USADA charges Armstrong with doping violations

[jabberwocky]

This is sorta fun, in a sad way. 2003 TDF:

1: Lance Armstrong
2: Jan Ullrich, implicated in Puerto, has admitted to make “doping mistakes”.
3: Alexander Vinokourov, tested positive for blood doping during the 2007 TDF.
4: Tyler Hamilton, admitted doper, serving lifetime ban after getting caught twice.
5: Haimar Zubeldia, nothing on wiki, nothing in quick google search.
6: Iban Mayo, served 2 year ban for positive EPO test.
7: Ivan Basso, has admitted to doping, served a 2 year ban.
8: Christophe Moreau, admitted to taking EPO in Festina affair in 1998.
9: Carlos Sastre, nothing on his wiki entry, and a quick google search turns up nothing substantial.
10: Francisco Mancebo, also implicated in Operation Puerto.

[mstone]

we’ll never know the truth unless he admits to something; end of story

[Certifried]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/if-armstrong-loses-7-tour-titles-who-gets-them-his-podium-partners-have-checkered-record/2012/08/24/1d370294-ee1b-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html

[sjclaeys]

From a purely legal strategy point of view, Lance did the right thing. There was little chance of success going through the USADA process and he would have the burden of defending against whatever specific facts USADA decided to put forth. Now, all that is public is USADA’s vague allegations (which were already characterized as “troubling” by a federal court), which allows Lance and his supporters to say that no factual case has really been made. Also, USADA can’t take away his TDF titles, only the UCI. The UCI said that it won’t take action until USADA provides a “reasoned decision” explaining its action. This puts the burden on USADA to prove its case, and the UCI could ultimately say that USADA has not provided a reasoned decision. USADA could appeal this (I think) to arbitrators or the CAS, but the burden would still effectively be on USADA to prove its case.

We now return you to your regular bicycling program.

[Certifried]

And,I think I read that UCI was already somewhat on Lance’s side about USADA not having jurisdiction. That might make them even more reluctant to drudge all of this up. I think that if this does go on,it will take years to straighten out. Few will care by then, if they do at all right now.

[jordash]

The win at all costs mentality has permeated all parts of our society, from business to athletics. I’ve even heard of amateur racing cyclists doping — ridiculous. Even if Lance Armstrong doped, I’m still amazed that he managed to complete the race seven years in a row after beating cancer. He’s still a paragon of athleticism, and I will always respect that. If anything, I’m bothered by the persistent stream of accusations that have dragged his name through the mud while ignoring a still pervasive problem in cycling. The UCI needs to get creative and come up with a way to comprehensively check doping or come up with a way to legalize part of it in order to level the playing field.

[Dirt]

One of the things I’ve really worked to find lately on the topic of doping and in particular Lance Armstrong is balance. I’ve been convinced of his guilt for almost a decade, but have tried to balance that with the great things he’s done for cancer sufferers and survivors. I’d had successes and failures in that search for balance up until a few months ago when a lot of things became pretty clear for me.

Regardless of what you believe or feel on the topic of Lance, the work of the LAF and all the stuff going on in the press about doping, it is good to have an open discussion on the topic. And when I say open discussion, I mean that we all really need to listen a lot, and talk a little. This topic so charged and polarizing that there appears to be no middle ground… just a lot of people on the two extremes sticking to their guns and not really looking deeper into all that goes on around the man, his life, his foundation, the sport and doping’s short and long-term impacts.

I learned a ton from my relationships with cancer survivors and their families and really listening to them and how LAF really helped them get in touch with the people they needed to at the most crucial time… early after their diagnosis. Learning how LAF was a GREAT source of comfort and started them on the journey to survival really helped me get balance with things. If you don’t know anyone personally, you can read a lot on the LAF web site. http://www.livestrong.org/ Look through the Get Help, Take Action and What We Do areas. I was impressed.

The other things that I’ve learned a lot about over the years are the effects of doping. Most of us don’t have the relationships to be able to just talk to top level cyclists about it. I grew up with a bunch, so I learned a lot early. There have been some good things written lately about some of the effects it has on people, relationships, friends, acquaintances and the sport. Here are a few that mean a lot to me. Read them with an open mind and think about the things that people went through and the courage it takes to stand up and say some really tough things publically. Some of it just makes a lot of sense.

Story/interview with Betsy Andreau that came out this week: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/longtime-witness-against-lance-armstrong-finally-vindicated/2012/08/25/804ed02c-ef07-11e1-b829-786e028dccb3_story.html

Editorial/Confession by Jonathan Vaughters: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Gerard Vroomen’s blog entry about moving forward: http://gerard.cc/2012/08/27/lets-focus-on-the-future/

With a lot of that in mind, it is easy for me to see that good can still be done on many fronts by both supporting Lance as a person, a survivor and a philanthropist while at the same time continuing the battle to clean up the sport so that there is some sense that people can live their dream of being a great cyclist without having to sell out, lie to their families, friends, fans and most of all, themselves.

There’s a lot of good reading out there. None of these issues are easy. None of them are black and white. If someone puts forth a simple answer to things on either side of the discussion, it may not be one that is really true.

Thanks!

Pete

[Dirt]

Can we go for a long bike ride now?

[krazygl00]

This is coming from someone who is admittedly ignorant about sports in general including bike racing; I don’t claim to have all the knowledge or answers on this, so take it for what its worth.

It just seems that there needs to be some kind of limitations on these accusations. There is a reason we have things like that in the criminal justice system…statutes of limitation…right to speedy trial…innocence until guilt is proven…the burden of proof being upon the accuser…protection from double jeopardy (retrials)…etc. Because while they can be used to skirt and cheat justice by criminals they are far too important in the preservation of justice for those who are innocent.

These things are markedly absent in this saga. And now we are witness to the public spectacle of watching a sports and cultural icon have to continually prove his innocence over the repeated accusations of those who may or may not have the best motivations. And here is where I admit some ignorance in the matter…who controls the rules for this kind of investigation? What is the governing body? Is there no redress to that governing body by those who are subject to its investigations? Shouldn’t some of the same concepts we have instituted into our justice system also be applied to this body? Or do we let a trail of witnesses and mounting accusations pile up over the years until their weight is too much to take. I’m sure it has been pointed out many times that he has a 100% success rate in testing.

Think about it this way…most people are absolutely convinced of OJ Simpson’s guilt in the 1995 murder, but the court found him not guilty and he walked free (well, at least until 2007). And after that clean break people just had to deal with it…and it sucks but that is what is necessary for justice — a clean break. We didn’t haul OJ into court to answer the same questions over and over, or retry him because this piece of evidence popped up, or another witness was brought in to testify. The desire to right all wrongs can sometimes lead to wrongs itself, just as the desire to clean up a sport be it cycling or baseball or whatever also needs to be kept in check.

[OneEighth]

You are forgetting the subsequent wrongful death civil suit with its lesser standard of proof.

[Dirt]

That confusion is very natural, sir. There was a TON of media around this particular case, and the media tends to deal in soundbytes, rather than real, true explanations. Keep in mind that a lot of what was in the mainstream media was one-sided… That is true from both sides.

There ARE very strict rules of evidence and processes for these things. I DO read a lot about doping issues and proceedings and they are not always clear to me, but from what I’ve read, I’m impressed with how fair the processes are. If there were laws in the US against cheating in sport, than a lot of those legal concepts would apply. It would make a lot of things easier on both sides.

Just keep in mind that Lance’s legal team raised a lot of issues that were wrong about the process related to things like presumption of innocence, rules of evidence and statute of limitations that played to his case. There are an equal number of issues, that if they applied from the American legal system that would have been equally bad for his case… things like rules of evidence, things related to witness testimony, etc.

I’m not saying that the system is perfect and that Lance is full of hooey. My point here is that looking at things strictly from how they played out in the mainstream media won’t really come to a balanced conclusion about what is fair, right and just in the system. This stuff is really complex and detailed to a level that the non-cycling media doesn’t really have much hope of getting it right. It isn’t easy for a lot of the cycling media to get it right.

[Dirt]

I can go into details as I perceive them… but I don’t know if that really helps. I guess the best that I do in a brief post (which I’ve already said, by nature of its brevity is probably full of hooey) is that I’m a LOT more balanced in my point of view than I was a few months ago and I think it has played out quite fairly for all involved.

[eminva]

Thank you, Pete, that is a very thoughtful take. I also appreciate the articles you linked. It is good to get the perspective of people who are close to the sport.

I’m just a casual fan, but I’m a more astute fan of track and field where this is also an issue. Some observations:

1. When the incentive to get an edge outstrips state of the art surveillance mechanisms, fans of the sport have to accept that the playing field is not level and their heroes might have feet of clay.

2. Maybe the sanctions for athletes are too severe. “Zero Tolerance” mechanisms tend to increase the incentive to cover up mistakes (on the part of athletes, team officials, and, sadly, governing bodies). Graduated sanctions that start off low for first time offenders might have the effect of opening some day light, and allow young athletes who make a mistake to be rehabilitated without draconian consequences.

3. This is at the edge of my knowledge of the cycling world, but enforcement efforts should focus (or continue to focus, if they already do), on the “enablers” — trainers, doctors and coaches who might pressure athletes but don’t face the same public scrutiny. Get these people away from the sport.

4. Lance was probably going to have an outsize personality no matter what he did in life. Generous, arrogant, courageous, vindictive, disciplined, etc. — all part of the package. Livstrong is a great organization that provides a valuable service and it probably took a cancer survivor to understand just how much support patients and their families need. That he could be so generous, and yet, (if the charges are accurate,) still do something unthinkable, doesn’t really surprise me.

Liz

[Mark Blacknell]

Arrrrrgggggh.

Must.shut.up.

But can’t.

Short version of my opinion? Lance Armstrong is a low down dirty doper who bullied his way around the peloton and wrapped himself in in the cloak of Livestrong (subsidized by well-intentioned dollars) in order to build his brand and legend.

Like Pete, I’ve followed this waaaay too closely for years. While I’ve (clearly) got my own opinion, I also realize that some folks will never (ever) see what I think are a pretty clear set of facts. So that, I can let go. But it kills me to see so many opinions based on misinformation and outright lies (500+ tests! Never failed a test!). So I’ll just drop this link here and move on (I hope) – http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

[Certifried]

What do you think about the rest of the peloton though? Are they all just as guilty? Not trying to start anything, honestly interested. I never really followed TDF all that closely (gasp!)

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Author]

Posts