Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)


Feeling the growl again

    1.  Disagree.  Tygart absolutely got evidence he couldn't get through USADA channels.  

    3.  Maybe Spaniel can tell me, but shouldn't there be old samples that USADA can use for its new and improved testing?

     

    1.  Why only USADA channels?  Certainly it should be legal how they do it, but why so restrictive?  What purpose is served by protecting cheats? 

     

    3.  I do not believe samples are routinely archived.  For the EPO test I can attest that the entire sample is used to perform a single test.  The sample is gathered as a single urine/blood draw, then split in 2 (in front of the athlete, IIRC), the A and B samples.  These are then stored depending on what test they are to be used for (refrigerated or frozen).  If the A is negative you do have a B sitting somewhere, but if you use a leftover B you do not have a C on which to run a confirmatory test.  I have not witnessed other tests being performed, such as blood tests, so I am not 100% sure if there is leftover material or what is done with it.  HOWEVER, the samples are sealed in the presence of the athlete; once the seal is broken to do the first test (in the presence of signing witnesses), I do not think re-storing and later testing that same sample again would be allowed.

     

    <<time passes while spaniel researches a hunch>>

     

    Turns out my suspicion is correct, this is exactly how the supposed positive EPO tests of Armstrong exposed by L-Equipe occurred.  Leftover B samples were provided "for research purposes" and 4 of the 6 that tested positive several years later were supposedly Armstrong's.

     

    Paula Radcliffe is the only athlete I know of that took the extra step to prove she was clean by having extra samples deliberately archived so they could be tested again laster if tests or technology improved.

    "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

     

      1.  Why only USADA channels?  Certainly it should be legal how they do it, but why so restrictive?  What purpose is served by protecting cheats?

      Agreed.  I approach obtaining evidence from the legal standpoint: so long as it wasn't ill-gotten, it's usable.

       

      I can't get as worked up about Tygart sitting in on DOJ interviews.  He heads USADA, which isn't some random private group -- it's a quasi-governmental agency, federally funded and with the mission of fighting the very kind of doping that was the subject of the DOJ interviews.  Yes, USADA benefited from material obtained by DOJ.  But Tygart didn't order the DOJ to do anything, he didn't control the investigation, etc. -- he merely got access to the stuff they turned up.  (Presumably, that's the non-sealed stuff.)  No one's rights were violated, and any interviewee could have requested he and/or Young not be present.

      “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

      C-R


        1.  Disagree.  Tygart absolutely got evidence he couldn't get through USADA channels.  He sat in on interviews with federal agent Jeff Novitsky (Balco/Marion Jones), which is highly unusual, has documents subpoenaed by the feds, and apparently has access to grand jury proceedings even those are considered secret (and which the feds leaked regularly).  There's virtually no discovery in arbitration.  

         

        2.  In an world of unlimited resources, I might be inclined to agree that it makes sense to never give up.  But USADA's only got so much money and it doesn't make sense to spend half its budget chasing a long-since retired bicycle rider and running the risk that a federal court will strike down some aspect of the USADA enforcement protocol.  The Olympics are coming.  Let's make sure those are squeaky clean, no?  

         

         

         

        So in #1 you seem offended that USADA (a quasi government agency) leveraged their relationships to use information obtained by another government agency under one assumes legal means. Seems a proper use of resources to piggy back on other work. If any person's rights were violated any half decent attorney would have had their client's case tossed so one would think it ok. 

         

        To follow your logic, if Bernie Madoff retired he should never be brought up on charges he/his company defrauded billions in dollars from people. Not sure that will fly Wilbur. Since there seems no time limit on the offenses, they have every right to continue. And as for wasting resources, the very thing you accuse Tygart of wasting, you're blasting him in #1 where he is being responsible in resource allocation.

         

        I expect that they are watching the Olympics pretty carefully. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/hope-solo-drug-warning-us-womens-soccer-olympics_n_1660872.html 

         

        I mean she's a soccer keeper for crying out loud. Or perhaps someone at USADA is just trying a new way to ask for a date.


        "He conquers who endures" - Persius
        "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

        http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

           

          I mean she's a soccer keeper for crying out loud.

           And a goalie at that.  Does a goalie really need PED's to run maybe a 1000 M during the course of the match.

           

          That ends my contribution to this thread.

          xor


            She didn't take a PED, not really.  She took a medication "for pre-menopausal purposes" according to one source and "pre-menstrual purposes" according to another. Including the quote below, which may or may not be accurate.

             

            =====

            The 30-year-old Solo tested positive for Canrenone in a test on June 15.

            "I took a medication prescribed by my personal doctor for pre-menstrual purposes that I did not know contained a diuretic," Solo said in a statement. "Once informed of this fact, I immediately cooperated with USADA and shared with them everything they needed to properly conclude that I made an honest mistake, and that the medication did not enhance my performance in any way."

            =====

            (I pulled that from the fox news story.  Heh.)

            I wouldn't get too over-the-top about goalie doping based on this.

            But the Saga of the US Women's Goalie continues.

             

            C-R


               keeper = goalie but some might consider the use of keeper in this context as a double entendre.

               

              and SRL - I will put the winkie in there next time. Wink


              "He conquers who endures" - Persius
              "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

              http://ncstake.blogspot.com/

                I don't know anything, but I can assure you that what I've read so far within this forum topic doesn't paint a clear picture whether he's guilty or not.....

                 

                I found this: http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury

                For all I know, it's been linked within this forum before.  If so, oops, I didn't read it then.

                 

                What's been bothering me about this forum is that there's a scientic side (of which I know nothing) and a legal side (of which I know nothing).  What I know regarding Lance Armstrong subject relates to stuff I've watched on TV (tour de France) as well as what I read on ESPN.com or CNN.com or DrudgeReport or RunningAhead.

                 

                I don't know what Spaniel knows regarding details.  It seems like he knows more that the average Joe regarding EPO and drug testing.  I'm guessing that's career knowledge and not a personal bias.  Powerful knowledge that I cannot refute.

                 

                However, what we, the general public, know regarding this is minimal, I think.

                 

                In baseball, there was Jose Canseco, who FREELY admitted to using steroids without any coersion.  To do so, he wrote a book (in 2005) describing events where fellow players (Palmeiro, McGwire, I-Rod, Giambi, etc.) used steroids.  Following his tell-all book, the investigation began, followed by the Mitchell Report in 2007.


                Within this situation, everything I've read seems to be second hand (or third hand accounts) by those already in trouble and already punished by the sport, or those hiding within labs that worked with Lance's testing.

                   

                Floyd Landis - winner of 2006 TdF, but failed drug test.  He was teammate from 2002 through 2004.  When he was caught cheating, he was on another team.  He began speaking after he got in trouble.  I don't trust him.

                 

                From the link above, a lot of the discussion relates to Landis and his emails and his voice conversations with either Armstrong or his manager (Bruyneel). 

                 

                IMHO, Canseco =/= Landis

                 

                The biggest potential claim (I think) was from a former Motorola teammate 3 years before he won his 1st Tour de France.  Frankie Andreu claims to have been with Armstrong in 1996 while being treated for cancer, and Frankie heard Armstrong tell his cancer doctor that he took EPO, growth hormone, and testosterone.  I'm guessing the doctor took note of that, and it may be on his records.... I don't know.

                 

                There were a few other non-Landis incidences that Lance's team apparently tried to cover up.  One relates to a test from the 90s where the "A" test was positive but the "B" test wasn't.  Another relates to the 1999 "donations" by Tour de France athletes to help detect drug use within the tour.  Years later, someone from the lab claims that some of Lance's samples tested positive for EPO.  To date, that in only a claim.  That could be a huge problem for Armstrong if that's true.  With that sample donation, there wasn't any "B" samples, since it was to be used for research, and wasn't a typical test.  A third incident was a report from Sports Illustrated that said that Armstrong had access to an illegal drug that was not available to the public (HemAssist).

                 

                Basically, if you take Floyd Landis out of the picture, and I think most people could argue that his testimony is questionable, there are some issues that Lance's team will have trouble with if there is evidence.  If there's more than just a "Sports Illustrated Journalist", a leak from a lab, or hear-say stuff, then he could be in trouble.


                BUT, to talk about 48, 49, and 50 of something that I know nothing about doesn't convince me anymore than what I thought before I read an argument for why he's guilty. 

                 

                In all honesty, I'm sure that many people reading this can poke holes throughout this whole post.  I just decided to do a little research to try to figure out what isn't easy to figure out through forum banter.  Quite honestly, I wasn't gaining any information reading from this forum topic. 

                A couple of weeks ago, I thought it was a witchhunt.

                Now, I'm less convinced.

                 

                Cheers,
                Brian

                2014 Goals:

                #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                 

                  The biggest potential claim (I think) was from a former Motorola teammate 3 years before he won his 1st Tour de France.  Frankie Andreu claims to have been with Armstrong in 1996 while being treated for cancer, and Frankie heard Armstrong tell his cancer doctor that he took EPO, growth hormone, and testosterone.  I'm guessing the doctor took note of that, and it may be on his records.... I don't know.

                   

                  Frankie had a lot to loose by saying what he did when called to testify. Without a doubt it caused his family stress and significant economic loss. For that reason I find him much more credible.

                    So in #1 you seem offended that USADA (a quasi government agency) leveraged their relationships to use information obtained by another government agency under one assumes legal means. Seems a proper use of resources to piggy back on other work. If any person's rights were violated any half decent attorney would have had their client's case tossed so one would think it ok. 

                     

                    To follow your logic, if Bernie Madoff retired he should never be brought up on charges he/his company defrauded billions in dollars from people. Not sure that will fly Wilbur. Since there seems no time limit on the offenses, they have every right to continue. And as for wasting resources, the very thing you accuse Tygart of wasting, you're blasting him in #1 where he is being responsible in resource allocation.

                     

                    I expect that they are watching the Olympics pretty carefully. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/10/hope-solo-drug-warning-us-womens-soccer-olympics_n_1660872.html 

                     

                    I mean she's a soccer keeper for crying out loud. Or perhaps someone at USADA is just trying a new way to ask for a date.

                     

                    I'm surprised at the willingness of so many to accept a process that seems so clearly unfair.  You want to run a criminal investigation, provide criminal protections and bring a criminal case.  That's fine.  The government unleashed Jeff Novitsky who spent 22 months chasing Lance.   You are right that the USADA did not foot that bill.  You and I did.  We don't know how much . . . yet.  Congress now seems interested in why we are spending so much money chasing a guy who won some bicycle races in France a long time ago.  (The USADA claims to be a non-profit and adamantly denies being a quasi-governmental agency.)  

                     

                    Now if you want to institute an arbitration under the rules governing the TdF, that's fine too.  But follow those rules.  To the extent one wants to argue that Lance "agreed" to arbitrate doping disputes, he did not agree to a process that mixes and matches like this (he also never agreed to anything with USADA, his cycling license was with UCI).  Does anyone really believe that if this was someone who wasn't so polarizing, we'd be talking about anything other than a long article in Sports Illustrated?  So far as I can tell, there is no precedent for this and it's not a good one to set.     

                     

                    Frankie Andreu is an interesting issue.  He spoke up in 2006, which makes one wonder how the USADA is going to succeed in proving "fraudulent concealment," which requires proof that the USADA was unaware of the possibility that Lance was doping.  USADA should have brought its case back then.  Did Lance dope in 1995?  Did Clinton inhale?  Whatever. 

                     

                    Oh, and for you Spaniel, it appears that USADA is going back at all the samples they have on file.  


                    Feeling the growl again

                      I'm surprised at the willingness of so many to accept a process that seems so clearly unfair.... 

                       

                      Now if you want to institute an arbitration under the rules governing the TdF, that's fine too.  But follow those rules.  To the extent one wants to argue that Lance "agreed" to arbitrate doping disputes, he did not agree to a process that mixes and matches like this

                       

                      He agreed to participate in a sport where doping is against the rules.  Say he did dope.  Now we're supposed to feel it's unfair that they use every legal means to nail him?

                       

                      C'mon.

                       

                      Cheaters, by definition, flaunt the rules.  There is nothing "unfair" about doing everything legally possible to turn the tables on them.  You seem a lot more concerned about defending your favorite cyclist than defending the sport.  THAT is not a good precedent to set.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                        USADA is a signatory to, and responsible for implementation in the United States of, the World Anti-Doping Code, widely considered the basis for the strongest and strictest anti-doping programs in sports.[1][2] In 2001 the agency was recognized by the U.S. Congress as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."[3] USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by a U.S. federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee.[4] The United States has also ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the first global international treaty against doping in sport.

                         

                        Its interesting that the only government official that is questioning the USADA is a a Wisconsin Congressman.

                         

                        What bike company sponsers Lance and where is it manufactured?????????

                         

                        The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff

                         

                        2014 Goals:

                         

                        Stay healthy

                        Enjoy life

                         

                          USADA is a signatory to, and responsible for implementation in the United States of, the World Anti-Doping Code, widely considered the basis for the strongest and strictest anti-doping programs in sports.[1][2] In 2001 the agency was recognized by the U.S. Congress as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."[3] USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by a U.S. federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee.[4] The United States has also ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the first global international treaty against doping in sport.

                           

                          Its interesting that the only government official that is questioning the USADA is a a Wisconsin Congressman.

                           

                          What bike company sponsers Lance and where is it manufactured?????????

                           

                           I'm glad I ride Cannondale's and not that Wisconsin companies bike.
                          Now, if Chrissy Wellington were in the bad press news, I might switch over to Schwinn.  I'm pretty sure there aren't many Schwinn riders doping.

                          Until then....

                           


                           

                          2014 Goals:

                          #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                          #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                           


                          day after day sameness

                            Stepping back from all the chemical, biological, and political issues. Beyond the human frailties of pride and self-image....beyond all that...

                             

                            How can a sport's participants who prides themselves in non-competitive traditions such as the leader stopping to wait for his closest competitor to take a wiz or fix a flat....a sport in which colleagues subvert their own interest and capabilities for the good of the team's chosen preferential rider....a sport which is based on some pretty subjective scoring (it's not purely a clock or points)....

                             

                            How can the riders who are enveloped this sport from their hearts, who spend untold hours of sweat equity and pain equity to developing the skills -- why do they even tolerate the doping of them, by them and from their colleagues? How is it accepted and expected.

                             

                            This, I don't understand.

                            Choosing my words carefully has never been my strength I've been known to be vague and often pointless

                              How can the riders who are enveloped this sport from their hearts, who spend untold hours of sweat equity and pain equity to developing the skills -- why do they even tolerate the doping of them, by them and from their colleagues? How is it accepted and expected.

                               

                              This, I don't understand.

                               

                              this sounds like the same questions being asked about baseball in 2005.  In late 2007 the Mitchell Report came out.  Within the next 12 months it seemed the players union was no longer worried about preventing testing to seemingliy protect cheeters.  Before 2008 it seemed like Jose Canseco was the only person who wanted everything exposed.  Maybe Frank Thomas and a few others but most kept their mouths shut on the issue.

                               

                              I really feel bad for guys like Ken Griffey Jr. and Frank Thomas who I believe never used, and who suffered the typical ups and downs and injuries of being 35-40 years old while many of their peers used drugs to match their accomplishments. 

                               

                              And so the history books will show Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa added together hit more home runs than Frank Thomas and Ken Griffey Jr. did, baseball geeks like me can only guess at the truth and we are left with a sour opinion of all that was baseball in the 1990's-2000's.  While Bill James sees the cheeters are people we'll one day admire, I think the cheeters deserve the loathing they get for wrecking one of my faviorite parts of the game... the statistical history.  If you want the money, fame, and cheering crowds then take it but expect the loathing when you cheated to get it. 

                               

                              http://www.ronkaplansbaseballbookshelf.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cooperstownandtheroids_f2.pdf

                               

                              But bike racing?  Yeah It's my ignorant of the truth opinion that since almost everyone was cheating it was probably hard to find someone to rat out the system.  Because if they were not cheating they were probably a nobody and had no soapbox to stand on. 

                              In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                              http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                               

                               

                               

                                Stepping back from all the chemical, biological, and political issues. Beyond the human frailties of pride and self-image....beyond all that...

                                 

                                This, I don't understand.

                                 

                                My opinion ... In Europe cycling is a very blue collar sport. Many of the riders would be doing manual labor for little money if it weren't for cycling. It's a way out and some riders will do what it takes to stay in the sport or be successful. The examples you gave are open, public and for show. Doping was supposed to be private but was part of the quiet professional culture for a long time.