can still go ahead with the B sample test without that request but 7.2e requires that the athlete or his representative have the opportunity to attend the B sample opening and testing as CB has said.So if this has been done then its in violation of the WADA Code.
Now the question is then do they still have the A samples to re-test? The retention rules say they should only be retained for 8 years unless the samples are anonymous when they can be retained indefinitely for scientific purposes. i.e. they cannot be retained more than 8 years for retesting. That limits the number of samples that could have been re-tested to those post 2004.
Interesting.. Covers consent, but not the practice.
The test can be carried out without consent or authority of the individual - that has always been the case and is not in dispute. It is a well documented step.
What is questionable is the given right of the individual (or their representative) to be present when the test is carried out.
The WADC (2009) states that :
It would be a shame if the biggest verifiable piece of proof of Armstrong's guilt was disqualified on the grounds of USADA's misconduct
As an aside, WADA is suggesting that they should be able to remove the B sample testing altogether... In APril 2011 David Howman stated that:
Noodley
Guest
Can I interupt the quoting and re-quoting and interpretation of testing laws for a few seconds and ask a quick question of Red Light and Cunobelin - because I have lost track...
Do you think Armstrong doped? A simple yes or no reply would suffice, no hiding behind lengthy waffle if you please.
Do you think Armstrong doped? A simple yes or no reply would suffice, no hiding behind lengthy waffle if you please.
I've saved them the effort Noods - they'll probably send me a thank-you PM anytime now.
Listen you impudent Scottish muppet, I don't know whether he doped, I have little or no interest in professional cycle racing (is that what it's called?), I have no interest in finding the truth, but I'm fascinated to a morbid degree in nit-picking the legal minutiae and semantics of the case because I have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe that what I think, actually has an influence on the way the UCI and USADA act.
Personally, I'm not getting too worked up about those test results until I hear some kind of official comment. Tbh, I didn't see the programme (on French tele) and I find the reports a little vague. So I'll worry about who can test what, and when, with or without consent, once we've worked out what's being talked about here.
I have said a few posts above my personal opinion is its unlikely he would have been able to compete in a field of now known dopers without having been on what they were on. However we don't convict people in this country on personal opinion polls (thank God) but on an examination of the evidence to standards of beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities. And so far the official evidence that is public says he didn't dope and the new evidence that is alleged says he did is being held secret by USADA. And until that evidence is published and available for review then he has the benefit of the innocent until proven guilty standard in my book and, I would suggest, should have in everyone else's books. Because doing it by public opinion polls in the presence of rumour and absence of the official evidence is just a lynch mob mentality.
Thank you for letting us know your position in this debate. That must have been very difficult for you but they assure me you will feel better for it
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
This tallies with how I understood the procedure.
Here's a speculative theory...
The USADA retested the A samples from 2004 and 2005 (still within the 8yr cutoff), maybe using new tests that weren't available at the time, or maybe testing for different markers or masking agents they didn't know about at the time. Some or more of the samples tested positive.
Maybe they did then ask Lance if he wanted the B samples tested and he waived that right.
Instead, he chose to question the USADA's jurisdictional legitimacy. That failed. Then he decided to throw in the towel, hoping that would prevent the evidence coming to light.
As for procedural violations, isn't the basis for the USADA taking the case back further than the 8 year cutoff that Lance himself was guilty of procedural violations?
That would explain Tygart's comments about letting him keep five of his titles - they've presented Lance with damning evidence relating to 2004 and 2005 and said we'll leave it at that if you help us catch the even bigger fish...
This is pure conjecture but it shows that the USADA doesn't necessarily have to break the rules - nor even bend them that far - if they want to get their man. Nor does it imply that Lance is their only - or even necessarily their main - target. Claims of a witch hunt are a smokescreen - one of many such tactics Lance has employed. Unsuccessfully.
Of course, none of us knows what evidence the USADA actually have. We don't know if there's any truth in this positive test story, and even if it is true we don't know how the positives were obtained.
We do know that the USADA has evidence though, whatever form that evidence may take. You can continue to be sceptical until you've seen it with your own eyes, that's your prerogative, but I choose to believe that they aren't lying when they say they have evidence, and furthermore, I take Lance's actions as tacit acceptance that their case is strong. I don't buy the "too tired to fight any more" line. It doesn't ring true.
d.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
No he hasn't, as yet.
He's been banned from competing in events subject to governance by WADA/USADA which means he can happily compete in, for example, mountain bike racing, triathlons and a fair few road races in the states.
They are all cheats by the way. Including most of the ones who don't wear lycra and ride desks and lab tables.
- Status
