Baldy wrote:Who exactly are you talking about? Hincappie? Vaughters? Riis? All the USpostal team[including all staff?] Vino and Astana? The people who were given deals in the quest to get Armstrong? Christina Watches?
How do we decide who to go after? Is there a presumption of guilt for staff/trainers/directors that manage guilty athletes?
On June 12th USADA contacted Armstrong, Johann Bruyneel, the doctors Michele Ferrari (Italy), Pedro Celaya (Luxembourg, who currently works with Team RadioShack), Luis Garcia del Moral (Spain) and the Spanish trainer Pepe Marti. This case is much more than just Armstrong's own doping.
So far Armstrong, Ferrari & del Moral have accepted their sanctions, i.e. life time bans for doping, trafficking, organised doping and cover up. Bruyneel, Mori & Celaya have requested to go to arbitration. The evidence against them will be very similar to that for Armstrong.
Anyone involved in the sport is covered by the provisions, which include support staff, trainers, coaches, soigneurs, managers, directors, etc etc (this is stipulated in UCI's own rules pertaining to doping - a rule that UCI president McQuaid got completely wrong and failed to uphold when he refused to acknowledge Ferrari's sanction). Ferrari is a doctor who oversaw the administration of EPO on a grand scale. He still operates today and provides coaching services to many athletes. his website is called 53x11. It makes me sick.
Baldy wrote:If one of your clients tests positive and is found guilty, would you be happy for them to come after you? From what I understand USADA[maybe our guys too?] can open an investigation with little to no evidence. Which would stop you and your business doing your job until the investigation is complete.
The ADA has to have substantial evidence in order to take such action. Anyone who thinks USADA doesn't have substantial evidence is in denial.
In such a hypothetical case, since I would have no knowledge of any client's doping, nor any involvement in the supply or administering of doping substances or methods, nor involved in any cover up, then just because an athlete without my knowledge does something stupid, does not implicate me, nor have I breached the anti-doping code. Hence I have nothing to fear, other than residual reputational damage from having coached a doper. The non-riders being sanctioned in this existing case are those that are organising, supplying and administering doping products and methods.
If such as case were to arise with an athlete of mine, then the relevant ADA can question me as much as they like and I will happily cooperate with them. We have a strict anti-doping code, it's written into all our client's contracts, and any doping violation (whether that's a positive doping test or other relevant evidence) results in an immediate termination of service. The advice I would give my (now former) client is to seek legal advice and to make immediate contact with the ADA and cooperate fully, because if they don't, I would be advising the ADA of my knowledge (in the case that it's something other than a doping positive, which of course the ADA would already know about). That would be the final conversation I would have with them, beyond seeking any monies owing as stipulated in our contract.
I've not had that experience thankfully, although I have in the past had a team mate go positive and receive a 2-year ban. That was a shock, and an unpleasant experience.