Lance Armstrong again....

[marky2484]

F******ng Americans, think they rule the world, hope the UCI tell them to do one.

So what if Lance doped. Is ANYONE seriously suggesting that 99% of the peleton were doing any different , at this point in the sports history.

Always be one of my heroes. Amazing man,amazing struggle, one of the nicest men I ever met.

 

[DA-EVO]

...the action is being taken against a group of people and not just Lance Armstrong so I am not convinced it is a witch hunt. I'm not a great believer in conspiracy theories.

The implication of which is that there is no direct evidence to charge Armstrong with so they're going for 'the team' and crying guilt by association.

A number of Athletes in cycling have been excluded from the sport for suspicious blood values but had no positive tests for specified substances. This has been completed under the Biological Passport. An Athlete will be tested periodically in and out of competition and blood, urine and hair samples may be taken and analysed.

The Bio Passport board is constructed of scientists and doctors that monitor blood values in Athletes over the course of events and years, they will typically measure a large number of markers in the blood and watch them for unusual changes. If an unusual set of events occur, the Athletes are asked to explain them.

Another few Athletes had their samples re-tested and found to have taken specified substances due to findings in their Bio passport data.

The Bio Passport was introduced a few years back and its data can be used in the sanctioning of an Athlete. The most recent investigation is ongoing: http://www.rabosport.com/news/item/19457

Most PED's (Performance Enhancing Drugs) leave the body quite quickly through urine but their effects on the blood can last a number of weeks. Thus, having a set of parameters that track an Athlete through his career and then re-visit when things start to change in that profile is a lot more reliable than hit and miss Urine tests.

The USADA letter mentioned blood manipulation and it is thought this is what could be referred to by that statement.


(edited for clarity)

 

[suburbanreuben]

I can't imagine the frogs will take too kindly to being told the seven times winner of their race has been stripped of his titles by the yanks...

 

[sylus]

The USADA letter mentioned blood manipulation and it is thought this is what could be referred to by that statement.

This is it I feel and sums up the whole situation.

Despite more clean tests than a porn worker and Lance having never failed one....the usda is hoping by throwing out vague and unsubstantiated statements that some mud will stick despite having nothing to prove their case.

It is a witch hunt pure and simple and they have been after him for years.

The worrying message here though is in two parts

1..any american official body thinks it owns the world and can tell everyone else what to do

2..if you are a long term super athlete (carefull bolt) then someone will always be trying to get you despite the fact it may just be..you are the best athlete of your time.

Personally I hope he takes out a counter civil action against the usda for the slander and libel against him and his reputation and makes them pay heavily

 

[DA-EVO]

I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong

But I'm sure usda/wadas own guidelines has an 8 year time limit on offences?

Where there is evidence of a conspiracy to conceal a doping offence, it is possible to use a precedent set in a case called 'Hellebuyck' (A previous USADA Arbitration case) to extend that SOL. This is also relatively common in other areas of Law in the U.S.

The difficulty here is that because Lance has decided not to take part in the usda's witch hunt circus they have come out claiming it's an admission of guilt despite never having provided a positive test.

That actually remains to be seen, although I think its not that likely they have a Urine / blood test. they have the Bio Passport data however and that can be used as evidence, as can eye witness testimony of an Athlete being treated or using PED's. However, there are 5 urine samples from the 1999 tour that were retro-tested in 2005 and found to contain r-EPO, which are claimed to belong to the Athlete. Thats a long read but you can view it here: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

I say positive because until you can say 100% you have proof then you have none.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a term used in a court of law, in an arbitration the level of evidence does not need to be as thorough - the recipient of the arbitration is not going to prison. I believe its something like 'a reasonable standard of proof' or similar but that is really down to the arbitration panel.

One thing to note on an Arbitration panel by the way is that the Athlete is allowed to choose a panel member, the USADA choose one and both the Athlete and USADA have to agree on the third.

As to the us cycling body being part of wada..that is true but they are part and not all and on this occasion wada and the uci are going to take kindly to the tale wagging the dog.

This is not really the case as prior to the Arbitration deadline the Athlete asked the Federal courts to rule that USADA did not have jusistiction to charge or sanction him, and this was ultimately denied by the court.

The UCI tried to take the case from USADA and the letter from UCI became matter of public record as part of the case. WADA replied to the UCI in a letter (which also came on record) and were quite specific that USADA were within their rights. USAC also stated that they thought UCI should be looking at the case, WADA likely wrote them a letter too. One problem with the case was that the UCI had been acused of covering up a positive test in 2001 and thus USADA argued that the UCI were effectively capable of hindering the process of the case.

Here are the letters..

UCI to USADA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101973130/McQ ... Bock-USADA

WADA letter to UCI: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102398382/WADA-Letter-to-UCI

(Can't find the USAC one right now)

Judges decision that ruling is not going to be in US court and USADA should be the right body to conduct Arbitration, with some reservations and moaning about USAC, USDA, UCI and WADA and the Athlete.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision

It's true that he has been banned from competitive iron man events not because he has done anything there..but because it's part of the usda's witch hunt to hound him indefinately.

The Athlete has been banned from taking part in sport. This covers all sports and this occurs when any Athlete is banned by a governing body.

The other thing often overlooked . Lance has been a marmite cyclist with so many unable to match his talent and the usda not liking the fact that Lance is bigger than the organisation in so many ways.

He through live strong has raised over $500 million for U.S. cancer charities and since retiring has increased his personal time into the charity.

Personally if I was lance I would sit back, enjoy life and say to the usda..prove it..I would then expect a long wait.

At present, that is already done and dusted. He chose not to Arbitrate and therefore a sanction has been imposed. He effectively said 'no contest' and when that happens you get a ruling. It remains to be seen if that changes.

If you take to one side all that he did as a parent and all that he did for charity and as a Cancer survivor, he is an Athlete. It is in this forum in which USADA and other bodies operate and govern. It is in this context that he has been judged against. His sporting legacy has apparently been ruled null and void from 1998, the other things in his life can still be a source of anger for some and enthusiasm / optimism for others. He has his freedom and his charitable legacy and so on.

This is not an easy case as it is emotive for many people as he inspired many, however, I will repeat, there are five other individuals in this case and the charges against them are serious in the context of professional sport. It's not just about the bike(r).

 

[sylus]

The court case was not about wether or not he did something..it was about the right to lay charges against him. Therefore it was not a found guilty of ..but more right we can proceed

As I said earlier is usda pursues this it is admitting it's role as a deciding body is seriously in doubt as they will be admitting they are unable to find alledged offences with accuracy and consistency..this has the possibility of being a massive own goal

One problem with the case was that the UCI had been acused of covering up a positive test in 2001 and thus USADA argued that the UCI were effectively capable of hindering the process of the case.

see previous reply as to hindering or endangering the case

the governing body only has the right to ban him from events which fall under thier dictat..not all events do

He effectively said 'no contest' and when that happens you get a ruling. It remains to be seen if that changes.

I know that's how the deciding authorities would like people to see it but what he has done is not agree to arbitration and no more..yes it will be interesting to see how this unfolds as I know you mention five other individuals but none have been pursued by the usda for as long as Lance and I personally feel they are a smoke screen to attempt to make the witch hunt LOOK like it is not one.

 

[suburbanreuben]

I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong

But I'm sure usda/wadas own guidelines has an 8 year time limit on offences?

Where there is evidence of a conspiracy to conceal a doping offence, it is possible to use a precedent set in a case called 'Hellebuyck' (A previous USADA Arbitration case) to extend that SOL. This is also relatively common in other areas of Law in the U.S.

The difficulty here is that because Lance has decided not to take part in the usda's witch hunt circus they have come out claiming it's an admission of guilt despite never having provided a positive test.

That actually remains to be seen, although I think its not that likely they have a Urine / blood test. they have the Bio Passport data however and that can be used as evidence, as can eye witness testimony of an Athlete being treated or using PED's. However, there are 5 urine samples from the 1999 tour that were retro-tested in 2005 and found to contain r-EPO, which are claimed to belong to the Athlete. Thats a long read but you can view it here: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... l-ashenden

I say positive because until you can say 100% you have proof then you have none.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' is a term used in a court of law, in an arbitration the level of evidence does not need to be as thorough - the recipient of the arbitration is not going to prison. I believe its something like 'a reasonable standard of proof' or similar but that is really down to the arbitration panel.

One thing to note on an Arbitration panel by the way is that the Athlete is allowed to choose a panel member, the USADA choose one and both the Athlete and USADA have to agree on the third.

As to the us cycling body being part of wada..that is true but they are part and not all and on this occasion wada and the uci are going to take kindly to the tale wagging the dog.

This is not really the case as prior to the Arbitration deadline the Athlete asked the Federal courts to rule that USADA did not have jusistiction to charge or sanction him, and this was ultimately denied by the court.

The UCI tried to take the case from USADA and the letter from UCI became matter of public record as part of the case. WADA replied to the UCI in a letter (which also came on record) and were quite specific that USADA were within their rights. USAC also stated that they thought UCI should be looking at the case, WADA likely wrote them a letter too. One problem with the case was that the UCI had been acused of covering up a positive test in 2001 and thus USADA argued that the UCI were effectively capable of hindering the process of the case.

Here are the letters..

UCI to USADA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/101973130/McQ ... Bock-USADA

WADA letter to UCI: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102398382/WADA-Letter-to-UCI

(Can't find the USAC one right now)

Judges decision that ruling is not going to be in US court and USADA should be the right body to conduct Arbitration, with some reservations and moaning about USAC, USDA, UCI and WADA and the Athlete.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision

It's true that he has been banned from competitive iron man events not because he has done anything there..but because it's part of the usda's witch hunt to hound him indefinately.

The Athlete has been banned from taking part in sport. This covers all sports and this occurs when any Athlete is banned by a governing body.

The other thing often overlooked . Lance has been a marmite cyclist with so many unable to match his talent and the usda not liking the fact that Lance is bigger than the organisation in so many ways.

He through live strong has raised over $500 million for U.S. cancer charities and since retiring has increased his personal time into the charity.

Personally if I was lance I would sit back, enjoy life and say to the usda..prove it..I would then expect a long wait.

At present, that is already done and dusted. He chose not to Arbitrate and therefore a sanction has been imposed. He effectively said 'no contest' and when that happens you get a ruling. It remains to be seen if that changes.

If you take to one side all that he did as a parent and all that he did for charity and as a Cancer survivor, he is an Athlete. It is in this forum in which USADA and other bodies operate and govern. It is in this context that he has been judged against. His sporting legacy has apparently been ruled null and void from 1998, the other things in his life can still be a source of anger for some and enthusiasm / optimism for others. He has his freedom and his charitable legacy and so on.

This is not an easy case as it is emotive for many people as he inspired many, however, I will repeat, there are five other individuals in this case and the charges against them are serious in the context of professional sport. It's not just about the bike(r).

Who gives a shit?
I don't.
He was the best cyclist on the planet for a long time.
Nothing anyone claims now will erase that.
All the legal bullshit is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. They had seven years or more to nail him, and they tried, but couldn't.
Amen.

 

[DA-EVO]

The USADA letter mentioned blood manipulation and it is thought this is what could be referred to by that statement.

This is it I feel and sums up the whole situation.

Despite more clean tests than a p*rn worker and Lance having never failed one....the usda is hoping by throwing out vague and unsubstantiated statements that some mud will stick despite having nothing to prove their case.

It is a witch hunt pure and simple and they have been after him for years.

The worrying message here though is in two parts

1..any american official body thinks it owns the world and can tell everyone else what to do

2..if you are a long term super athlete (carefull bolt) then someone will always be trying to get you despite the fact it may just be..you are the best athlete of your time.

Personally I hope he takes out a counter civil action against the usda for the slander and libel against him and his reputation and makes them pay heavily

Sorry to pick out your posts, but again:

Any ADA with sufficient evidence against an Athlete can sanction them or go via WADA to get them sanctioned. This sanction is worldwide, this is something the IOC wanted. It stopped people from Belgium suddenly being american and running races in a different country, avoiding sanctions on their own turf. Valverde (Spain) was sanctioned by CONI (italian Olympic comittee) as they matched his DNA and his own Gov body RFEC didn't intervene.

The Athlete allegedly failed 3 tests in his career and this case was about those tests, hiding of tests, conspiracy and so on. Lots of stuff. (see charging sheet)

A civil action could be potentially difficult as should discovery be performed against him and it is found that he was indeed guilty, he would be in a very difficult position indeed.

Drugs testing. The reason that Urine samples are now kept for eight years is that it is thought that the time advantage that doctors and new drugs have against testing is as much as 8 years to be discovered and tested for. There are lots of clean Athletes that have never tested positive for a specified substance or for a banned method but its pretty certain that a lot more are actually competing whilst cheating. Listen to how many Athletes say 'Never failed a drugs test', It is a lot different to 'I don't take PED's or cheat'.

One Final thing. At the Olypics this year a Hammer thrower was excluded for a failed Urine test. The test was from the 2004 games and he was ejected from the event due to the fact that his sample would soon be past statute. They found something they didn't have a test for in 2004. That is why the sport wants, and the IOC want WADA and its structures in place.

 

[suburbanreuben]

This is all so much bullshit.
No wonder he's tired of it.
Life's too short.

 

[FMJ]

This is not a criminal case it is a sporting anti-doping case, it would not go to a court of law unless there was strong of evidence of criminality. Sports anti-doping cases go to arbitration. This is, in the case of cycling, mostly done by the national sporting body for cycling or its Anti-doping arm (USAC, USADA). Escalation of this process is a higher court called CAS if a dispute cannot be resolved at the lower level. In cycling the UCI can also start proceedings.

You get subpoenaed to testify on doping by the US Congess and lie and you will have a new friend/room-mate named Bubba for 1-2 years. Several MLB players found that out the hard way (Roger Clemens managed to weasel his way out of doing time). One of Lance's biggest problems he'll soon be facing is he was technically an employee of the Federal Government when racing for the US Postal Service team, all their contracts had NO DRUGS in big bold letters, and the US government doesn't take it lightly when their employees try to pull a fast one on them. Expect to see Lancie-poo cut a big, fat cheque for the fine/restitution in that one.

And there's the 6 figure cheque he wrote to some bogus anti doping agency to smooth out some questionable results, and his good buddy Jim Ochowicz trying to strong arm Greg LeMond into not testifying by threatening to expose the fact that he was molested as a child.....

And his track record as a person? Former cancer survivor dumps Sheryl Crow days after she tells him she has brain cancer. Nice guy. Don't be messin' with my fellow Orange peeps, ya plug!

Sheryl w. her 200 EXC