Armstrong charged and banned

[raindog]

If they try to smother the investigation then Hamilton's kiss-and-tell autobiog.

"Hamilton explained that his time in front of a grand jury during the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation into Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices he realised that there was a story that needed to be told."

should read.....

"..........he realised that there was a pile of money to be made."

 

[rich p]

"Hamilton explained that his time in front of a grand jury during the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation into Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices he realised that there was a story that needed to be told."

should read.....

"..........he realised that there was a pile of money to be made."

Quite so!

He'd blown all his money on his chimera!

 

[yello]

If they try to smother the investigation then Hamilton's kiss-and-tell autobiog. may spill some beans, although whether he'll have the nerve to name names...

He'll certainly name names if USADA sanctions Armstrong! His editors are probably poised to make the necessary changes so the book can be the first to hit the shelves post verdict. He'll not be the only one wanting a slice either.

 

[iLB]

Hamilton is releasing his book on LA's birthday

 

[User169]

Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.

Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?

Do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read that. Probably rather theoretical at the moment, I'd have thought.

 

[Arsen Gere]

Armstrong wins marathon.

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2012/08/14/lance-armstrong-wins-marathon/

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Yes, there will be plenty of unscrupulous local races that will care more about the publicity from having Armstrong there than the fact that he's currently banned from racing at higher levels.

 

[Crackle]

Do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read that. Probably rather theoretical at the moment, I'd have thought.

Unfortunately not. I actually bought the paper version. I'll see if I can find it, though some articles don't always appear online or take a while to appear.

 

[rich p]

Another fly in the ointment with USA Cycling saying that the UCI have jurisdiction.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/letter-from-usa-cycling-included-in-armstrong-case

The letter continues to outline that USADA’s authority is not valid when the UCI has a vastly opposed opinion on how the Armstrong case should be handled. USADA states it has authority whilst acting under UCI and through USAC however, UCI’s interpretation of the WADA code suggests otherwise...

 

[david k]

to summarise is the only evidence an x colleague saying he doped?

 

[Noodley]

If the UCI are the only organisation with jurisdiction over doping we'd all be as well go out and get off our tits.

 

[yello]

Another fly in the ointment with USA Cycling saying that the UCI have jurisdiction.

I've just spent the last few hours reading stuff (including USA cycling's letter) and that's not quite my interpretation of what they said. First some context, the letter was offered by Armstrong's lawyers as part of their final submission (deadline midnight last night, Texas time) to Sparks before his decision re jurisdiction. Also offered was a UCI letter. UCI wrote to USA cycling requesting they state their position (telling them to if you like). This kind of put USA Cycling on the spot, UCI are the gaffers as it were. I get the impression that USAC would have rather stayed out of it. Anyways, what they do say (and, as I say, I think their letter is hardly solid endorsement of UCI) is that they feel UCI can interpret the WADA rules as they like. They don't say they agree with UCI's interpretation.

USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's anti-doping code, its application to international cycling events and the Code's jurisdictional provisions within the scope of its authority

If anyone's interested, you can read Team Armstrong's submission (and the UCI and USAC letters) here. The USADA submission is here, but more on that later when I respond to David k's question.

Team Armstrong (and UCI) are trying to muddy the waters with this talk of jurisdiction. It's true that it's not obvious at first glance what the chain of command is, since UCI and WADA are obviously totally separate bodies whose responsibilities overlap. That can be spun to confuse BUT it is actually quite clear.

Sports bodies (like UCI) sign up to the WADA code if they want their sport to be part of the Olympics (amongst other things). You don't get to pick and choose, or 'interpret', the rules as it suits you - you sign up or you don't belong. It really is that simple. It's all part of the international deal that was agreed in the early 2000s to combat the international nature of sports doping. WADA have recently clarified the situation to UCI and stated that USADA are operating completely within scope. End of story really.

 

[yello]

to summarise is the only evidence an x colleague saying he doped?

No is the short answer. USADA were a tiny wee bit more forthcoming re the evidence in yesterday's submission to the court (link above)....

Where, as here, the charges are based on witness evidence rather than laboratory analysis of samples

My bold.... "based on". So the thrust of it is seemingly testimony but backed up. We can only really guess as what else there is.

There's also an explanation of why USADA weren't more forthcoming with the details of the evidence in their initial charge letter but, to be perfectly honest, I don't fully understand it yet and I'll have to give it another couple of reads. It's to do with process and the division between review board and arbitration panel - frankly it sounds a little tenuous but, as I say, I don't fully understand.

 

[rich p]

Thanks Yello for clarifying. I've been prone to a lack of detailed understanding ever since Mr Lewis wrote that I need to analyse better in 'o'-level Economics!

 

[yello]

It's only my interpretation of it Rich, other's are seeing it as support. I do feel the context helps though.

It's like being asked to comment on someone's new dress or whatever; you know what you think, you know what you're supposed to say but you'd prefer to say nothing at all.