The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

So what? He was cheating and has conceded it. If, as Greg suggested, he folded on a bluff who cares?

So do you now also conclude that Kimmage was lying and conceded it when he refused to contest the libel case against him?

 

[albion]

So one bad Apple out, 10 more ducking and diving

 

[Red Light]

You miss the point, I don't care. One extreme bad apple is out of the game and publicly humiliated. That is a not bad result.

What is a bad result is that the authorities are prepared to ignore their own rules and flout human rights to get that result. We have learnt the hard way in the legal sphere where the authorities flouting the rules to get a conviction leads us.

 

[Red Light]

I really don't care.

So you keep saying as you continue to care enough to pen another post.

 

[Red Light]

So one bad Apple out, 10 more ducking and diving

All of which as Big Mig has said, is ruining the sport.

 

[rich p]

A piece by Robin Parisotto which may help those who keep bleating (erroneously!) that Lance has never failed a test and why the blood passport is important.

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.fr/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html

FWIW, I remember the minor imcredulity at Armstrong's blood values and the comments hereabouts at the discrepencies but it was never taken up at official level by the UCI. You have to ask why.
I also recall when Armstrong and Bruyneel were caught unprepared by a tester in remote place where he was 'training' off season. Against all the protocols he was allowed to question the testers authorisation while he 'showered' for 30 minutes. Again, the UCI took no action.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So what? He was cheating and has conceded it. If, as Greg suggested, he folded on a bluff who cares?

anyone who plays him at poker might!

(EDIT: and the irony of someone whose entire career turns out to have been based on a gigantic series of "I'm clean" bluffs being caught out by a bluff is simply too delicious)

It does all raise a nice moral conundrum. If someone is dirty you may have to fight dirty to bring them down; then you become dirty yourself. That you have become dirty in the process doesn't diminish the dirtiness of the person you fought one bit but you may find folk reluctant to shake your dirty hand in future, and less than fully engaged when you claim rights yourself under due process etc..

That, I guess, is the price of putting great wrongs right. Which would be fine and dandy if the UCI agreed with USADA but then we'd have no fun.

 

[bof]

A piece by Robin Parisotto which may help those who keep bleating (erroneously!) that Lance has never failed a test and why the blood passport is important.

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.fr/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html

FWIW, I remember the minor imcredulity at Armstrong's blood values and the comments hereabouts at the discrepencies but it was never taken up at official level by the UCI. You have to ask why.
I also recall when Armstrong and Bruyneel were caught unprepared by a tester in remote place where he was 'training' off season. Against all the protocols he was allowed to question the testers authorisation while he 'showered' for 30 minutes. Again, the UCI took no action.

Very interesting!!! Was Armstrong effectively forced into publishing these values or was he poorly advised by his then medical advisor?

 

[rich p]

Very interesting!!! Was Armstrong effectively forced into publishing these values or was he poorly advised by his then medical advisor?

As I recall it was his own decision to publish his figures to dispel the doubts but but did the opposite. I can't recall the mechanics of it and I may be wrong. He was supposed to be working with Don Caitlin who would test him frequently as an independent, albeit paid, doctor but it never happened due to logistics and finance I believe.

 

[ufkacbln]

Against all the protocols he was allowed to question the testers authorisation while he 'showered' for 30 minutes. Again, the UCI took no action.

Not "against protocols" at all!

The protocol allows a number of events to happen between notification and testing.

What is questionable here is the actions of the "Chaperone" who should have supervised the movements between the notification and test.

There is a dual responsibility - the athlete to ensure they are observed, and the chaperone to observe.

 

[DogTired]

More than that it was a clear breach of the rules as it was said it was as part of research into a new test for EPO. The WADA Code says:

6.3 Research on Samples No Sample may be used for any purpose other than​

as described in Article 6.2 without the Athlete's written consent. Samples used for purposes other​

than Article 6.2 shall have any means of identification removed such that they cannot be traced​

back to a particular Athlete.​

​

I feel pretty sure that Armstrong would not have given his written consent and the samples clearly did not have their identification removed. To say nothing of the fact that L'Equipe is not the official reporting line for results.

The WADA Code in place at the time says different.

6.3 No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the prohibited list, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) without the Athlete's written consent.

Thusly as the substance was on the prohibited list permission was not required. The samples had the 6 digit code attached which is to all intents and purposes a random number which matches the UCI held doping control forms which didnt get sent to the Lab. So the tests were anonymised by key.

The UCI, with LA's permission, gave L'Equipe the doping control forms. The reporter had to travel to UCI headquarters and were given them by the UCI medical director at the time.

WADA stated that the reason for having some form of key was to preserve the possibility of conducting a longitudinal analysis later on, which seems reasonable enough.

In terms of L'Equipe not being the official reporting line for doping results - no, I think that would be the UCI. But they are allowed to report news.

 

[Buddfox]

So USADA have confirmed they will release their report by the 15th October. At least we know how long we have to wait now...! From the BBC:

Usada's Annie Skinner said her organisation was "in the process of finalising the written reasoned decision in its US Postal Services pro cycling doping case".
She added: "We will provide the reasoned decision addressing the lifetime bans and disqualifications imposed to the UCI and World Anti-Doping Agency as provided for under the world rules. We expect it to be sent no later than 15 October."
Cycling's governing body, the International Cycling Union, is awaiting the report before deciding whether or not to confirm Armstrong's ban.
UCI president Pat McQuaid admitted it was likely to be a case of rubberstamping Usada's decision though.
"Unless the Usada's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport or not to recognise the Usada's sanctions on Lance Armstrong," he said.
"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the USADA may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions."

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Guess they've got one of those really big heavy-duty staplers on back order then. Hence the delay.

 

[marinyork]

Maybe that was part of the deal, Tyler's book deal got some time before all the paperwork came out to not dent sales.

I'm only messing about. It's not that long to wait now.

 

[DogTired]

Guess they've got one of those really big heavy-duty staplers on back order then. Hence the delay.

Not helped by having to check, double check and go through everything eleventy times. I suspect they've checked the details more times than a man marking himself up to perform his own vasectomy.