HOLY !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!!!! Amstrong accepts life ban!!!

[Jono L.]

Which in common pub language is "soft/weak/gutless"

Sure, it's all legal stuff, and that's fair enough, but you don't go public with all this stuff if you don't have the ability to actually put your money where your mouth is.....the legal process occurs in the public space, and if you cannot bring all the evidence into the public space with you when you make an accusation against a famous figure (using weasel words like cases pending etc) then you should keep that accusation to yourself. Resolve your cases, then .....not very nice bit removed (be nice)....

Using pub language about this sort of stuff is a bit like the pub language that says all cyclists are lycra hoons who should be paying rego. It can simply be shorthand for not knowing what is going on, for not having done research, and not giving people the respect one expects for oneself.

People could probably complain about your profession or trade with pub language too, but that may just be because they don't know how it works. I bet I don't know everything about what you do for a living so why should you or I know exactly how USADA should operate and why they work like that?

My degree is in this area, I did a thesis on the laws applying to sporting bodies and I have worked as a regulator and investigator for years and yet it would take me ages to work out whether USADA was really operating correctly, so with respect I can't see how it can be so easy for someone from the outside to waltz into a pub and say "I'm an expert on US administrative law and I know incontrovertibly that USADA are crap." Anyone who could do that would be earning a fortune at the bar.

Running a regulatory body and an investigation is a complex exercise in which many conflicting factors have to be balanced. You have to encourage people to give evidence, but also give people the chance to rebut it. You have to be able to dig deep into lives without destroying them. This is NOT easy and to be honest it gets a bit frustrating when people who have never done it show such contempt for those who do. As in any job, there are problems that people on the outside do not know about and there are reasons why things are done the way they are, although as in any job human factors do come into play and there are mistakes - which is why there are avenues such as arbitration which Lance has decided not to take.

Many legal matters are not fought out in the public space. NDAs etc are very common. Even when an regulator releases a decision or a court comes to a decision they do not release every bit of evidence to the public. I have seen pics of bodies doing things, or bits of bodies, that were used as evidence that you would not want on the front page of your paper, believe me.

"Case pending" is not a weazel word, it is a statement of the fact that a case is coming up. What is the alternative to ASADA saying things like "case pending"?

Exactly what do you want a body such as ASADA to say when they are preparing a case and the press asks for info, if they do not use such "weazel words"?
Do you want them to say "we refuse to confirm or deny that we are contemplating a case" or something similar? Surely that is more "weazelly" than "case pending". Or do you want them to lie to the public? These things do tend to get a lot more public in America, but that seems to go both ways.

Armstrong's side has made many attacks on witnesses, as any quick Google shows, and therefore USADA's claim that they are protecting witnesses doesn't seem to be unreasonable.

Chapeau.

Great post.

[RICHARDH]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-as ... says-weltz

and the hits keep on coming

[AUbicycles]

GruenPlanet taking a look at Lance Armstrong right now

[VicMic]

Missed the show. What did they cover?

[toolonglegs]

Danielson, Vander Velde & Zabriske... Vaughters letting some of the witnesses names out of the bag?.
Floodgates opening...

[London Boy]

It doesn't need to "pass muster" in any court in the USA.
USADA haven't released anything because there are still cases pending.
Pretty simple really.

Which in common pub language is "soft/weak/gutless"

Sure, it's all legal stuff, and that's fair enough, but you don't go public with all this stuff if you don't have the ability to actually put your money where your mouth is.

You should go study law for a few years, then you'll get the picture. It takes some effort mind, because there's a lot of complex stuff going on, lots of procedural as well as substantive rules. This is what USADA is being mindful of.

[wombatK]

Missed the show. What did they cover?

Catch it here... very worth watching
48928785
Cheers

[AUbicycles]

Gruen was good and I like the media aspect. Some of of the views reflected my thoughts that it is about timing for Lance whcih means there is still "a chance" or open questions so that Lance can retain the biggest possible audience of supporters.

One thing I disagreed with that there will be little impact on cycling, specifically in sponsorship which was barely touched upon, this is where sponsors loose there interest or even pull-out, when the sport looses its credibility. When big sponsors are hesitant or pull out of pro-cycling, what about continental teams or semi-pro teams.

Interesting comments were on the media personality of Lance and how/if he can retain his media profile and continue being a celeb even after such a disgrace. A number of disgraced celebs are able to retain their street value.

[norbs]

The Gruen Planet was rubbish! here is why... http://norbs.tk/9y

Contains some swearing.

[Fresh]

The Gruen Planet was rubbish! here is why... http://norbs.tk/9y

Contains some swearing.

I watched the show and had to restrain myself from throwing stuff at the TV. That Todd Sampson is a bit of a <removed>. Jane Flemming was the only person with a semblance of a brain in that discussion, and she was being drowned out by the <removed> next to her.

[AUbicycles]

The Gruen Planet was rubbish!

Generally there is a lot of information and contradictory info out there. I think generally the show did a good job of discussing the issue inline which what it does at looking into the media and spin factors. Todd Sampson was closer to the mark but yes, he didn't know that the public will get to see the evidence. Russel Howcroft has an interesting view in that he knows very little about sports cycling but as an outsider Lance has certainly left an impression on him - he comes across as a bit of a fanboy.

“The court of public opinion is more important than the legal court”. Really, I would like to see the court of public opinion ban an athlete from competing.

In the context of media and spin he is right on the mark. It is not the jurisdiction and actual legal result in question, rather the media presence or effect on his celebrity credibility or following.

Host Wil Anderson then chips in with this line “Its not even that. All you have to do is if you said I’ll give you 500 million dollars for charity and you just have to take drugs in a race where every one else is already taking drug.”

Actually I found this to be a really interesting hypothetical, and don't feel that it was anything more than a hypothetical.

Sampson had this to say of viewership

On the SBS viewing numbers I would tend to agree with you norbs, at least from what the SBS is reporting for Australia, viewer numbers are growing and the Tour De France is not declining in international popularity.

Sampson then went on a little rant about the “USDA” having no clue about social media.

They didn't actually say it though I think it was moving onto the fact that Lance at one stage had the largest twitter following. Don't know what it is like now by Armstrong still has an immense following and as we all know, he uses twitter very well. From watching other shows, Sampson is actually pretty cluey on Social Media.

--

So yes, they didn't have all the facts and it was an opinionated debate though for a discussion in a public forum (rather than cycling specific forum) I think they did a pretty good job of addressing this in the context of their show.

[norbs]

The Gruen Planet was rubbish!

Generally there is a lot of information and contradictory info out there. I think generally the show did a good job of discussing the issue inline which what it does at looking into the media and spin factors. Todd Sampson was closer to the mark but yes, he didn't know that the public will get to see the evidence. Russel Howcroft has an interesting view in that he knows very little about sports cycling but as an outsider Lance has certainly left an impression on him - he comes across as a bit of a fanboy.

“The court of public opinion is more important than the legal court”. Really, I would like to see the court of public opinion ban an athlete from competing.

In the context of media and spin he is right on the mark. It is not the jurisdiction and actual legal result in question, rather the media presence or effect on his celebrity credibility or following.

Host Wil Anderson then chips in with this line “Its not even that. All you have to do is if you said I’ll give you 500 million dollars for charity and you just have to take drugs in a race where every one else is already taking drug.”

Actually I found this to be a really interesting hypothetical, and don't feel that it was anything more than a hypothetical.

Sampson had this to say of viewership

On the SBS viewing numbers I would tend to agree with you norbs, at least from what the SBS is reporting for Australia, viewer numbers are growing and the Tour De France is not declining in international popularity.

Sampson then went on a little rant about the “USDA” having no clue about social media.

They didn't actually say it though I think it was moving onto the fact that Lance at one stage had the largest twitter following. Don't know what it is like now by Armstrong still has an immense following and as we all know, he uses twitter very well. From watching other shows, Sampson is actually pretty cluey on Social Media.

--

So yes, they didn't have all the facts and it was an opinionated debate though for a discussion in a public forum (rather than cycling specific forum) I think they did a pretty good job of addressing this in the context of their show.

All good points. The blog post certainly caused a few more debates on the internets. It is good, it means you hear different points of view. Thanks Chris for the feedback.

[Ross]

Just finished watching the Gruen video and then read Norb's blog and Chris' rebuttal. I have to say I am with Chris on this one.

Whether the (anti) dopng angency acronym is USDA or USADA is just nitpicking really, we all know what he was refering to regardless.

I agree that they did tend to talk over the top of Jane, especially when she was trying to point out that Lance had actually tested positive for PEDs at least a couple of times and that he was probably a few steps ahead of the testers by taking drugs or doing other things that there are no tests for yet.

I think Lance (and his team of advisors) did look at all the pros and cons of fighting the doping charges and decided that not contesting them was the path of least damage and did leave a slight doubt whether he did dope, in some people's minds. And I disagree with Jane Flemming that Lance will just dissapear. On Twittter anyway, he still posts stuff most days relating to runs or rides he is doing or retweeting other people's cancer charity events.

From reports I've read Livestrong donations have risen considerably since this latest story on Lance broke, so theoretically that is a good thing if cancer researcers are actually receiving this money.

The Gruen show is not meant to be a a biography or documentary, it is meant as a light hearted look at advertising and 'spin', which I think it did reasonably well on the Lance issue.

[RonK]

I disagree with Jane Flemming that Lance will just dissapear.

Me too.

Armstrong has two constituencies. One is the cycling community, the other is cancer sufferers and their families and friends.

Of the cycling community, many have already decided that Armstrong's is probably a doper, and eventually many more will come around to that view.

But Armstrong's standing within that other community will not change, regardless of whether he is discredited as a professional cyclist. This is why you see donations to Livestrong have increased recently. Providing even a gleam of hope and a ounce of support to a cancer victim earns a boatload of forgiveness.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

From reports I've read Livestrong donations have risen considerably since this latest story on Lance broke, so theoretically that is a good thing if cancer researcers are actually receiving this money.

Except none of Livestrong's money goes to cancer research. That's not to say it doesn't go towards some helpful things for people affected by cancer, but funding of research into ways to beat the disease is not one of them. It is also a big PR machine.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-ad ... tml?page=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ColinOldnCranky]

An interesting article I found at http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/

Bits that I find particularly interesting include:

Armstrong’s Statement
It’s hard not to see Armstrong’s statement as an audacious work of cynicism, using tough talk to mask a weak position. He can’t seem to say aloud that he rode clean, instead just that he “played by the rules” which is not the same when examined with legal eyes.

But there’s no legalese for the main part of the statement which is an attack on USADA. He claims the USADA has “no authority” and jurisdiction over the case. Yet only last Monday no less than a US Federal Judge ruled that USADA has jurisdiction. If Armstrong’s lawyers said the same thing they could be found in contempt of court.
He says “USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old” which is correct but doesn’t mention that the charges also relate to matters from just three years ago, a sneaky attempt to paint this as something from way back when in fact it is still highly relevant and more so since the case involves five others who are still working in and around the sport today.

Can he be stripped of his titles?
Yes. USADA is an agency working under the World Anti-Doping Agency rules. If an athlete waives their right to a hearing then here is 8.3 of the WADA Code:

...legal waffle look at the article if you need to...

In short waiving the hearing means USADA can reach a “reasoned decision” based on the evidence at its disposal. If USADA rules there is a doping offence, imposes a lifetime ban and says he should be stripped of his wins then this applies worldwide. It is then for the UCI, as cycling’s governing body, to await the decision and issue the formal notice stripping Armstrong of his wins which it must do to comply with the WADA Code. All prize monies must be repaid too.

Note the "must do". According to this the UCI has no choice in the matter as they are a signatory to WADA. If this is as it appears then I can finally understand how it has been reported from day two that USADA has "stripped" Armstrong of the awards. With inevitability then, in effect, they have.

So who won the Tour de France?
Stripping the title is one thing but the rules also say the result must be given to the second placed rider.

Again, note the "must" in here. Yuch. LIke it or not the next tainted rider gets the entry in the record books?

Summary
Famous for his fighting, Lance Armstrong has thrown in the towel. His legal avenues closed after losing the lawsuit on Monday and now he’s declined the arbitration hearing. He ran out of chances to frustrate the procedural and legal aspects and when all that remained was a hearing, he declined.

A fair summing up IMO. Whatever "battles" he claims to have won, they have been limited to battles to frustrate the evidence being brought forth. And only after that was stretched as far as possible did "exhaustion" set in. I think that if anyone can complain about failure of evidence being bought forward it should be USADA, not Armstrong.

I do not know how authoritative the stuff in this article is but it is certainly definitive.

[sogood]

Catch it here... very worth watching

Thanks for the link. Completely agree that this is a very smart PR move from LA's team. Given the shift to Livestrong and the fact that dope was the dominant culture in cycling through those years, whether he doped or not is no longer the key issue. The key is that he managed to win the Tour six times when no other dopers came close and that he has done a heck of a lot for cancer awareness and therapy. The rest are for historians and irrelevant to the future.

Do I think he doped? Probably at least at some points but don't know. Right now, I don't particularly care as it's an issue that has no solution as the whole cycling profession was mixed in a soup of dope. What's important is how the profession will fare in the future.

[greyhoundtom]

Catch it here... very worth watching

Thanks for the link. Completely agree that this is a very smart PR move from LA's team. Given the shift to Livestrong and the fact that dope was the dominant culture in cycling through those years, whether he doped or not is no longer the key issue. The key is that he managed to win the Tour six times when no other dopers came close and that he has done a heck of a lot for cancer awareness and therapy. The rest are for historians and irrelevant to the future.

Do I think he doped? Probably at least at some points but don't know. Right now, I don't particularly care as it's an issue that has no solution as the whole cycling profession was mixed in a soup of dope. What's important is how the profession will fare in the future.

+1

[Chuck]

Now

I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA's charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA's motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA's process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and - once and for all - put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims.

Then

In 2005 Armstrong told Cyclingnews: "I am a huge advocate of WADA, USADA, drug controls, random controls, out of competition controls. I have donated money to the UCI over the years to increase [drug controls]."

The rest are for historians and irrelevant to the future.

What's important is how the profession will fare in the future.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The rest are for historians and irrelevant to the future.

Properly dealing with the dopers, the traffickers and those complicit in such actions, as well as coercion to dope, is very much relevant for the future.

All those involved in just this one case are all still currently involved in competing, directing, managing and/or aiding current athletes and teams. The ones found to have engaged in such activity are the cancer the sport needs to eradicate.

[Mulger bill]

All those involved in just this one case are all still currently involved in competing, directing, managing and/or aiding current athletes and teams. The ones found to have engaged in such activity are the cancer the sport needs to eradicate.

HELL YEAH! Doubt we'll ever see a 100% clean sport but if the enablers of systematic doping get the bullet it'll go a long way towards.

[sogood]

Properly dealing with the dopers, the traffickers and those complicit in such actions, as well as coercion to dope, is very much relevant for the future.

All those involved in just this one case are all still currently involved in competing, directing, managing and/or aiding current athletes and teams. The ones found to have engaged in such activity are the cancer the sport needs to eradicate.

But that's the point. They are far better to draw the line and try to eradicate going forward than try to do the impossible and pick on individuals from the past. Any one dare to mention the Merckx name, or any of the past greats? Fact and we all know it, the sport of cycling was completely tainted up to the recent past. If the authority cares to pick fights, then they'll virtually have to take on every one. As others have mentioned, taking out LA, then who's to say the next in line for the TdF title was not tainted? It's a hopeless case.

The only balancing message here is that the Yanks are just as big on doping as their Euro counterpart, but at a higher sophistication level.

[roller]

Properly dealing with the dopers, the traffickers and those complicit in such actions, as well as coercion to dope, is very much relevant for the future.

All those involved in just this one case are all still currently involved in competing, directing, managing and/or aiding current athletes and teams. The ones found to have engaged in such activity are the cancer the sport needs to eradicate.

But that's the point. They are far better to draw the line and try to eradicate going forward than try to do the impossible and pick on individuals from the past. Any one dare to mention the Merckx name, or any of the past greats? Fact and we all know it, the sport of cycling was completely tainted up to the recent past. If the authority cares to pick fights, then they'll virtually have to take on every one. As others have mentioned, taking out LA, then who's to say the next in line for the TdF title was not tainted? It's a hopeless case.

The only balancing message here is that the Yanks are just as big on doping as their Euro counterpart, but at a higher sophistication level.

so let me see if i understand this, you want to say "let's draw a line in the sand. let's leave the past alone. let's only bust people from. . . . . . .now"




do you not realise if they were not pursuing lance/johan/dr ferrari and co. for their crimes committed in the distant past (of 2009-2011) then they would still be involved in the sport right now?

managing pro teams, managing under 23 teams? being someone young riders look up to?

[sogood]

so let me see if i understand this, you want to say "let's draw a line in the sand. let's leave the past alone. let's only bust people from. . . . . . .now"

That's not what I said, but to say that the whole pro cycling fraternity is stuffed. Cleaning up LA now is but a show at this point. What's more important is going forward, how the governing bodies regulate the profession. At least there's now the blood passport screening mechanism, good until gene therapy takes hold.

Even now... that Robert Forstemann's thigh at the London Olympics. Any one care to explain how he got his thighs to be so abnormally big? As some says in LA's case, negative dope tests do not prove innocence.

[Ross]

http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/09/07 ... anceDenied

Amazing that Lance seems to have a lot of support from the (albeit uninformed) running community.