Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
24 Aug 12
09:29
Joined:
Date Joined:
20 May 10
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234
Show More
I know cuz he is nt contesting the charges he looks guilty and prob is tbh but how are they chargin him if he has never tested positive?? Dont get it
China swimmer Ye Shiwen was the same ''guilty'' without any proof. Until Lord Moynihan said "She's clean'.
They say the have tests for steriods as far back as 1996. I presume they give you steroids to build you back up when you have cancer.
http://www.cancer.org
In 1996 Lance Amstrong began feeling a lowered energy level, started coughing blood, and had a painful testicle. He was found to have testicular cancer that had spread throughout his body to his lungs and brain.
After his testicle was removed, he received chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide (ifosfamide was used instead of bleomycin to avoid any damage to his lungs that would impair his bicycling). He also had surgery to remove 2 brain metastases (no radiation was given because of the concern that it also would affect his balance or coordination)
They say the have tests for steriods as far back as 1996. I presume they give you steroids to build you back up when you have cancer.
http://www.cancer.org
In 1996 Lance Amstrong began feeling a lowered energy level, started coughing blood, and had a painful testicle. He was found to have testicular cancer that had spread throughout his body to his lungs and brain.
After his testicle was removed, he received chemotherapy with cisplatin, etoposide, and ifosfamide (ifosfamide was used instead of bleomycin to avoid any damage to his lungs that would impair his bicycling). He also had surgery to remove 2 brain metastases (no radiation was given because of the concern that it also would affect his balance or coordination)
Most (if not all) of the cycling guys I follow on Twitter are all delighted with this news
It seems the whole cycling world reckons Lance was drugged up
It seems the whole cycling world reckons Lance was drugged up
The only negative is that there will be no public hearing with a properly presented case against this fraudster.
The relevant cycling authorities colluded in his fraud. Paul Kimmage was on RTE radio this morning talking about this with Myles Dungan. Well worth a listen for anyone interested.
Wildman should be along soon to say Armstrong is entirely innocent just like his beloved Michelle "guilty as sin" De Bruin.
Fair play to Paul Kimmage. This is a link to the youtube interview where he confronts Armstrong.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=K7NRvMM-JTE
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=K7NRvMM-JTE
i'd say kimmage waited a long time for this day - Armstrong so out of order in that interview
The following is well worth a read. I don't know enough about the ins and outs of this to refute any of he points he makes, on the face of it, the make a lot of sense. I feel sorry for the guy.
Nobody wins here.
Full statement by Lance Armstrong:
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.
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. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?
From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA's improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA's own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations.
At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully,threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at US taxpayers' expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It's an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It's just not right.
USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.
Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.
Nobody wins here.
Full statement by Lance Armstrong:
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.
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. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?
From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA's improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA's own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations.
At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully,threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at US taxpayers' expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It's an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It's just not right.
USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.
Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.
He says an awful lot in that statement but at no point does he say - I did not cheat - I did not take performance enhancing drugs.
Kimmage and Walsh have been chasing him for a decade in the Sunday Times and their record on these matters is pretty good.
Admire him for surviving cancer and the foundation etc, but it is totally unrelated - he cannot keep hiding there. His conduct in the press conference with Kimmage was dispicable.
Kimmage and Walsh have been chasing him for a decade in the Sunday Times and their record on these matters is pretty good.
Admire him for surviving cancer and the foundation etc, but it is totally unrelated - he cannot keep hiding there. His conduct in the press conference with Kimmage was dispicable.
BJG Joined: 20 Aug 07
I know cuz he is nt contesting the charges he looks guilty and prob is tbh but how are they chargin him if he has never tested positive?? Dont get it
Because his former team-mates, doctors, massuers etc were all lining up to testify against him ...... the world is out to get him according to Lance
I know cuz he is nt contesting the charges he looks guilty and prob is tbh but how are they chargin him if he has never tested positive?? Dont get it
Because his former team-mates, doctors, massuers etc were all lining up to testify against him ...... the world is out to get him according to Lance
He has said it enough times before ,the jolly, but good point, he should have re-itterted it.
Kimmage and Walsh's record is good primarily because everyone was at it. They were shooting fish in a a barrel.
I would have no problem with his conduct at the interview personally, I thought he owned Kimmage.
Kimmage and Walsh's record is good primarily because everyone was at it. They were shooting fish in a a barrel.
I would have no problem with his conduct at the interview personally, I thought he owned Kimmage.
He has said it enough times before ,the jolly, but good point, he should have re-itterted it.
Kimmage and Walsh's record is good primarily because everyone was at it. They were shooting fish in a a barrel.
I would have no problem with his conduct at the interview personally, I thought he owned Kimmage.
Kimmage and Walsh's record is good primarily because everyone was at it. They were shooting fish in a a barrel.
I would have no problem with his conduct at the interview personally, I thought he owned Kimmage.
The case agaisnt him looked overwhelming
From July
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18788834
Three of Lance Armstrong's former medics given lifetime bans[/b]
The US Anti-Doping Agency has given lifetime bans to three of the six men named in the Lance Armstrong doping conspiracy case.
Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari worked with the American during his seven-year Tour de France reign.
Continue reading the main story
“Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement”
USADA statement
Trainer Jose "Pepe" Marti worked with the rider's US Postal Service team.
USADA announced the punishments on Tuesday, the day after a deadline had passed for the trio to either accept or challenge the sanctions.
The two other alleged conspirators, another doctor Pedro Celaya and former team boss Johann Bruyneel, have either requested a five-day extension to respond to the charges or asked for a full arbitration hearing to begin.
Armstrong has been accused of violating anti-doping rules during his time with USPS and has until Saturday to either accept the charges or agree for the case to go to arbitration.
If found guilty, Armstrong faces a lifetime ban and being stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles.
Lawyers for the 40-year-old are attempting to persuade a federal court in Texas to block the doping case from proceeding, but that process hit a setback this week when US District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the case.
The three men named on Tuesday have been sanctioned for possessing, trafficking and administering doping products, and being involved in the cover-up of their use.
Marti worked as a trainer for the USPS and Discovery Channel Cycling Teams during the period from 1999 through 2007. Before then, Dr del Moral was team physician for the USPS Cycling Team from 1999 through 2003, with Dr Ferrari a consulting doctor for the same team between 1999 and 2006.
The USADA said in a statement: "Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition."
From July
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18788834
Three of Lance Armstrong's former medics given lifetime bans[/b]
The US Anti-Doping Agency has given lifetime bans to three of the six men named in the Lance Armstrong doping conspiracy case.
Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari worked with the American during his seven-year Tour de France reign.
Continue reading the main story
“Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement”
USADA statement
Trainer Jose "Pepe" Marti worked with the rider's US Postal Service team.
USADA announced the punishments on Tuesday, the day after a deadline had passed for the trio to either accept or challenge the sanctions.
The two other alleged conspirators, another doctor Pedro Celaya and former team boss Johann Bruyneel, have either requested a five-day extension to respond to the charges or asked for a full arbitration hearing to begin.
Armstrong has been accused of violating anti-doping rules during his time with USPS and has until Saturday to either accept the charges or agree for the case to go to arbitration.
If found guilty, Armstrong faces a lifetime ban and being stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles.
Lawyers for the 40-year-old are attempting to persuade a federal court in Texas to block the doping case from proceeding, but that process hit a setback this week when US District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the case.
The three men named on Tuesday have been sanctioned for possessing, trafficking and administering doping products, and being involved in the cover-up of their use.
Marti worked as a trainer for the USPS and Discovery Channel Cycling Teams during the period from 1999 through 2007. Before then, Dr del Moral was team physician for the USPS Cycling Team from 1999 through 2003, with Dr Ferrari a consulting doctor for the same team between 1999 and 2006.
The USADA said in a statement: "Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition."
Because his former team-mates, doctors, massuers etc were all lining up to testify against him
Partially playing devils advocate here, but this is not sufficent to convict. Woefully inadequate in fact.
Partially playing devils advocate here, but this is not sufficent to convict. Woefully inadequate in fact.
Fook armstrong. pk never mentioned cancer.
Really??? That puts a different slant on it. So he didn't write the article, or it was never written?
Really??? That puts a different slant on it. So he didn't write the article, or it was never written?
in the interview that the gotchee posts there is no time where pk mentions cancer.????
Am i blind or deaf
or have I missed something?
Am i blind or deaf
or have I missed something?
Newmanix;
Here is the direct quote from Kimmage that Lance refers to;
This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back."
Here is the direct quote from Kimmage that Lance refers to;
This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back."
Deaf, Newmanix. Lance clearly says that PK mentioned cancer in an article (as quoted).
oh ok, Im still confused though. in that interview there is no mention of cancer by pk. am I right to presume that la knew about pk writing a previous article mentioning la as a cancer in the sport?
Look, I don't think he is innocent.
But he should have been caught at the time and he wasn't. They f*cked up. When you start going down the road of encouraging people to testify against him you are on dodgy ground. Does the the statute of limitations count for nothing? And who is this body investigating him and what is their scope. And there still appears to be no definitive proof (from a court pov), from what I can make out. It's a mess.
But he should have been caught at the time and he wasn't. They f*cked up. When you start going down the road of encouraging people to testify against him you are on dodgy ground. Does the the statute of limitations count for nothing? And who is this body investigating him and what is their scope. And there still appears to be no definitive proof (from a court pov), from what I can make out. It's a mess.
Ozy,
Nobody was encouraged to testify against him, but the USADA have been on a mission to clean up sport in US for the past decade. The evidence that has been built up in a case against him is overwhelming. Even if it is some years too late, better late than never to get cheats out of sport.
if you still have any doubts about this, listen to David Walsh interview on Today FM's Last word from yesterday. he was on from about 6.20 to 6.30.
Nobody was encouraged to testify against him, but the USADA have been on a mission to clean up sport in US for the past decade. The evidence that has been built up in a case against him is overwhelming. Even if it is some years too late, better late than never to get cheats out of sport.
if you still have any doubts about this, listen to David Walsh interview on Today FM's Last word from yesterday. he was on from about 6.20 to 6.30.
with all the stuff they said he was taking im not surprised he was the first man on the moon.
to be the top man in most sports you need chemicals.
Aug 24, 2012 -- 1:55PM, silvergreaser wrote:
Wildman should be along soon to say Armstrong is entirely innocent just like his beloved Michelle "guilty as sin" De Bruin.
i bought "Rough Ride" today. Looking forward to reading it.
Kimmage and Walsh deserve all the credit in the world for there action on Armstrong.
Anyone read the Times today??...Armstrong is some piece of work. Scumbag!
Anyone read the Times today??...Armstrong is some piece of work. Scumbag!
Kimmage and Walsh have done f**k all except grandstand against the "Name in the sport.
Many delighted with this and proclaiming Wiggins is the new "Face" of a "Clean" sport......
Much like many proclaimed Armstrong the Face of the new "Clean" sport after 1998.....
Roger is spot on.....nearly all top sports men are doped....Its a fact of life
Many delighted with this and proclaiming Wiggins is the new "Face" of a "Clean" sport......
Much like many proclaimed Armstrong the Face of the new "Clean" sport after 1998.....
Roger is spot on.....nearly all top sports men are doped....Its a fact of life
Diamond Joe do you know the crap they had to put up with due to taking a stand against Armstrong. Fair play for them to pursue this to the end and look what happened. He gave up in the end. Just gave up.
He is a great cyclist prob the best ever in the dirtyiest sport in the world but that can't hide the fact that he and his PR mob went on a crusade against everyone who questioned him. Delighted he fell on his sword.
Another to add to the list like Marion Jones and Barry Bonds etc.
He is a great cyclist prob the best ever in the dirtyiest sport in the world but that can't hide the fact that he and his PR mob went on a crusade against everyone who questioned him. Delighted he fell on his sword.
Another to add to the list like Marion Jones and Barry Bonds etc.
Can anyone post up the article? Does anyone subscribe to The Times?
I find the cycling sport very similar to bodybuilding. The use of chemicals has to be done. There is no other way to repair the body quick enough. Kimmage says it in his introduction, he was knackered on the 9th day of the Tour De France, with 14 stages to go....the only way to re-charge would be the drugs...
Roger De Bris
Date Joined: 27 Dec 08 Add contact | Send message When: 26 Aug 12 20:26 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 7,113 | Blogger: Roger De Bris's blog
I find the cycling sport very similar to bodybuilding. The use of chemicals has to be done.
Are you serious - how about they all stay off the drugs ...then they all go a bit slower, then not so difficult to last the pace
Diamond_Joe_Quimby
Date Joined: 14 Oct 05
Add contact | Send message When: 26 Aug 12 17:30 Joined: Date Joined: 14 Oct 05 | Topic/replies: 9,137 | Blogger: Diamond_Joe_Quimby's blog
Kimmage and Walsh have done f**k all except grandstand against the "Name in the sport
Ridiculous statement....both these guys have led a crusade against drugs in cycling for over a decade - both have been villified from within the sport for their stance for too long...today is their day in the sun and richly deserved.
Ozy, go out and spend 2.50 on the sunday times today if you still have any doubts about this cheat
Date Joined: 27 Dec 08 Add contact | Send message When: 26 Aug 12 20:26 Joined: Date Joined: 27 Dec 08 | Topic/replies: 7,113 | Blogger: Roger De Bris's blog
I find the cycling sport very similar to bodybuilding. The use of chemicals has to be done.
Are you serious - how about they all stay off the drugs ...then they all go a bit slower, then not so difficult to last the pace
Diamond_Joe_Quimby
Date Joined: 14 Oct 05
Add contact | Send message When: 26 Aug 12 17:30 Joined: Date Joined: 14 Oct 05 | Topic/replies: 9,137 | Blogger: Diamond_Joe_Quimby's blog
Kimmage and Walsh have done f**k all except grandstand against the "Name in the sport
Ridiculous statement....both these guys have led a crusade against drugs in cycling for over a decade - both have been villified from within the sport for their stance for too long...today is their day in the sun and richly deserved.
Ozy, go out and spend 2.50 on the sunday times today if you still have any doubts about this cheat
the jolly,
Sundat Times s 5 euro on The Riviera and you have to draw the line somewhere. I am economising since the loss on Arles Killnaskully.
Sundat Times s 5 euro on The Riviera and you have to draw the line somewhere. I am economising since the loss on Arles Killnaskully.
didnt do the Arles myself - missed the price to be honest but KL tips always worth a look.
Nothing new in the ST today - but it does show the case against Armstrong is pretty srong and there is a review of the campaign against Armstrong over the past 13 years.
Nothing new in the ST today - but it does show the case against Armstrong is pretty srong and there is a review of the campaign against Armstrong over the past 13 years.
Ridiculous statement....both these guys have led a crusade against drugs in cycling for over a decade - both have been villified from within the sport for their stance for too long...today is their day in the sun and richly deserved.
Yeah Walsh has made his few quid out of Lance Armstrong. Him and Kimmage are like broken records. All except the naive realise the brutal reality facing athletes these days.....Cheat or be cheated. You wont hear Kimmage or Walsh saying that.
You'll hear the bitter Kimmage whining about his career or Walsh peddling the 40th tome on his disgust for Lance.
Anyone reading Kimmage and Walsh just sees these guys as "Evil Cheats". Doping does not begin or end with Lance Armstrong. Many of these guys may be a55holes off the bike/track but it doesnt mean they are not victims of the history of these sports. Lance is one in the long conveyor belt of convicted drugs cheats.....Many more to come who will be faced with the brutal choice after years of effort.......Do I Have to dope..... Let Kimmage as you say have his day in the sun .....
Yeah Walsh has made his few quid out of Lance Armstrong. Him and Kimmage are like broken records. All except the naive realise the brutal reality facing athletes these days.....Cheat or be cheated. You wont hear Kimmage or Walsh saying that.
You'll hear the bitter Kimmage whining about his career or Walsh peddling the 40th tome on his disgust for Lance.
Anyone reading Kimmage and Walsh just sees these guys as "Evil Cheats". Doping does not begin or end with Lance Armstrong. Many of these guys may be a55holes off the bike/track but it doesnt mean they are not victims of the history of these sports. Lance is one in the long conveyor belt of convicted drugs cheats.....Many more to come who will be faced with the brutal choice after years of effort.......Do I Have to dope..... Let Kimmage as you say have his day in the sun .....
Diamond Joe absolutely correct,is anybody seriously saying Lance Armstrong was not the best cyclist in those years.The logic of removing Armstrong from the Tour De France role of honour is to delete its history,every cyclist that won the Tour got chemical help,the beneficiaries of Armstrongs demotion all failed tests.
Cycling while a great spectacle is relatively unskilled and so like Athletics wide open for pharmaceutical intervention.
Cycling while a great spectacle is relatively unskilled and so like Athletics wide open for pharmaceutical intervention.
is anybody seriously saying Lance Armstrong was not the best cyclist in those years.
its quite possible he was not. For an event where it takes nearly 100 hours to complete and the winning time averages say 5 minutes, the drugs only need to be helping him improve his performance by 0.1% for the drugs to be making the difference
What is your point to let them all cheat and may the best chemist win? Or make some attempt to stop the cheating?
its quite possible he was not. For an event where it takes nearly 100 hours to complete and the winning time averages say 5 minutes, the drugs only need to be helping him improve his performance by 0.1% for the drugs to be making the difference
What is your point to let them all cheat and may the best chemist win? Or make some attempt to stop the cheating?
My point is the whole peloton has been tainted since the start of that great race,to strip Armstrong of his titles and to give the victories to cyclist that failed drug tests is plainly wrong.Jan Ulrich who has already been stripped of his victory has now got two new victories in the Tour for his second place finishes in 2000 and 2001 surely this is nonsensical,actually I think Ulrich may have been second later on as well thus making him either a four time winner or a three time winner depending on which drug test gets precedence.
Its not just the tour de france, the whole of cycling has been tainted for the past 20 years. To be honest I find it hard to keep an interest and that is solely down to the cheating that has taken over the game. if it was not a betting interest, I would stop watching. You have to strip Armstrong of his titles - to allow him to keep them is to give in to the cheats. They do not necessarily have to go to the second place riders - every race that Armstrong competed in gets listed with an asterisk - that will do me.
All the greats in cycling from Fausto Coppi,Louison Bobbet,Jacques Anquetil,Raymond Poulidor,Eddy Merckz,Bernard Hinault and Miguel Indurain have used pharmaceutical help,it was not possible to sail up those mountains without it,clean it up now if possible but it is nonsense to go back and try and retrospectively clean up the old Tours.
The Tour De France must be the greatest free advert for tourism anywhere in the world . Brilliant scenery , with spectators everywhere ( presumably its free ? ) , why wouldn't everybody love it .
Answer is that everybody knows that endurance cycling is about physical condition rather than skill . So enter the "specialists " on the sidelines .
What Armstrong did was so unbelievable it was unbelievable he did it without "help" . Sad to see an enjoyable pastime for the masses put in the stocks because winning is so important it leads to institutionalized cheating . And I suspect he is not the only one with dirty hands .
The ST guys have been on the case for a long time , and have had to put up with a lot of sleights etc for their pains . Fair play to them for perseverance , the chickens hopefully always come home to roost .
Answer is that everybody knows that endurance cycling is about physical condition rather than skill . So enter the "specialists " on the sidelines .
What Armstrong did was so unbelievable it was unbelievable he did it without "help" . Sad to see an enjoyable pastime for the masses put in the stocks because winning is so important it leads to institutionalized cheating . And I suspect he is not the only one with dirty hands .
The ST guys have been on the case for a long time , and have had to put up with a lot of sleights etc for their pains . Fair play to them for perseverance , the chickens hopefully always come home to roost .
Anyone read the Times today??...Armstrong is some piece of work. Scumbag!
Ruby, I managed to read that Sunday Times article from yesterday.
Basically it is just a re-hash of a handful of allegations that David Walsh has made over the years. Allegations that the Sunday Times had to withdraw and settle out of court with Armstrong. And when you walk through the allegations you can see exactly why the Sunday Times settled;
1. Emma'Reilly, the therapist asked to dump syringes. Zero evidence to say what was in the syringe. Could have been anything. Inadmissable
2. Again O'Reilly asked to pick up drugs in Spain for the team and deliver them to France. Zero evidence to say what these 'drugs' were. Could have been anything. Inadmissable
3. O'Reilly overheard Armstrong and 2 US Postal Officials discussing concocting a story to avoid escaping a violation in '99. Hearsay. Inadmissable
3 seperate allegations by one person, O'Reilly of whom we know little and which came after she left the team. Armstrong labelled her a prostitute and an alcoholic under oath. Not very pleasant but I haven't seen anyone investigate these allegations for veracity or assess her credibility.
4. Wife of teammate and teammate heard Armstrong say that he used drugs before 1995. Hearsay. Inadmissable
5. Teammate Swart tells how Armstrong encouraged use of EPO in team in 1985. No evidence to corroborte. Inadmissable
6. Discovered to be working with Michele Ferrari who was under investigation for doping. In Walsh's own words " It didn't prove anything, but it wasn't what an anti doping rider would ever do". Speculation on part of the witness, who himself admits it proves nothing. Inadmissable
7. Armstrong upset by reporter hanging around the bar of his hotel on a rest day of Tdf. So what?
8. Armstrong makes substantial donations to UCI to fund purchase of anti doping equipment. The inference is that this was a bribe. No conviction to substantiate the inference.
And so....The Sunday Times settled out of court. It's an awful lot of smoke granted, but that doesn't quite cut it in a court room. Hence the settlement.
And then in 2009, the gamechanger. The USADA successfully prosectuted a small time rider for a "non analytical positive" In other words they banned him on evidence they doped rather than on conclusive positive test.
This changes everything. And you have to ask yourself is it fair? It certainly isn't as bulletproof a system. Much easier to convict, much easier to convict erroneously. And boy did they have a hard on for Armstrong by this stage. And that can mean, given that they know that he is guilty, it is morally easier for them to cross the line here and there.
And so under the present set of rules for conviction, all they needed was the eye witness evidence. The US Supreme Court upheld this and boy, did they have people willing to stick it to the unpopular Armstrong. People who themselves had been caught under the old system, while he walked free and took all the glory. People who wanted to cooperate with the authorities who were responsible for their own sentencing. Authorities who wanted above all else to bring down Armstrong.
Please don't misunderstand me, I believe that Armstrong doped. However, I don't believe that the current system that has brought about his conviction is fair or reasonable. Does the end justify the means? Not for me. The integrity of the system is paramount and I think it has been undermined.
Ruby, I managed to read that Sunday Times article from yesterday.
Basically it is just a re-hash of a handful of allegations that David Walsh has made over the years. Allegations that the Sunday Times had to withdraw and settle out of court with Armstrong. And when you walk through the allegations you can see exactly why the Sunday Times settled;
1. Emma'Reilly, the therapist asked to dump syringes. Zero evidence to say what was in the syringe. Could have been anything. Inadmissable
2. Again O'Reilly asked to pick up drugs in Spain for the team and deliver them to France. Zero evidence to say what these 'drugs' were. Could have been anything. Inadmissable
3. O'Reilly overheard Armstrong and 2 US Postal Officials discussing concocting a story to avoid escaping a violation in '99. Hearsay. Inadmissable
3 seperate allegations by one person, O'Reilly of whom we know little and which came after she left the team. Armstrong labelled her a prostitute and an alcoholic under oath. Not very pleasant but I haven't seen anyone investigate these allegations for veracity or assess her credibility.
4. Wife of teammate and teammate heard Armstrong say that he used drugs before 1995. Hearsay. Inadmissable
5. Teammate Swart tells how Armstrong encouraged use of EPO in team in 1985. No evidence to corroborte. Inadmissable
6. Discovered to be working with Michele Ferrari who was under investigation for doping. In Walsh's own words " It didn't prove anything, but it wasn't what an anti doping rider would ever do". Speculation on part of the witness, who himself admits it proves nothing. Inadmissable
7. Armstrong upset by reporter hanging around the bar of his hotel on a rest day of Tdf. So what?
8. Armstrong makes substantial donations to UCI to fund purchase of anti doping equipment. The inference is that this was a bribe. No conviction to substantiate the inference.
And so....The Sunday Times settled out of court. It's an awful lot of smoke granted, but that doesn't quite cut it in a court room. Hence the settlement.
And then in 2009, the gamechanger. The USADA successfully prosectuted a small time rider for a "non analytical positive" In other words they banned him on evidence they doped rather than on conclusive positive test.
This changes everything. And you have to ask yourself is it fair? It certainly isn't as bulletproof a system. Much easier to convict, much easier to convict erroneously. And boy did they have a hard on for Armstrong by this stage. And that can mean, given that they know that he is guilty, it is morally easier for them to cross the line here and there.
And so under the present set of rules for conviction, all they needed was the eye witness evidence. The US Supreme Court upheld this and boy, did they have people willing to stick it to the unpopular Armstrong. People who themselves had been caught under the old system, while he walked free and took all the glory. People who wanted to cooperate with the authorities who were responsible for their own sentencing. Authorities who wanted above all else to bring down Armstrong.
Please don't misunderstand me, I believe that Armstrong doped. However, I don't believe that the current system that has brought about his conviction is fair or reasonable. Does the end justify the means? Not for me. The integrity of the system is paramount and I think it has been undermined.
From The Guardian;
While it is not clear what pressure was brought to bear on those former teammates who gave evidence to USADA investigators – after a US federal case examining whether Armstrong's US Postal Service (USPS) team had "misused federal funds" was dropped – it has been suggested that some faced threats of perjury proceedings if they did not speak.
While it is not clear what pressure was brought to bear on those former teammates who gave evidence to USADA investigators – after a US federal case examining whether Armstrong's US Postal Service (USPS) team had "misused federal funds" was dropped – it has been suggested that some faced threats of perjury proceedings if they did not speak.
nothing sinister there from the Guardian Ozy and to be clear, the threat was they would face perjury proceedings if they did not give the same evidence again to the USADA as they had to the fereral inquiry under oath.
Decent analysis above, so why do you think Armstrong didnt fight the charges at this crucial juncture, if everything were so clearly hearsay and inadmissable.
Decent analysis above, so why do you think Armstrong didnt fight the charges at this crucial juncture, if everything were so clearly hearsay and inadmissable.
Jolly,
'Hearsay and inadmissable' relates to the allegations collated and made by David Walsh.
Since 2009 all you need to convict is an eyewitness and the USADA claim to have several though we don't seem to have detailed access to the precise nature of these eyewitness accounts. At best though, they are still just eyewitness reports. The Fed says that's all you need now, I am not sure if that is fair.
Under the current system, if he went ahead, Armstrong was sure to be convicted. I guess he saw no point in going through the motions (and expense) of something with only one outcome under a system he sees as unfair. Or he felt that he could strategically quit now and more plausibly still proclaim his innocence.
As regards the quote from The Guardian, the inference I took was that the case against the team was mysteriously dropped, in return for eyewitness evidence against Armstrong.
There is an excellent analysis of the case here.
.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html
It is contradictory to several points I have previously made, though having read it, I have to conceed to their views on many points.
'Hearsay and inadmissable' relates to the allegations collated and made by David Walsh.
Since 2009 all you need to convict is an eyewitness and the USADA claim to have several though we don't seem to have detailed access to the precise nature of these eyewitness accounts. At best though, they are still just eyewitness reports. The Fed says that's all you need now, I am not sure if that is fair.
Under the current system, if he went ahead, Armstrong was sure to be convicted. I guess he saw no point in going through the motions (and expense) of something with only one outcome under a system he sees as unfair. Or he felt that he could strategically quit now and more plausibly still proclaim his innocence.
As regards the quote from The Guardian, the inference I took was that the case against the team was mysteriously dropped, in return for eyewitness evidence against Armstrong.
There is an excellent analysis of the case here.
.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html
It is contradictory to several points I have previously made, though having read it, I have to conceed to their views on many points.
Cheers for that link Ozy, I hadn't seen it. Sad case that I am I read several articles on the topic over the last week and re-read again the full output from the Paul Kimmage-Landes interview (Landes former team mate of Armstrong and the 1996 TDF winner)
There is no doubt Armstrong was doping. None. They all were in that era imo.
That said there is no getting away from the fact that he was a phenomenal Athlete.
His ego became too big to come clean in latter years and who is to know what effect it would have on his cancer foundation so the refusal to enter the tribunal process hos only step.
There is no point trying to defend the indefensible but that does not take away from the fact he was a competitor the like of which was never seen before. It is a shame that his name will be struck from the record book.
At least he leaves the arena with his pockets bulging, unlike many of his ilk, Landes a good example of that
There is no doubt Armstrong was doping. None. They all were in that era imo.
That said there is no getting away from the fact that he was a phenomenal Athlete.
His ego became too big to come clean in latter years and who is to know what effect it would have on his cancer foundation so the refusal to enter the tribunal process hos only step.
There is no point trying to defend the indefensible but that does not take away from the fact he was a competitor the like of which was never seen before. It is a shame that his name will be struck from the record book.
At least he leaves the arena with his pockets bulging, unlike many of his ilk, Landes a good example of that
OZ great analysis.
Personally In this case the ends justify the means. Fair enough pick holes etc but I want Armstrong to be brought down a peg or 10. I just wish he admitted this years earlier. We all know everyone was at it, no shame especially considering his work with Cancer.
Doped or not he has to be still the greatest Cyclist ever but there is such a nasty taste in the mouth with the way he has dragged out the whole thing.
Personally In this case the ends justify the means. Fair enough pick holes etc but I want Armstrong to be brought down a peg or 10. I just wish he admitted this years earlier. We all know everyone was at it, no shame especially considering his work with Cancer.
Doped or not he has to be still the greatest Cyclist ever but there is such a nasty taste in the mouth with the way he has dragged out the whole thing.
This article is well worth a read. I don't know how valid the legal points made are but they were made by a former US Federal prosecutor and published by Forbes magazine.
The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/08/28/the-kafkaesque-trial-of-lance-armstrong-a-former-federal-prosecutor-on-the-us-anti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/
The end for Lance Armstrong was as swift as a sprint on any cycling stage. After years of innuendo, claims and counter claims, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) finally scored a victory of sorts: Armstrong would, in effect, concede his guilt and his record seven Tour de France titles by stopping to fight for his innocence. For someone who had demonstrated a near superhuman capacity to win (and not just professionally), Armstrong’s acquiescence was perplexing. Was it a way of casting ambiguity over the USADA’s findings and thereby saving some face in what would be the greatest doping scandal of all time – a marginally better outcome than undeniable guilt? This has surely crossed many people’s minds. With so many revelations of doping in cycling over the past decade, it is difficult not to think that it is smarter to leave people smelling smoke but not seeing any fire.
There is, however, another angle – one that requires looking at the case against Lance Armstrong from a legal perspective. Was due process granted and was justice done? According to Bruce Deming, a former federal prosecutor turned trial lawyer, and a competitive cyclist, it most certainly wasn’t. “Even if I wasn’t a cyclist interested in the sport,” says Deming, “as a lawyer and citizen I find it troubling that an athlete of any stature, let alone a seven-time Tour de France champion, could be stripped of his or her titles using such fundamentally unfair procedures.”
The first point Deming raises is that despite being randomly tested over 500 times, without warning, in competition and out of competition, during the day or night, and by different labs, every test Armstrong was given turned out to be negative. That, says, Deming, almost defies credulity if Armstrong was indeed doping [EDIT; I don't necessarily agree with this statement, this man's expertise appears to lie in the legal field rather than the sport doping arena, Ozymndius]. “I’m sorry, but no one is that smart, or that lucky. Not at those numbers, for that number of years. And if that is the starting point of the evidence, the presumption should be strongly in Lance’s favor, not the other way around.”
In the absence of any hard laboratory evidence, investigators turned to former Tour de France winner Floyd Landis. Landis had lost his title after a positive dope test, initially claiming innocence and then later admitting guilt. It was only at this juncture that he made doping accusations against Armstrong and others. The investigation, which by this stage included the FBI, the Department of Justice Office of Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, then proceeded to take secret grand jury testimony from an unknown number of witnesses, including, it would appear, members of Armstrong’s previous cycling teams who admitted to doping. It does not appear that any charges were brought against these athletes, which, says Deming, raises the problem of credibility: were they promised immunity if they cooperated with the investigation of Armstrong? But even after all of this, which took two years and millions of dollars, federal prosecutors dropped the investigation on February 3, 2012.
“The reason was obvious,” says Deming. “They didn’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge. I don’t think anyone would dispute that, or the fact that summarily dropping the case was an embarrassment to those who championed the investigation, including USADA’s CEO, Travis Tygart.”
And yet within four months of this decision, USADA – the quasi-governmental body responsible for sanctioning U.S. athletes alleged to have violated the rules of the World Anti Doping Association (“WADA”), formally “charged” Armstrong under its own anti-doping rules and procedures. While USADA cannot put anyone in jail, they have the authority, by international treaty, to punish athletes by banning them from competitions and stripping them of previously earned titles.
But, says Deming this meant that Armstrong was subjected to the kind of trial that would never be acceptable in a federal or state court. “Because USADA uses its own special arbitration procedures, many of which make a meaningful defense all but impossible, the protections afforded a defendant in a court of law simply aren’t there” he says.
For example, there’s no “discovery” in USADA arbitration. “In a criminal court of law, by U.S. Supreme Court mandate, prosecutors have to turn over any ‘exculpatory evidence’ that could prove the innocence of the defendant,” says Deming. “More significantly, if the case is based primarily on witness testimony, which certainly appeared to be the case with Lance since their lab evidence was years old and questionable, they can avoid having their witnesses cross-examined in he courtroom by not having them testify in person. They can submit written affidavits carefully scripted in advance. That violates the hearsay rule in regular court. If you are a defense lawyer, the lack of ability to cross examine witnesses alone ties both hands behind your back.”
What this means, says Deming, is that because federal prosecutors “couldn’t prove their case against Armstrong under established rules designed to ensure the reliability and credibility of evidence – the rules that apply in a real court of law – the prosecution shifted to the USADA which has no such rules.”
The result of this investigation, according to Deming, was Kafkaesque: the USADA charged Armstrong (and five others) with conspiracy to commit multiple alleged doping offenses over a 14-year period. As Deming explains, “even a brief read shows that the allegations are so vague they would never pass muster in any court. No time, date or place of any doping offense is specified or described to any reasonable degree. Not a single witness is named. All it says is that ‘multiple,’ unnamed witnesses will testify that Lance doped over an extended period, and encouraged, if not pressured, others on is teams to do the same.”
USADA isn’t even required to disclose to the athlete exactly what they are alleged to have done, or even who said they did it, says Deming. It did, however, give Armstrong 10 days to rebut the allegations.
Deming isn’t the only one alarmed by the USADA’s disregard for due process. In an August 20 opinion on Armstrong’s federal challenge to the USADA’s remit, Judge Sam Sparks called the USADA charging document “woefuly inadequate,” observing that “…the deficiency of USADA”s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.” Going even further, the Judge noted that in Armstrong’s case, “USADA’s conduct raises serious concerns about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”Deming notes that while USADA’s lawyers assured the court that more details would be forthcoming prior to an arbitration hearing, “they only did so because the Judge told them there would be hell to pay if they didn’t.” As Sparks observed: “If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this court’s attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.”
So why then did Judge Sparks ultimately rule against Armstrong’s court challenge against USADA? “The court ruled Armstrong had technically agreed to be subject to USADA’s rules by applying for his competition licenses,” says Deming, “and that there were insufficient legal grounds to insert the federal courts into the USADA arbitration process. The loss in court meant Armstrong faced an impossible choice: either go forward under accelerated USADA procedures that made a meaningful defense all but impossible, or wave the white flag and risk being branded guilty as charged.”The case is not over just yet, despite the headlines. The International Cycling Union (UCI), pro cycling’s international governing body, has requested a “reasoned decision” before it comments on or supports the USADA’s decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles. Whether UCI will end up putting the USADA in the dock over its sense of procedural justice remains to be seen. But it is hard to see how the case against Lance Armstrong is a win against sports doping if his trial isn’t itself clean and fair. And how could it possibly be clean and fair if Armstrong is denied the basic legal rights available to any US citizen in a federal or state court?
“ To me,” says Deming, “it’s ironic that USADA’s stated mission is to ensure a ‘level playing field’ and put an end to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, but when they don’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge in court, they switch playing fields to one that isn’t level.”
The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2012/08/28/the-kafkaesque-trial-of-lance-armstrong-a-former-federal-prosecutor-on-the-us-anti-doping-agencys-disregard-for-due-process/
The end for Lance Armstrong was as swift as a sprint on any cycling stage. After years of innuendo, claims and counter claims, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) finally scored a victory of sorts: Armstrong would, in effect, concede his guilt and his record seven Tour de France titles by stopping to fight for his innocence. For someone who had demonstrated a near superhuman capacity to win (and not just professionally), Armstrong’s acquiescence was perplexing. Was it a way of casting ambiguity over the USADA’s findings and thereby saving some face in what would be the greatest doping scandal of all time – a marginally better outcome than undeniable guilt? This has surely crossed many people’s minds. With so many revelations of doping in cycling over the past decade, it is difficult not to think that it is smarter to leave people smelling smoke but not seeing any fire.
There is, however, another angle – one that requires looking at the case against Lance Armstrong from a legal perspective. Was due process granted and was justice done? According to Bruce Deming, a former federal prosecutor turned trial lawyer, and a competitive cyclist, it most certainly wasn’t. “Even if I wasn’t a cyclist interested in the sport,” says Deming, “as a lawyer and citizen I find it troubling that an athlete of any stature, let alone a seven-time Tour de France champion, could be stripped of his or her titles using such fundamentally unfair procedures.”
The first point Deming raises is that despite being randomly tested over 500 times, without warning, in competition and out of competition, during the day or night, and by different labs, every test Armstrong was given turned out to be negative. That, says, Deming, almost defies credulity if Armstrong was indeed doping [EDIT; I don't necessarily agree with this statement, this man's expertise appears to lie in the legal field rather than the sport doping arena, Ozymndius]. “I’m sorry, but no one is that smart, or that lucky. Not at those numbers, for that number of years. And if that is the starting point of the evidence, the presumption should be strongly in Lance’s favor, not the other way around.”
In the absence of any hard laboratory evidence, investigators turned to former Tour de France winner Floyd Landis. Landis had lost his title after a positive dope test, initially claiming innocence and then later admitting guilt. It was only at this juncture that he made doping accusations against Armstrong and others. The investigation, which by this stage included the FBI, the Department of Justice Office of Criminal Investigation, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service’s Office of Inspector General, then proceeded to take secret grand jury testimony from an unknown number of witnesses, including, it would appear, members of Armstrong’s previous cycling teams who admitted to doping. It does not appear that any charges were brought against these athletes, which, says Deming, raises the problem of credibility: were they promised immunity if they cooperated with the investigation of Armstrong? But even after all of this, which took two years and millions of dollars, federal prosecutors dropped the investigation on February 3, 2012.
“The reason was obvious,” says Deming. “They didn’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge. I don’t think anyone would dispute that, or the fact that summarily dropping the case was an embarrassment to those who championed the investigation, including USADA’s CEO, Travis Tygart.”
And yet within four months of this decision, USADA – the quasi-governmental body responsible for sanctioning U.S. athletes alleged to have violated the rules of the World Anti Doping Association (“WADA”), formally “charged” Armstrong under its own anti-doping rules and procedures. While USADA cannot put anyone in jail, they have the authority, by international treaty, to punish athletes by banning them from competitions and stripping them of previously earned titles.
But, says Deming this meant that Armstrong was subjected to the kind of trial that would never be acceptable in a federal or state court. “Because USADA uses its own special arbitration procedures, many of which make a meaningful defense all but impossible, the protections afforded a defendant in a court of law simply aren’t there” he says.
For example, there’s no “discovery” in USADA arbitration. “In a criminal court of law, by U.S. Supreme Court mandate, prosecutors have to turn over any ‘exculpatory evidence’ that could prove the innocence of the defendant,” says Deming. “More significantly, if the case is based primarily on witness testimony, which certainly appeared to be the case with Lance since their lab evidence was years old and questionable, they can avoid having their witnesses cross-examined in he courtroom by not having them testify in person. They can submit written affidavits carefully scripted in advance. That violates the hearsay rule in regular court. If you are a defense lawyer, the lack of ability to cross examine witnesses alone ties both hands behind your back.”
What this means, says Deming, is that because federal prosecutors “couldn’t prove their case against Armstrong under established rules designed to ensure the reliability and credibility of evidence – the rules that apply in a real court of law – the prosecution shifted to the USADA which has no such rules.”
The result of this investigation, according to Deming, was Kafkaesque: the USADA charged Armstrong (and five others) with conspiracy to commit multiple alleged doping offenses over a 14-year period. As Deming explains, “even a brief read shows that the allegations are so vague they would never pass muster in any court. No time, date or place of any doping offense is specified or described to any reasonable degree. Not a single witness is named. All it says is that ‘multiple,’ unnamed witnesses will testify that Lance doped over an extended period, and encouraged, if not pressured, others on is teams to do the same.”
USADA isn’t even required to disclose to the athlete exactly what they are alleged to have done, or even who said they did it, says Deming. It did, however, give Armstrong 10 days to rebut the allegations.
Deming isn’t the only one alarmed by the USADA’s disregard for due process. In an August 20 opinion on Armstrong’s federal challenge to the USADA’s remit, Judge Sam Sparks called the USADA charging document “woefuly inadequate,” observing that “…the deficiency of USADA”s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.” Going even further, the Judge noted that in Armstrong’s case, “USADA’s conduct raises serious concerns about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”Deming notes that while USADA’s lawyers assured the court that more details would be forthcoming prior to an arbitration hearing, “they only did so because the Judge told them there would be hell to pay if they didn’t.” As Sparks observed: “If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this court’s attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.”
So why then did Judge Sparks ultimately rule against Armstrong’s court challenge against USADA? “The court ruled Armstrong had technically agreed to be subject to USADA’s rules by applying for his competition licenses,” says Deming, “and that there were insufficient legal grounds to insert the federal courts into the USADA arbitration process. The loss in court meant Armstrong faced an impossible choice: either go forward under accelerated USADA procedures that made a meaningful defense all but impossible, or wave the white flag and risk being branded guilty as charged.”The case is not over just yet, despite the headlines. The International Cycling Union (UCI), pro cycling’s international governing body, has requested a “reasoned decision” before it comments on or supports the USADA’s decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles. Whether UCI will end up putting the USADA in the dock over its sense of procedural justice remains to be seen. But it is hard to see how the case against Lance Armstrong is a win against sports doping if his trial isn’t itself clean and fair. And how could it possibly be clean and fair if Armstrong is denied the basic legal rights available to any US citizen in a federal or state court?
“ To me,” says Deming, “it’s ironic that USADA’s stated mission is to ensure a ‘level playing field’ and put an end to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, but when they don’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge in court, they switch playing fields to one that isn’t level.”
and nothing ironic in a trial lawyer coming out with that final statement !!!
“ To me,” says Deming, “it’s ironic that USADA’s stated mission is to ensure a ‘level playing field’ and put an end to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, but when they don’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge in court, they switch playing fields to one that isn’t level.”
Ozy, your sportsscientists link above answers every doubt raised throughout this thread.
“ To me,” says Deming, “it’s ironic that USADA’s stated mission is to ensure a ‘level playing field’ and put an end to a ‘win at all costs’ mentality, but when they don’t have enough evidence to bring a single charge in court, they switch playing fields to one that isn’t level.”
Ozy, your sportsscientists link above answers every doubt raised throughout this thread.
Not so sure, Jolly. There are doubts about Lance and there are doubts about the process.
It is rather damning to think that the charges would not hold up in a regular court.
It is rather damning to think that the charges would not hold up in a regular court.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539