Armstrong charged and banned

[pubrunner]

As for the point that LA should 'ignore them as an irrelevance' - the only person who could possibly argue that with a straight face is Armstrong himself. It's one step removed from 'only God can judge me'.

Well in a sense, it is an irrelevance. Armstrong is at a stage of his life, where he isn't going to win races - cycling or triathlons. He won his last TdF 7 years ago; he may be guilty of not, but on the strength of his victories, he has accrued considerable money, fame and support and is better placed than just about any other cyclist, to present a rigourous defence.

If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans.

I was a big fan of Eddie Merckx; but years after he retired, I learnt that he had used drugs to gain an advantage. Apparently, he was caught 3 or 4 times, but he claimed that every case was a 'stitch-up'. Well, he would, wouldn't he ? And no doubt Armstrong will do the same - and some will believe him. It seems odd, how so few are prepared to criticise Merckx ?

Hard to see where it will all end; what is sad, is that when 'clean' riders produce astounding performances, they fall under suspicion. Pro cycling is very bittersweet. I still have a couple heroes left and I am keeping my fingers crossed that they won't end up dopers. Hopefully, the testing will get stronger than new doping technologies . Sadly, there is no money to made in testing and tons of money to be made in cheating.

 

[Chuffy]

Well in a sense, it is an irrelevance. Armstrong is at a stage of his life, where he isn't going to win races - cycling or triathlons. He won his last TdF 7 years ago; he may be guilty of not, but on the strength of his victories, he has accrued considerable money, fame and support and is better placed than just about any other cyclist, to present a rigourous defence.

If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans.

I was a big fan of Eddie Merckx; but years after he retired, I learnt that he had used drugs to gain an advantage. Apparently, he was caught 3 or 4 times, but he claimed that every case was a 'stitch-up'. Well, he would, wouldn't he ? And no doubt Armstrong will do the same - and some will believe him. It seems odd, how so few are prepared to criticise Merckx ?

Hard to see where it will all end; what is sad, is that when 'clean' riders produce astounding performances, they fall under suspicion. Pro cycling is very bittersweet. I still have a couple heroes left and I am keeping my fingers crossed that they won't end up dopers. Hopefully, the testing will get stronger than new doping technologies . Sadly, there is no money to made in testing and tons of money to be made in cheating.

If Armstrong doesn't give one, why is he sending lobbyists to put the boot into USADA with senior politicians? Oh and incidentally, it was Merckx who introduced LA to Doc Ferrari. Doping may have been less effective back in Merckx's day, but the morality of it doesn't change and Merckx was a nasty piece of work.

 

[pubrunner]

If Armstrong doesn't give one, why is he sending lobbyists to put the boot into USADA with senior politicians? Oh and incidentally, it was Merckx who introduced LA to Doc Ferrari. Doping may have been less effective back in Merckx's day, but the morality of it doesn't change and Merckx was a nasty piece of work.

I'm not attempting to support Armstrong, I just think that it is all a bit late.

Message to cyclists; cheat & you might get caught years after you've had the money and the glory. If Armstrong has been cheating, he has deprived the first clean rider to have finished behind him; we 'need' to know at the time, so that the 'true' winner may receive the plaudits. I read somewhere, that his guilt is partially based on a sample from 3 years ago - what have they been doing with it ?

More tests need to be carried out, to identify cheats during racing; it could be done, but I'm not sure that the will exists to make it possible.

 

[slowmotion]

It would be so much simpler if "professional" sporting events were fought out between lawyers rather than horrid sweaty people.

 

[yello]

Personally I find the actions of Armstrong questionable and somewhat distasteful, but those of Tygart et al are no better.
if you are happy that the dirty tricks by Tygart et al are acceptable then you are entitled to that opinion, and can dismiss the facts if you wish.

Personally I would have preferred the case to have been heard and established once and for all with a far more reputable and established system than the one being cobbled together at present.

The big problem with this is exactly the fact that by altering rules to suit themselves Tygart et al are going to always give Armstrng the "vendeta" defence even if found guilty, and I suspect this will be exacerbated as Tygart brings the case back again and again if they do fail to get the guilty decision they so desperately crave.

Being found guilty in a court of law would have been a far better result.

I'm astounded. Seriously I am. How can you make such an uninformed post after all that's been discussed?

What are the facts that are being dismissed here? What are the "dirty tricks" you refer to? Which rules are being altered? Please, if you have something to back those claims up then share it.

You are aware I assume that bodies like USADA were created worldwide after national agreement, and empowered by legal systems specifically to deal with doping in sport. They've been in existence for years (not "cobbled together") and have firmly established processes and procedures. Their remit and jurisdiction is tried and tested. They are the 'court of law' for doping. USADA is exactly the right place for the Armstrong case.

Seriously, I prefer blind faith to pretence. Support Armstrong by all means, I can respect that, but don't hide it behind fallacy.

 

[yello]

If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans..

Personally, I think you're wrong there. I think he'd take a USADA sanction IF IF IF he could continue to compete in (and earn money, respect, adoration, etc) from triathlon. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the motivations underpinning his actions at the moment.

 

[yello]

It would be so much simpler if "professional" sporting events were fought out between lawyers rather than horrid sweaty people.

There's actually a salient point to made here! That is (and as I touched on above), bodies like USADA were created partly to remove these disputes from courts of law.

Their creation followed a will, consensus and desire between nations to tackle the increasing problems of doping in sport worldwide. They've been specifically mandated, legislated and resourced to do just that. They can communicate and co-operate across borders in a manner that courts cannot, or have difficulty in doing. This is necessary to combat doping in the global sports field. They have powers that some see as 'unfair' or 'unconstitutional' because they are unable to issue punishments as severe as those available courts of law (loss of liberty, livelihood, etc)

In a nutshell, doping was a problem that national courts were ill-designed to tackle.

 

[rich p]

Someone else reply, because I can't be arsed.

I had to resist for 2 good reasons

1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping

and

2) I knew Yello would be along soon enough to express it much better than I would.

and I was correct, on both counts probably.

 

[swansonj]

You are aware I assume that bodies like USADA were created worldwide after national agreement, and empowered by legal systems specifically to deal with doping in sport. They've been in existence for years (not "cobbled together") and have firmly established processes and procedures. Their remit and jurisdiction is tried and tested. They are the 'court of law' for doping. USADA is exactly the right place for the Armstrong Case.

Yello, I think you conflate two slightly different things. You argue strongly that USADA is the correct body to hear the Armstrong case and that they are following their procedures (which are of course different procedures to a court of law, because they are not a court of law). But I think only a few people who haven't had the chance to understand the setup and a few die-hard LA loyalists would dispute that; for most people, that is a given. The different issue is whether their procedures are the best ones. It is logically possible to agree that USADA are following their procedures, and those procedures are "fair" in the sense that LA agreed to them as all professional athletes within their jurisdiction have, but nonetheless they are "unfair" in the sense that they contravene some element of the individual's rights or that they bias decisions too much in one direction or another or that they contravene natural justice in some way.

I have certainly read suggestions of that nature*. I'm not saying they are necessarily valid criticisms, I find it difficult to disentangle facts from hype. But I am saying it is legitimate to discuss whether USADA's procedures are set up in the best and fairest way possible, without having it thereby implied that you are challenging USADA's legitimacy or jurisdiction or that you are suggesting they are not following their own procedures as they exist at present.

*Off the top of my head, there are issues of knowing who the witnesses against you are; USADA's access to evidence assembled for criminal investigations, specifically the grand jury issue; incentives offered to witnesses; the justification for exempting from the limitations period; the appropriate burden of proof; and probably others as well. I stress I am not taking a view on any of those issues, just saying it is legitimate to debate those issues without being taken as rejecting USADA's jurisdiction or asserting LA's innocence.

 

[Chuffy]

USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html

I think the phrase STFU springs to mind...

 

[Crackle]

I had to resist for 2 good reasons

1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping

and

2) I knew Yello would be along soon enough to express it much better than I would.

and I was correct, on both counts probably.

H'eggzactly.

 

[Crackle]

USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html

I think the phrase STFU springs to mind...

Yep, he can't pick and choose when the rules suit him.

At the risk of repeating myself and everyone else but for the benefit of those who can't grasp the significance. The only thing we are waiting to find out is whether the way the evidence was gathered compromises USADA's independence from the state.

Armstrong, still has the option of appealing to CAS against any findings and probably will if he does finally contest it.

The ramifications of this arbitration have yet to ripple out as far as the UCI and WADA but most of us suspect they will, this one has got plenty of legs in it yet.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

I had to resist for 2 good reasons

1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping

and

2) I knew Yello would be along soon enough to express it much better than I would.

and I was correct, on both counts probably.

Yes.

And to Cunobellin - you really are doing a very good impression of not knowing anything about what's going on or having done anybody else here the favour of having read the rest of the thread. Mind you, you're not alone, someone does this about every 5 pages on Armstrong threads...

 

[yello]

Yello, I think you conflate two slightly different things.

No,I don't think I do. If you refer to a post I made earlier (#876), I highlighted a distinction between jurisdiction and process/method that suggested concerns over the latter.

The different issue is whether their procedures are the best ones.

I agree 100% and also with the substance of the rest of your post. Of course it's possible to question the processes that USADA use (I referred to them only as "tried and tested"). And I agree such questioning doesn't equate to pro-Lance, anti-USADA.

The only thing I would say is that the courts to date have found no fault, and USADA have been questioned in court several times before. Beyond that, we can only speculate that USADA may have done something differently, something outside of the agreed processes. I can see an area for concern but even if a court did rule in favour of Armstrong on that point, I can't see that it changes the substance of the evidence - only the means by which it was collected.

More generally, if people want to argue that the USADA processes are unfair on the grounds of constitutional rights, or human rights etc then I'm going to disagree with them in the context of this case. Debate it on a philosophical or moral level (whatever) by all means (not that that was my intention with this thread) but recognise how this is rooted and will probably play out. I just cannot see the federal court siding with Armstrong on the substance of his complaint and shutting down USADA.

As USADA have said, you don't change the rules for one athlete - no matter who they might be.

 

[yello]

USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html

Nice catch USADA! I liked this....

"Thus, Armstrong clearly understood he was subject to the USADA Protocol, including its results management and adjudication rules," USADA said in its motion Thursday.

This surprised me though....

Thursday's 19-page motion by USADA asks U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks to dismiss Mr. Armstrong's lawsuit

I knew filing for dismissal was an option open to USADA, I just didn't think they'd take it.

And another point I was wrong on (it does happen ); the USADA hearing date is the 13th and not the 10th. I thought both were the same date and, more pertinently, the USADA deadline before the court date. I'm a little baffled how (or even what in truth!) Judge Sparks is going to rule on unless USADA have supplied him with their evidence and answers to his questions re process. As it said in the USA Today article I linked to above....

"Courts are not likely to act clairvoyantly and pre-judge alleged constitutional infirmities before they occur, so he is likely going to have to go through the arbitration process," said Jim Godes, a San Diego attorney with expertise in sports law.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's not going to pan out for Armstrong as he wants. It looks like he's going to have to go through the process before he can show it's unfair, or unconstitutional, or whatever. Even if courts sided in his favour, and any USADA sanction is over turned for reasons of process, then there's a chance the evidence will be out in the public domain.