The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

That's a fair summary of what happened.

But it doesn't matter because LA chose not to contest ANYTHING. Not the findings. Not the peremptory judgement. Not the abuse of protest. Not the lousy evidence preparation. Not a thing. He just raised his hands in the sure and certain knowledge that this meant "OK I lose and you win."

Now why would an innocent man, with the resources and public profile of LA, and with everything that he stood, and still stands, to lose do that if he didn't dope?

Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.

Why he did it is possibly irrelevant.

What he did is critical. He admitted, by default, to doping even in the face of as defective a process as you've described. Game over. Process debates in respect of LA now a sideshow, complete and utter.

Maybe USADA will brush up their process(es) for next time. This time, who cares?

 

[philipbh]

Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.

A process that has been declared pursuant to WADA established procedural codes, robust defence of results management authority, evidence of UCI rules contraventions that LA is signed up to by dint of being registered with US Cycling (the national governing body or NGB)

Additionally USADA are allowing due process to happen because they have given the right of reply to other parties within a reasonably [mutually] convenient time scale (as was promised)

 

[DogTired]

Perhaps you should re-read his testimony. They test the blood for much more than cancer markers including white and red blood cell counts, haemocrit etc because they use the tests to monitor the response of the blood to therapeutic EPO used to counter the blood based side effects of chemo. Much like the current blood passport measurements. You also missed out the bit from your speculation where he said:

Had Lance Armstrong been using EPO to enhance his cycling performance, I would have likely identified differences in his blood levels. After all, I had treated him and administered EPO during his treatment years when he was not cycling between October 1996 and January 1997 and was very familiar with his blood levels.​

You also forget Mr Tygarts testimony that in all the blood tests USADA had conducted they did not have one adverse finding. Why do you think that was not mentioned in the USADA file? It can hardly be because they didn't know about it because it was sworn and signed by Travis himself.

Nope - this is confusing his tests during treatment (when he wouldnt be doping but tested extensively) and the post cancer follow-up tests (quarterly at most tests). Where in Nicholls testimony does he state the values of markers which would be accurate over 3-6 months that absolutely preclude the use of all PEDS? Its not speculating to point out the fundamental flaws with regard to detecting long-term EPO use in his testimony - its clear for all to see.

LA would only have been given therapeutic EPO to counter the chemo treatment - NOT in his later post cancer follow-up tests until 2001. Again we go back to glow-time, why they tests cyclists at the end of the day (not just once at the end of a 3 week race). The traceability is short-lived. Its not worth betting that the Dr would be able to find evidence of doping from quarterly, scheduled and known in advance tests

Drug tests, hmm. Festina didnt fail a drugs test. Hardly anyone on the peloton failed a drugs test. Yet it is pretty well confirmed and accepted that most of the peloton were on PEDs to the point where they drove out one of the only clean riders because he refused to dope. Again we go back to glow-time and the intelligence that USPS had driving their doping program. Tygart confirming that they didnt test positive, in light of multiple eye-witness reports of doping, shows how weak the tests were.

 

[DogTired]

The system that allows them to become prosecutor, judge and jury is at fault. Good governance should never allow that situation to arise. If they are the investigator/prosecutor then the judgement on their case should be made by someone independent (after all which author is going to admit that the case they've written is rubbish).

Nope, wrong again. USADA act only as prosecutor. The case would be contested by independent arbitrators. Armstrong chose not to use this process, to give no defence, to counter no accusations, so the evidence must stand. The case is that he is guilty. He mounts no defence and so is found guilty. That is the same as in any court of law. It's the WADA code and all athletes accept that.

Its not up to the prosecution to admit their case is rubbish, nor is it the defence. Thats the nature of the adversarial system of justice.

 

[Andrew_P]

Knowing what we know now - im amazed that anybody was stupid enough to fail a drugs test. Its not as if they were difficult to fake was it?

Are they anymore difficult now? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22381-sports-cheats-will-always-keep-their-nose-in-front.html

 

[Red Light]

Nope, wrong again. USADA act only as prosecutor. The case would be contested by independent arbitrators. Armstrong chose not to use this process, to give no defence, to counter no accusations, so the evidence must stand. The case is that he is guilty. He mounts no defence and so is found guilty. That is the same as in any court of law. It's the WADA code and all athletes accept that.

Its not up to the prosecution to admit their case is rubbish, nor is it the defence. Thats the nature of the adversarial system of justice.

The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.

 

[Scruffmonster]

Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.

There was a point where people may have heard you saying this and thought... 'He has a point'...
Then they would have heard it lots and lots and maybe thought 'He definately has a point'
Then they would have actually opened their minds and thought... 'Hang on'
Then they would have thought 'Why am I listening to this clown'
Then they would have simply just yawned with every passing word.

Let it go. Nobody gives a damn if you think the process was unsound. The people that should have been following a sound process were all in bed with the defendant. Most, including myself, don't care that they maybe massaged the 'rules' a little bit. (I know, the irony but keep some perspective)

The guy cheated.
Most of his opposition cheated.
The governing body was complicit.
Several doctors provided illegal drugs to hundreds of cyclists to get rich at whatever cost.
The sport is on it's knees.

Pick a new fight. In everyone else's eyes, you lost this one. If you want to do a Lance and say 'I'm not playing anymore but that still means I win' then fine. But you look really silly and it's a pain in the butt to try and read any kind of debate with your grenades of tosh thrown in the middle.

 

[Red Light]

There was a point where people may have heard you saying this and thought... 'He has a point'...
Then they would have heard it lots and lots and maybe thought 'He definately has a point'
Then they would have actually opened their minds and thought... 'Hang on'
Then they would have thought 'Why am I listening to this clown'
Then they would have simply just yawned with every passing word.

Let it go. Nobody gives a damn if you think the process was unsound. The people that should have been following a sound process were all in bed with the defendant. Most, including myself that they massaged the 'rules' a little bit.

The guy cheated.
Most of his opposition cheated.
The governing body was complicit.
Several doctors provided illegal drugs to hundreds of cyclists to get rich at whatever cost.
The sport is on it's knees.

Pick a new fight. In everyone else's eyes, you lost this one. If you want to do a Lance and say 'I'm not playing anymore but that still means I win' then fine. But you look really silly and it's a pain in the butt to try and read any kind of debate with your grenades of tosh thrown in the middle.

So Guantanamo is right - every American knows they were guilty and the end justifies the means? Thank God we have people who don't believe that and hold us all to account on having fair and proper processes.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Red Light, what do you actually want?

 

[400bhp]

Red Light, what do you actually want?

For people to like him?

 

[400bhp]

Red Light, what do you actually want?

"The Truth"

[cue x files music]

Barking mad....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.

For LA to expose the single page of paper with "He doesn't look right to me" hypothesis all he had to do was insist it went to arbitration. He didn't. His problem not USADA's.

Honestly, a part of me wants the USADA case to turn out to be the biggest bluff in sporting history. LA was a bluffer (as that is what bullies so often are) and was beaten at his own game. He had four aces in his hand, a pair of Kings up his cheatin' jersey sleeve, and all USADA had was a pair of deuces. They looked at his 'tells' and made him fold.

Jurisprudence isn't a science it is an art.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

"The Truth"

[cue x files music]

Barking mad....

Please let's not go personal.

 

[PpPete]

Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.

I disagree. The situation is somewhat analogous to someone, in a court of law,. pleading guilty. The evidence doesn't get examined by the court.

As for preparing the evidence after the judgement... that is explained in the first chapters of the reasoned decision ( I assume you have read it?)
For those who havn't, in short, they prepared the evidence to go to arbitration. Which LA decided to forego... so instead of putting their witnesses "on the stand" for cross-examination they had to get affidavits.