Dave Davenport
Guru
- Location
- Hampshire
Sorry, but I don't think anyone believes LA is average.
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Sorry, but I don't think anyone believes LA is average.
The Straubel report does raise some interesting points, and there are a few which are so basic that anyone with an open mind could see how there are real issues that could be exploited to get Armstrong off the hook
Questioning is the right way forward.
You are correct, (and despite the inane rantings and abuse of some here) this is the point.
If one really has a care about cycling, it's public image and the future then Armstrong needs to be found unequivocally guilty or unequivocally not guilty.
The cases I posted show exactly how technicalities have reversed decisions in the past, this is the worst case - if Armstrong manages to get out on a technicality then professional cycling will continue to suffer from the dropout.
As one US reporter put it....
This post really speaks volumes about your personal standards... If I ever stoop that low, I think it will be time to leave.
albion
Guest
That is the impression I usually got from those convinced he was guilty.
That was before taking any real interest in the, no doubt forever, puzzling story.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
These Bose Idiot Cancelling headphones are remarkably effective. Just send in the coupon in your Sunday supplement magazine for a free trial! Full refund if not fully satisfied.
Could you fill me in as to the relevance please? Are you aware that the NFL have their own drug testing, as do many/most professional sports leagues in the USA? So it's outside USADA's jurisdiction.
I don't know what the NFL's procedures are for testing, violations, sanctioning etc (I suspect it's in the players' contracts) and I don't know if they use the same arbitration process as USADA.
One of the purposes of USADA is to provide a more efficient/streamlined arbitration and sanctioning process and avoid prolonged battles clogging up the federal courts.
Yes it is but it is a parallel that suggests that state and federal law could have primacy over drug testing bodies. The difference between NFL and cyclists is that the NFL players have the NFLPA union fighting for them. In cycling the cyclists are on their own and running the arbitration case bankrupted Landis so its a process only accessible to the most successful and wealthiest of sports personalities.
There is an interesting Bulgarian case where CAS overturned a ban on two athletes for nandralone use because the testing protocol had not been properly followed. I wonder what the testing protocols are for USADA, what they allow in terms of testing years after the event and what validation there is for the storage of samples and the testing after such long periods. In the UK the shelf life for whole blood in blood banks is 35 days so its unclear what the consequences would be in the testing of degradation of the blood samples kept for longer periods. If the tests came from LNDD in France then there are plenty admissions in the Landis transcripts that they did not follow procedures and the USADA acknowledged this was an issue in that case. So its not finished until the CAS lady sings anyway.
Union type representation, and consultation with cyclists was one of the Straubel report findings.
As fr the bllod testing of the previous samples, that is one of the controversies as no-one actually knows how EPO acts when stored, and how the balance of different types is affected.
The biggest problem being that the A samples tested negative at the time, and the B samples can only be used in certain circumstances with the athlete being informed.
The testing performed in this case on the B samples is in contravention of USADA's own rules, statutes, and time scales. Also the USDA requires BOTH samples to be positive. SO as the A samples were negative the bod test results do not actually meet USADA's criteria for a positive test.
As Chuffy has posted earlier, this may or may no be part of the case, and the fact that they could be challenged on USADA's own procedures is an interesting posssibility
As fr the bllod testing of the previous samples, that is one of the controversies as no-one actually knows how EPO acts when stored, and how the balance of different types is affected.
The biggest problem being that the A samples tested negative at the time, and the B samples can only be used in certain circumstances with the athlete being informed.
The testing performed in this case on the B samples is in contravention of USADA's own rules, statutes, and time scales. Also the USDA requires BOTH samples to be positive. SO as the A samples were negative the bod test results do not actually meet USADA's criteria for a positive test.
As Chuffy has posted earlier, this may or may no be part of the case, and the fact that they could be challenged on USADA's own procedures is an interesting posssibility
interview with McQuaid
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-disavows-uci-responsibility-in-armstrong-case
Cyclingnews: Because I'm with Cyclingnews and it's my job to be a downer, I would like you to comment on an article in the New York Daily News (by Nathaniel Vinton), who wrote, "If USADA’s case against Armstrong is valid, then professional cycling has been the victim of breathtaking corruption", bigger than any other sport. If USADA can prove its case, how does that impact the UCI, cycling in the Olympics - if a sport is going to get voted out of the Games in Rio...
Pat McQuaid: First of all, I have said and the UCI said they won't comment on the Armstrong case until it's over.
Secondly, to give you a brief comment on what you just said, it's not going to have any effect on cycling. If guys are beating the system, they're beating WADA's system, they're beating the controls. The UCI can't do anything about that. We don't control the laboratories and what they can and cannot test for, it's WADA that controls all that. If there are cyclists beating controls, then there are athletes from other sports beating the controls. We saw that with Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. You can't therefore blame that on the UCI or on the sport of cycling.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-disavows-uci-responsibility-in-armstrong-case
Cyclingnews: Because I'm with Cyclingnews and it's my job to be a downer, I would like you to comment on an article in the New York Daily News (by Nathaniel Vinton), who wrote, "If USADA’s case against Armstrong is valid, then professional cycling has been the victim of breathtaking corruption", bigger than any other sport. If USADA can prove its case, how does that impact the UCI, cycling in the Olympics - if a sport is going to get voted out of the Games in Rio...
Pat McQuaid: First of all, I have said and the UCI said they won't comment on the Armstrong case until it's over.
Secondly, to give you a brief comment on what you just said, it's not going to have any effect on cycling. If guys are beating the system, they're beating WADA's system, they're beating the controls. The UCI can't do anything about that. We don't control the laboratories and what they can and cannot test for, it's WADA that controls all that. If there are cyclists beating controls, then there are athletes from other sports beating the controls. We saw that with Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. You can't therefore blame that on the UCI or on the sport of cycling.
I thonk that was the quote from the jornu, Yello!
Ah, I see.
Chuffy
Veteran
- Location
- On the banks of the Exe
To be fair to him, what can he say? For someone in his position to wade in would be inappropriate.
Yes, I know he's a dick and completely compromised, but even so...
Don't fall for the deflection Chuffy!
I've been thinking about the context of what McQuaid said and I find his response indicative of the combative climate that exists between UCI and, well, just about anyone really!
What McQuaid could have said was something along the lines of 'we support and co-operate with all anti-doping initiatives'. Not commenting on Armstrong, or the USADA case, nor the journo's comments. That would have been the even-handed, classic style of response.... even if boring. But he chose to fire a broadside at WADA - and it's not even WADA that made the comment about corruption! Wading in inappropriately is something McQuaid is pretty good at!
I don't think anyone believes that UCI is responsible for the effectiveness of the tests. But they choose to act (or not) on the results... any that's what's being alluded to, not the testing effectiveness. McQuaid turned a journalists remark into an attack on WADA. Why?
Consider the comment that USADA's case "is not going to have any effect on cycling". McQuaid's puffing out his chest, defending his fortress and seems to infer in the process that he's going to ignore whatever USADA says. As they've done to other drug testing agencies in the past perhaps?
I've been thinking about the context of what McQuaid said and I find his response indicative of the combative climate that exists between UCI and, well, just about anyone really!
What McQuaid could have said was something along the lines of 'we support and co-operate with all anti-doping initiatives'. Not commenting on Armstrong, or the USADA case, nor the journo's comments. That would have been the even-handed, classic style of response.... even if boring. But he chose to fire a broadside at WADA - and it's not even WADA that made the comment about corruption! Wading in inappropriately is something McQuaid is pretty good at!
I don't think anyone believes that UCI is responsible for the effectiveness of the tests. But they choose to act (or not) on the results... any that's what's being alluded to, not the testing effectiveness. McQuaid turned a journalists remark into an attack on WADA. Why?
Consider the comment that USADA's case "is not going to have any effect on cycling". McQuaid's puffing out his chest, defending his fortress and seems to infer in the process that he's going to ignore whatever USADA says. As they've done to other drug testing agencies in the past perhaps?
- Status
