Armstrong formally charged by USADA

[The 2nd Womble]

Lifted from thepreviously referenced Livestrong article and re USADA:

The feds aren’t his only worry. Waiting in the wings is the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which has been conducting its own investigation since it received Floyd Landis’s accusatory e-mails in May 2010. And while it remains true that Armstrong has never tested positive, at least officially, nowadays you don’t need to flunk a lab test to be sanctioned for performance-enhancing drugs.

For the past several years, USADA has been handing down non-analytical positives—sanctioning athletes based on evidence, including testimony from teammates, other than direct positive tests. In 2008, the agency banned the cyclist Kayle Leogrande for EPO use based almost entirely on the testimony of a soigneur and a team administrator. Armstrong now has at least two former teammates, Landis and Hamilton, who say they witnessed him using banned drugs—and there may be more if, as 60 Minutes reported, George Hincapie and others told similar stories to the grand jury.

That means Armstrong could be looking at a doping sanction, possibly a lifetime ban, and the loss of at least two of his Tour titles. (The statute of limitations for doping offenses is eight years.)

[hazmat5765]

...

Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.

yes it will, maybe not unanimously, but the web forum lawyers will make their verdict.

Keyboard QCs

[jules21]

Ultimately that outcome will be decided by the Court of Abitration in Sport.

Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.

as your web forum lawyer, i must advise you that the CAS would only hear the case if it was appealed. USADA would hear it in the first instance.

[RonK]

Ultimately that outcome will be decided by the Court of Abitration in Sport.

Whatever, it will not be decided by web forum lawyers.

as your web forum lawyer, i must advise you that the CAS would only hear the case if it was appealed. USADA would hear it in the first instance.

So, you don't think whatever decision the USADA hands down will be appealed?
No decent web forum lawyer ever accepts a decision without first testing every possible avenue of appeal.

[biker jk]

I thought Lance Armstrong's success was due to high cadence, reconnoitering the stages, large heart and dedicated training.

[jules21]

So, you don't think whatever decision the USADA hands down will be appealed?
No decent web forum lawyer ever accepts a decision without first testing every possible avenue of appeal.

actually, as your web forum lawyer, i will outline a series of justifications, each more unlikely and convoluted than the next, arguing why i am right and you should just accept what i say or be subjected to ad hominem attacks

[RICHARDH]

Just checking we are on a forum aren't we? Opinion is kind of the whole point of this yes?

[jules21]

Just checking we are on a forum aren't we? Opinion is kind of the whole point of this yes?

i think so, but i'd stress it's just my opinion

[toolonglegs]

Got to admit I am nearly past the point of caring... my mind was made up long ago. But with out reading everything, has USADA actually been given the transcripts from the Federal investigation?... IMO people will lie through their teeth to WADA, USADA etc ... but the interviews given by everyone at the Federal Investigation where under the threat of going to prison if you perjured yourself, they had real power behind that investigation... not some sporting organization... anyway lifes too short and it was a level playing field.

[jonbays]

Justice delayed is no justice at all and I too am past caring. Armstrongs still a hero whatever the outcome. Tom Simpson is still my hero though and well most of you know that he and at least half the peloton were up to in the 60's.

[greyhoundtom]

... anyway lifes too short and it was a level playing field.

My thoughts exactly, and that is why regardless of the outcome of any investigation, no one will ever diminish my belief that this guy due to his dedication and supreme effort is a true champion.

[ldrcycles]

Just checking we are on a forum aren't we? Opinion is kind of the whole point of this yes?

i think so, but i'd stress it's just my opinion

LOL.


Now this hasn't popped up in this thread yet, but i'm sure i read somewhere that he DID once return a positive test, but there was some kind of mixup, process not being followed absolutely to the letter and so it was not permissible?

As many others have said, he was surrounded by a peloton full of dopers, his team mates were doping, people behind the scenes were involved with doping...

[twizzle]

In a discussion with a former pro rider, he said he said everyone was prepared to turn a blind eye when Lance retired off into the sunset... but then he went and tried to do it all again.

[Tornado]

I have no idea of whether or not he or any of the others mentioned in the thread thus far are guilty. However I'm glad that the sport is tightly monitored and that they do go back and look at previous results with fresh technology. I think a message needs to be sent that just because we can't detect it now, it doesn't mean we won't soon and then use it against you then. Everybody else is doing it is not an excuse. I have told my daughter this many times in regards to things that happen at school.

[biker jk]

... anyway lifes too short and it was a level playing field.

My thoughts exactly, and that is why regardless of the outcome of any investigation, no one will ever diminish my belief that this guy due to his dedication and supreme effort is a true champion.

Not quite a level playing field. Who other than LA tested positive at a major race (Tour de Suisse 2001) but benefitted from a cover up and donated a large sum of money to the UCI? Who had exclusive use of the best blood doping doctor Michele Ferrari?

[DavidL]

Note: The USADA isn't just singling out LA, there are multiple people in their sights and LA is only in the mix because he refused to talk to them (the USADA).

You may now return to your LA bashing....

- David.

[AUbicycles]

Thanks for the link to the OutsideOnline article by Bill Gifford. I must admit I thought Livestrong was about cancer research.

Will still sit on the sidelines though... it's a bit like soccer at the moment though, anticipation but still no goals at 80 minutes and frankly, I won't be suprised if it is a 0 : 0 draw.

[wulfy117]

I think i'll wait for the movie.

[Arlberg]

What about his 3rd place in the 2010 Tour de France?

Maybe he got away with doping when he won the 7 straight, but what about during his comeback in 2010? He was being tested randomly up to three times a day with much more advanced drug detection methods, able to detect smaller traces and a wider range of drugs including of course, EPO. Surely he was not able to dope (and mask) given the number of times and frequency he was being tested. He went on to finish 3rd and very nearly second, despite a few years away from the sport.

[Chris249]

Arlberg, maybe in 2010 the others were riding clean because of the improved drug tests you mentioned, and therefore Armstrong could also ride clean and still be competitive.

In contrast, in his earlier Tours maybe everyone was doped up (a lot of them were, as we know) and therefore he may have had to dope to stay in the lead.

Anyone here read "Racing through the dark" by David Millar? It gives a great insight into the use of "preparation". Millar also says that there WERE clean riders, and not all of them were cheats.

[jules21]

What about his 3rd place in the 2010 Tour de France?

some of the evidence apparently points specifically to him doping in that Tour.

Surely he was not able to dope (and mask) given the number of times and frequency he was being tested.

we need to put this in the FAQ section or something - the tests can easily be beaten.

[Xplora]

we need to put this in the FAQ section or something - the tests can easily be beaten.

and if they cannot find the smoking gun, then the bang could have been a tyre, a backfire, fireworks, I don't know how seriously we can take testimony from these people. If you can't be honorable at the start, you can't be trusted at the end either.

[heay]

I have just finished reading the 15 page letter that was sent to LA and the others involved.

So far I have found in this document no actuall evidence that supports what they have said other than we have witness, who are these people that they are taliking too? If they are using FL and TH I for one would not use 2 people based on the fact that they have lied not only to a court but to the public on more than one occasion.

On page 10-11 of the document it states:

" With respect to Lance Armstrong, numerous riders, team personnel and others will testify based on personal knowledge acquired either through observing Armstrong dope or through Armstrong's admissions of doping to them that Lance Armstrong used EOP, blood transfusions, testostrone and cortisone during the perios before 1998 through 2005, and that he has perviously used EPO, testostrone and hGH through 1996".

The last part can not be used as he was being treated for cancer and the drugs were a part of his recovery so I find this very hard to understand why they would bring this up?

[jules21]

I don't know how seriously we can take testimony from these people. If you can't be honorable at the start, you can't be trusted at the end either.

the evidence was collected by a grand jury. lying carries the potential to be sent to jail and their testimony could have been tested in court (before the investigation was dropped), where they would have been subjected to very close scrutiny. you can't write those claims off as wild accusations.

[clackers]

So far I have found in this document no actuall evidence that supports what they have said other than we have witness, who are these people that they are taliking too?

That's the job of juries, panels, tribunals and judges, Heay - to listen to witnesses from both sides, cross-examine them in a way we can't on the interweb, and make a decision.

Works for our criminal court system, where the majority of convictions are based on witness evidence, not chemical tests!