Armstong dope denial
Re: Armstong dope denial
http://www.businessinsider.com/italian- ... ari-2012-6
"...
Italian Authorities Said To Uncover $465,000 Payment From Lance Armstrong To Banned Doctor Michele Ferrari
Henry Blodget | Jun. 17, 2012, 3:59 PM | 10,718 | 36
An Italian prosecutor has reportedly uncovered a $465,000 payment made to Italian doctor Michele Ferrari by Lance Armstrong in 2006, Shane Stokes of VeloNews reports.
News of the payment was originally reported by La Gazetta dello Sport, an Italian publication, VeloNews says.
The payment has not been confirmed.
The doctor, Michele Ferrari, began working with Lance Armstrong prior to his being diagnosed with cancer in 1996. The relationship continued after Armstrong returned to cycling in 1998. Ferrari was later sanctioned by Italian sports authorities, leading many to question why Armstrong was still working with him.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/italian- ... z24ZxSNF12
..."
"...
Italian Authorities Said To Uncover $465,000 Payment From Lance Armstrong To Banned Doctor Michele Ferrari
Henry Blodget | Jun. 17, 2012, 3:59 PM | 10,718 | 36
An Italian prosecutor has reportedly uncovered a $465,000 payment made to Italian doctor Michele Ferrari by Lance Armstrong in 2006, Shane Stokes of VeloNews reports.
News of the payment was originally reported by La Gazetta dello Sport, an Italian publication, VeloNews says.
The payment has not been confirmed.
The doctor, Michele Ferrari, began working with Lance Armstrong prior to his being diagnosed with cancer in 1996. The relationship continued after Armstrong returned to cycling in 1998. Ferrari was later sanctioned by Italian sports authorities, leading many to question why Armstrong was still working with him.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/italian- ... z24ZxSNF12
..."
Re: Armstong dope denial
But seriously folks....
I guess my next question would be, what is the USADA's rationale for believing the supposed "witnesses" over the physical evidence? Again to a person who hasn't this all that closely that looks pretty ridiculous on it's face. That's not how it usually works. To draw an analogy it sounds like, "Well yes your honor, the field sobriety tests, the breathalyzer test and the blood tests , which we ran a couple of times, all showed that the defendant had no alcohol in his system, but we have eye witnesses who who say theyy saw him drinking, so we're going to prosecute him for DUI."
A judge when would toss that out in a heart beat, In fact no prosecutor would ever bring a case on that basis.
So what makes this different from that? Is it the USDA's position that Armstrong somehow managed to fool every single drug test given to him randomly, over a period of eight years? If that's what they believe, do they have any evidence to support it?
They must have some explanation for why it is that they are choosing to believe eye witness testimony over physical evidence, otherwise this whole thing makes no sense.
I guess my next question would be, what is the USADA's rationale for believing the supposed "witnesses" over the physical evidence? Again to a person who hasn't this all that closely that looks pretty ridiculous on it's face. That's not how it usually works. To draw an analogy it sounds like, "Well yes your honor, the field sobriety tests, the breathalyzer test and the blood tests , which we ran a couple of times, all showed that the defendant had no alcohol in his system, but we have eye witnesses who who say theyy saw him drinking, so we're going to prosecute him for DUI."
A judge when would toss that out in a heart beat, In fact no prosecutor would ever bring a case on that basis.
So what makes this different from that? Is it the USDA's position that Armstrong somehow managed to fool every single drug test given to him randomly, over a period of eight years? If that's what they believe, do they have any evidence to support it?
They must have some explanation for why it is that they are choosing to believe eye witness testimony over physical evidence, otherwise this whole thing makes no sense.
Re: Armstong dope denial
" ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/four-lan ... tor-2012-6
Four Lance Armstrong Teammates Support Doping Allegations Against Team Doctor
Henry Blodget | Jun. 17, 2012, 10:38 PM | 10,808 | 29
LANCE ARMSTRONG QUITS: 7-Time Tour De France Winner Won't Fight Doping Charges
NFL Rookie QBs
The doctor himself denied the charges.
The four former Armstrong teammates included Floyd Landis, who has already publicly admitted to doping and accused Armstrong of doping. The other three riders were not named. All four cyclists, presumably, were among the "more than 10" cyclists who the USADA says provided evidence against Armstrong.
The doctor, known to the US Postal cycling team as "El Gato Negro," or the Black Cat.
According to Landis, del Moral was hired in 1999 and immediately designed the team's doping program.
At the Tour de France, Armstrong's teammates told the Journal, the doctor worked out of an office in the back of the team's bus, where he administered drugs and blood transfusions to the cyclists behind closed doors. One of the riders said del Moral told him, "You're not a real professional if you don't take drugs." Floyd Landis said he used to go to del Moral's office in Valencia to have blood drawn and that this blood then appeared at the Tour de France where it was tranfused back into him.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/four-lan ... z24ZxyRa9v
________________________
http://www.businessinsider.com/four-lan ... tor-2012-6
Four Lance Armstrong Teammates Support Doping Allegations Against Team Doctor
Henry Blodget | Jun. 17, 2012, 10:38 PM | 10,808 | 29
LANCE ARMSTRONG QUITS: 7-Time Tour De France Winner Won't Fight Doping Charges
NFL Rookie QBs
The doctor himself denied the charges.
The four former Armstrong teammates included Floyd Landis, who has already publicly admitted to doping and accused Armstrong of doping. The other three riders were not named. All four cyclists, presumably, were among the "more than 10" cyclists who the USADA says provided evidence against Armstrong.
The doctor, known to the US Postal cycling team as "El Gato Negro," or the Black Cat.
According to Landis, del Moral was hired in 1999 and immediately designed the team's doping program.
At the Tour de France, Armstrong's teammates told the Journal, the doctor worked out of an office in the back of the team's bus, where he administered drugs and blood transfusions to the cyclists behind closed doors. One of the riders said del Moral told him, "You're not a real professional if you don't take drugs." Floyd Landis said he used to go to del Moral's office in Valencia to have blood drawn and that this blood then appeared at the Tour de France where it was tranfused back into him.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/four-lan ... z24ZxyRa9v
________________________
Re: Armstong dope denial
Tyler Hamilton testimony via 60 minutes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7411552n
epo and blood doping are notoriously hard to detect the former because the levels are low and the drug is taken long before the competition. What epo does is to boost the body's normal production of red blood cells. Having a little more RBCs / ml of blood increases your body's ability to move oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and thus increases your maximum power output. Blood doping does the same thing via a more direct route; they draw some blood weeks to months before a competition and then put it back right before. Its your own blood so what is there to detect?
Having a too much can give you a heart attack and kill you which is what happened to a number of European cyclists in the 1980s before the method was as well understood:
"...
Doctors and blood specialists say the drug may be implicated in the deaths of as many as 18 European professional bicycle racers in the last four years. Drug Called a Factor
Only anecdotal evidence links EPO to these deaths. But the specialists say they believe the drug was a factor in at least some of the deaths.
"There is no absolute proof, but there's so much smoke that most of us are convinced," said Dr. Randy Eichner, chief of hematology at the University of Oklahoma. "You just don't get 18 deaths in 4 years, mysteriously, with 10 of them attributed to cardiac problems."
By increasing the red blood cells, the drug thickens the blood, and normal dehydration in a race concentrates the blood further...
Physicians say they believe athletes began using the drug almost with the beginning of clinical trials in 1986. Then the deaths began. In 1987 five Dutch racers died suddenly. In 1988 a Belgian and two more Dutch riders died. In 1989 five more Dutch riders died, and last year three Belgians and two Dutch riders died. Transfusions of Extra Blood
One of them was Johannes Draaijer, a 27-year-old racer from the Netherlands who finished 20th in the 1989 Tour de France. In February 1990 he died in his sleep of a heart blockage a few days after completing a race in Italy. A doctor had pronounced him fit to ride in that race, and an autopsy did not specify the cause of death. But in a television interview afterward, his widow said she hoped the death would serve as a warning to other athletes who take the drug.
... ".
18 world-class athletes suddenly die in their 20s?
yrs,
rubato
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7411552n
epo and blood doping are notoriously hard to detect the former because the levels are low and the drug is taken long before the competition. What epo does is to boost the body's normal production of red blood cells. Having a little more RBCs / ml of blood increases your body's ability to move oxygen from the lungs to the tissues and thus increases your maximum power output. Blood doping does the same thing via a more direct route; they draw some blood weeks to months before a competition and then put it back right before. Its your own blood so what is there to detect?
Having a too much can give you a heart attack and kill you which is what happened to a number of European cyclists in the 1980s before the method was as well understood:
"...
Doctors and blood specialists say the drug may be implicated in the deaths of as many as 18 European professional bicycle racers in the last four years. Drug Called a Factor
Only anecdotal evidence links EPO to these deaths. But the specialists say they believe the drug was a factor in at least some of the deaths.
"There is no absolute proof, but there's so much smoke that most of us are convinced," said Dr. Randy Eichner, chief of hematology at the University of Oklahoma. "You just don't get 18 deaths in 4 years, mysteriously, with 10 of them attributed to cardiac problems."
By increasing the red blood cells, the drug thickens the blood, and normal dehydration in a race concentrates the blood further...
Physicians say they believe athletes began using the drug almost with the beginning of clinical trials in 1986. Then the deaths began. In 1987 five Dutch racers died suddenly. In 1988 a Belgian and two more Dutch riders died. In 1989 five more Dutch riders died, and last year three Belgians and two Dutch riders died. Transfusions of Extra Blood
One of them was Johannes Draaijer, a 27-year-old racer from the Netherlands who finished 20th in the 1989 Tour de France. In February 1990 he died in his sleep of a heart blockage a few days after completing a race in Italy. A doctor had pronounced him fit to ride in that race, and an autopsy did not specify the cause of death. But in a television interview afterward, his widow said she hoped the death would serve as a warning to other athletes who take the drug.
... ".
18 world-class athletes suddenly die in their 20s?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Armstong dope denial
Well I have to admit rube, that was a very interesting article....
It seems to me that with numbers that big, this should be fairly easy to prove if true, (of course on the other hand, we are talking about the Italian banking system....)
In Armstrong's specific case however, I guess it remains to be seen what the state of the evidence is, and of course the guy getting caught with so many charges facing him has an obvious incentive to tell the prosecutors, anything they want to hear if the case has any merit at all....
But of course for Armstrong to have done what he is alleged to have done he would have had to bribe a lot more than one person...
Maybe it will turn out that the bigger scandal here is a pandemic of of doctors lab technicians, etc., all being on the take...
Of course that remains to be seen....
It will be interesting to see Guin's reaction to these developments and her take on this since she obviously has followed it fairly closely and believes Armstrong to be innocent. I really have no conclusions about that either way; just a lot of questions....
I do well know from previous discussions about this kind of thing that Guin is certainly not the type to automatically assume that an athlete is innocent in a case like this, and that she also seems to care fairly passionately about these sorts of charges.
Wow, I had absolutely no idea that there was so much money in pro cycling that it would make financial sense for the participants to shell out over 30 million bucks to bribe the tester...The Italian prosecutor has reportedly uncovered payments totaling 30 million euros to Ferrari from more than 90 cyclists over the years.
It seems to me that with numbers that big, this should be fairly easy to prove if true, (of course on the other hand, we are talking about the Italian banking system....)
In Armstrong's specific case however, I guess it remains to be seen what the state of the evidence is, and of course the guy getting caught with so many charges facing him has an obvious incentive to tell the prosecutors, anything they want to hear if the case has any merit at all....
But of course for Armstrong to have done what he is alleged to have done he would have had to bribe a lot more than one person...
Maybe it will turn out that the bigger scandal here is a pandemic of of doctors lab technicians, etc., all being on the take...
Of course that remains to be seen....
It will be interesting to see Guin's reaction to these developments and her take on this since she obviously has followed it fairly closely and believes Armstrong to be innocent. I really have no conclusions about that either way; just a lot of questions....
I do well know from previous discussions about this kind of thing that Guin is certainly not the type to automatically assume that an athlete is innocent in a case like this, and that she also seems to care fairly passionately about these sorts of charges.
Re: Armstong dope denial
They were not bribing the tester.
I could respect Lance if he showed some balls and told the truth like Anquetil did:
"...
1965
Jacques Anquetil of France never hid that he took drugs - a common practice at the time - and in a debate with a government minister on French television said that only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding: "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."[35] There was implied acceptance of doping right to the top of the state: the president, Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil: "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the French national anthem] abroad?"[36] The veteran reporter Pierre Chany said: "Jacques had the strength - for which he was always criticised - to say out loud what others would only whisper. So, when I asked him 'What have you taken?' he didn't drop his eyes before replying. He had the strength of conviction."[37]
... "
yrs,
rubato
I could respect Lance if he showed some balls and told the truth like Anquetil did:
"...
1965
Jacques Anquetil of France never hid that he took drugs - a common practice at the time - and in a debate with a government minister on French television said that only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water. He and other cyclists had to ride through "the cold, through heatwaves, in the rain and in the mountains", and they had the right to treat themselves as they wished, he said in a television interview, before adding: "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."[35] There was implied acceptance of doping right to the top of the state: the president, Charles de Gaulle, said of Anquetil: "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play the Marseillaise [the French national anthem] abroad?"[36] The veteran reporter Pierre Chany said: "Jacques had the strength - for which he was always criticised - to say out loud what others would only whisper. So, when I asked him 'What have you taken?' he didn't drop his eyes before replying. He had the strength of conviction."[37]
... "
yrs,
rubato
Re: Armstong dope denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling
A good history of doping in cycling.
yrs,
rubato
A good history of doping in cycling.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Armstong dope denial
Not to mention: they are violating THEIR OWN RULES in going back 17 years, when they are supposed to be limited to 8 years. I have a hard time concluding this is anything but a witch hunt and/or someone's personal vendetta. I wonder if Armstrong simply decided, "I'm retired from cycling. I simply am not willing to go through this pile of horse shit AGAIN."Lord Jim wrote:But seriously folks....
I guess my next question would be, what is the USADA's rationale for believing the supposed "witnesses" over the physical evidence? Again to a person who hasn't this all that closely that looks pretty ridiculous on it's face. That's not how it usually works. To draw an analogy it sounds like, "Well yes your honor, the field sobriety tests, the breathalyzer test and the blood tests , which we ran a couple of times, all showed that the defendant had no alcohol in his system, but we have eye witnesses who who say theyy saw him drinking, so we're going to prosecute him for DUI."
A judge when would toss that out in a heart beat, In fact no prosecutor would ever bring a case on that basis.
So what makes this different from that? Is it the USDA's position that Armstrong somehow managed to fool every single drug test given to him randomly, over a period of eight years? If that's what they believe, do they have any evidence to support it?
They must have some explanation for why it is that they are choosing to believe eye witness testimony over physical evidence, otherwise this whole thing makes no sense.
Treat Gaza like Carthage.
Re: Armstong dope denial
I think it's more like Armstrong saying "Screw you; I'm not going to play your unfair game with your stacked deck". He has maintained that the arbitration is unfair and refuses to participate in it. I don't have any opinion as to whether he doped or not (I haven't followed it all that closely, but I respect his position in deciiding to walk away.
As for the effect of this, it will be intersting to see if the USADA has any power to have his Tour wins reversed, my guess is that it's unlikely without the agreement of the Tour sponsoring organization. edited to add: After all, the Tour is a professional event, and I would think the ADA has no jurosdiction over it anymore than it does over the NFL (or MLB, NBA,NHL, etc.).
As for the effect of this, it will be intersting to see if the USADA has any power to have his Tour wins reversed, my guess is that it's unlikely without the agreement of the Tour sponsoring organization. edited to add: After all, the Tour is a professional event, and I would think the ADA has no jurosdiction over it anymore than it does over the NFL (or MLB, NBA,NHL, etc.).
Re: Armstong dope denial
It's more like Armstrong saying "I'm dirty as hell, as all of my teammates know, but I'm too much of a lying coward to admit it".
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
-
MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 21516
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: Armstong dope denial
Just goes to show - one minute you're free-wheelin' and next they derail yer.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: Armstong dope denial
There are so many problems with this prosecwitch hunt, I don't know where to start, but I'll set out what I've learned so far:
1. An athlete just received a lifetime ban for doping, given by an antidoping agency, without one shred of physical evidence of actual doping. This is a problem on several levels, which I'll come back to.
2. The alleged "competent" witnesses who supposedly provided the incriminating testimony have not yet been identified, nor have the specifics of their allegations been provided. Another problem with multiple levels.
2a. Based on rumor and innuendo, what has been determined about these allegedly competent witnesses is that they are anything but competent. So far the names of three other cyclists have appears most often: Floyd Landis -- an admitted doper, who has tried to drag the names of multiple cyclists through the mud in order to make himself look better; Tyler Hamilton -- another admitted doper, who has been suspended multiple times and is now retired; Frankie Andreu -- another admitted doper, and his alleged information about Lance was part of an arbitration over a bonus payment Lance was supposed to have received -- which was ultimately paid (meaning the credibility of that evidence was considered by an arbitration panel and not given much weight). You can see the pattern here regarding the "credibility" of these witnesses. They have none.
2b. The most troubling rumor to me is the rumor that George Hincappie may have also provided testimonial evidence that Lance doped. This rumor has never been confirmed, Hincappie has no beef against Lance, was his chief domestique through all seven Tour victories, and George himself has never been caught doping (unlike Landis, Hamilton, and Andreu). He is also well respected in the world of cycling. He just retired this summer, and the rumors are the retirement was to avoid possible doping charges. So you can see the pattern continues. Although Hincappie could have been a devastating witness.
3. Jeff Novitsky conducted a two-year federal investigation of Lance, which concluded this spring without any charges. Novitsky is the anti-doping fed, and if he didn't think he had enough for an indictment (unlike the cases he investigated against BALCO, Bonds, Clemens) you can imagine how skeptical that should make anyone about the evidence. He would have had access to Hincappie, Landis, Hamilton, Andreu --- all of whom supposedly testified before a grand jury on these issues.
3a. It's fair to acknowledge that Novitsky was conducting a criminal investigation, so the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a USADA arbitration rests with the agency, but is a lesser standard of proof than a criminal prosecution, something above more likely than not, but less than reasonable doubt.
4. USADA is relying upon the WADA Code, which establishes the rules for drug testing and challenges. There are multiple issues here, some of which relate to items 1-3. The Code defines "doping" as one of a multiplicity of items including: presence of a prohibited substance or markers in an athlete's sample; use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method; refusing or failing to provide a sample; violation of out of competition testing/missed tests; tampering with doping control; possession of prohibited substances or means; trafficking in prohibited substances or means; administering prohibited substance/means to any athlete in or out of competition. Enforcement of the Code is based on testing, and the Code sets out standards for what constitutes a positive test.
Problems with USADA's "enforcement" of the WADA code:
4a. The WADA Code was first created in 2004, and USADA is applying, as best I can tell, the 2009 version of the Code. That's retroactive application of a standard, unfair, and something we don't do with laws and regulations in this country unless specifically approved. This is a clear due process violation.
4b. I have read, but haven't been able to find in the code, that there is a statute of limitations of prosecutions under the WADA code of 8 years (or perhaps that refers to my point above that the Code was established in 2004, but is being utilized to prosecute events which happened as early as 1996). Either way, its a due process violation.
4c. A violation requires positive A and B samples. Each sample is divided into A & B. If A is clear, B is not tested. If A is positive, B is tested. If B is positive, doping is confirmed. If B is negative, doping is not confirmed and any claims charges are dropped. Lance has never had a positive A sample (and never missed a test). He is the most tested athlete in history. There are rumors that there are positive B samples floating around somewhere, that USADA is relying on. However, since B samples aren't routinely tested, this is outside the rules. Also, even if a B was tested and was positive, without the positive A, there is no violation.
4d. The Code sets out length of time of suspension, starting with two years. Why is a first offender stripped of all titles and given a lifetime ban? It's inconsistent with other penalties (even Hamilton, caught twice, wasn't given a lifetime ban, same with some other Tour participants and winners).
4e. The Code requires details of the charges to be laid out against you. All I've read and seen so far is the general charges (descriptions of the violations), but no details of the evidence USADA will be utilizing to prove those charges, the witnesses, documents, or anything else. I've never heard of a situation where you had to defend a case without knowing the specifics of the claims and proofs in advance, so you had the opportunity to prepare a defense.
4f. The Code requires competent evidence. Based on everything I've read and laid out above, I don't find the evidence close to competent, nor do I find it would meet the required standards of proof.
4g. Interestingly, if Lance is stripped of his Tour titles (USADA claims it did that on Friday, but there is a jurisdictional dispute about their authority to do so), some of the "winners" are riders who have been caught doping, like multiple time second-place finisher Jan Ullrich. I don't bring this up to make the "everyone doped so it doesn't matter" argument, but to highlight several of my points above: where are the positive samples according to the rules? where are the competent witnesses? how could such a cabal actually succeed when there were so many acknowledged dopers in the top finishers anyway?
So, all of these criticisms being said (and I'm sure Lance's attorney has even more), why isn't he contesting the charges anyway? USADA has taken the position that failure to contest = guilt. I don't necessarily agree, because they haven't had to put their evidence to the burdens and standards of proof, but of course, neither has Lance. The USADA is something like 58-2 in arbitrations, and who knows that would or could happen. I recently lost an arbitration where I knew my client was right, but the arbitrator -- a so called "neutral" was anything but. By stepping away and not playing the game according to some else's unfair rules, Lance gets, I think, a draw. There will always be questions. He will never be cleared. But he will also never be declared a doper, based on evidence, either. I know I would be sick of it, and I think BigRR's analysis and Jar's conclusions are spot on.
I haven't had time to read the pleadings in the federal case Lance brought against USADA, which was dismissed. Snippets I've read in the news reports lead me to conclude that the judge has many of the same concerns as I with respect to the charging document (and thus the underlying evidence) and made some assumptions that it would be cleaned up prior to any arbitration occurring, and the requested/required information shared with Lance. Of course, that has not happened now, and is unlikely to happen (although this decision could be appealed, we will know in several weeks). Also, the ICU (International Cycling Union) is contesting the USADA jurisdiction over the proceedings, so more on that front -- which would required a detailed analysis of the applicable International Treaties something I don't have the time to get in to. While this may be "over" for Lance, I don't think its truly over yet, particularly with respect to the stripped titles.
Finally, the Motorola/US Postal/Discovery teams manager - Johan Bruyneel is supposed to go to arbitration on the claims against him, later this year. Likely same facts and witnesses as those aligned against Lance. So perhaps we will see USADA's evidence tested any way, and see if Brunyeel decides to challenge or pass. More to come on that front.
1. An athlete just received a lifetime ban for doping, given by an antidoping agency, without one shred of physical evidence of actual doping. This is a problem on several levels, which I'll come back to.
2. The alleged "competent" witnesses who supposedly provided the incriminating testimony have not yet been identified, nor have the specifics of their allegations been provided. Another problem with multiple levels.
2a. Based on rumor and innuendo, what has been determined about these allegedly competent witnesses is that they are anything but competent. So far the names of three other cyclists have appears most often: Floyd Landis -- an admitted doper, who has tried to drag the names of multiple cyclists through the mud in order to make himself look better; Tyler Hamilton -- another admitted doper, who has been suspended multiple times and is now retired; Frankie Andreu -- another admitted doper, and his alleged information about Lance was part of an arbitration over a bonus payment Lance was supposed to have received -- which was ultimately paid (meaning the credibility of that evidence was considered by an arbitration panel and not given much weight). You can see the pattern here regarding the "credibility" of these witnesses. They have none.
2b. The most troubling rumor to me is the rumor that George Hincappie may have also provided testimonial evidence that Lance doped. This rumor has never been confirmed, Hincappie has no beef against Lance, was his chief domestique through all seven Tour victories, and George himself has never been caught doping (unlike Landis, Hamilton, and Andreu). He is also well respected in the world of cycling. He just retired this summer, and the rumors are the retirement was to avoid possible doping charges. So you can see the pattern continues. Although Hincappie could have been a devastating witness.
3. Jeff Novitsky conducted a two-year federal investigation of Lance, which concluded this spring without any charges. Novitsky is the anti-doping fed, and if he didn't think he had enough for an indictment (unlike the cases he investigated against BALCO, Bonds, Clemens) you can imagine how skeptical that should make anyone about the evidence. He would have had access to Hincappie, Landis, Hamilton, Andreu --- all of whom supposedly testified before a grand jury on these issues.
3a. It's fair to acknowledge that Novitsky was conducting a criminal investigation, so the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof in a USADA arbitration rests with the agency, but is a lesser standard of proof than a criminal prosecution, something above more likely than not, but less than reasonable doubt.
4. USADA is relying upon the WADA Code, which establishes the rules for drug testing and challenges. There are multiple issues here, some of which relate to items 1-3. The Code defines "doping" as one of a multiplicity of items including: presence of a prohibited substance or markers in an athlete's sample; use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method; refusing or failing to provide a sample; violation of out of competition testing/missed tests; tampering with doping control; possession of prohibited substances or means; trafficking in prohibited substances or means; administering prohibited substance/means to any athlete in or out of competition. Enforcement of the Code is based on testing, and the Code sets out standards for what constitutes a positive test.
Problems with USADA's "enforcement" of the WADA code:
4a. The WADA Code was first created in 2004, and USADA is applying, as best I can tell, the 2009 version of the Code. That's retroactive application of a standard, unfair, and something we don't do with laws and regulations in this country unless specifically approved. This is a clear due process violation.
4b. I have read, but haven't been able to find in the code, that there is a statute of limitations of prosecutions under the WADA code of 8 years (or perhaps that refers to my point above that the Code was established in 2004, but is being utilized to prosecute events which happened as early as 1996). Either way, its a due process violation.
4c. A violation requires positive A and B samples. Each sample is divided into A & B. If A is clear, B is not tested. If A is positive, B is tested. If B is positive, doping is confirmed. If B is negative, doping is not confirmed and any claims charges are dropped. Lance has never had a positive A sample (and never missed a test). He is the most tested athlete in history. There are rumors that there are positive B samples floating around somewhere, that USADA is relying on. However, since B samples aren't routinely tested, this is outside the rules. Also, even if a B was tested and was positive, without the positive A, there is no violation.
4d. The Code sets out length of time of suspension, starting with two years. Why is a first offender stripped of all titles and given a lifetime ban? It's inconsistent with other penalties (even Hamilton, caught twice, wasn't given a lifetime ban, same with some other Tour participants and winners).
4e. The Code requires details of the charges to be laid out against you. All I've read and seen so far is the general charges (descriptions of the violations), but no details of the evidence USADA will be utilizing to prove those charges, the witnesses, documents, or anything else. I've never heard of a situation where you had to defend a case without knowing the specifics of the claims and proofs in advance, so you had the opportunity to prepare a defense.
4f. The Code requires competent evidence. Based on everything I've read and laid out above, I don't find the evidence close to competent, nor do I find it would meet the required standards of proof.
4g. Interestingly, if Lance is stripped of his Tour titles (USADA claims it did that on Friday, but there is a jurisdictional dispute about their authority to do so), some of the "winners" are riders who have been caught doping, like multiple time second-place finisher Jan Ullrich. I don't bring this up to make the "everyone doped so it doesn't matter" argument, but to highlight several of my points above: where are the positive samples according to the rules? where are the competent witnesses? how could such a cabal actually succeed when there were so many acknowledged dopers in the top finishers anyway?
So, all of these criticisms being said (and I'm sure Lance's attorney has even more), why isn't he contesting the charges anyway? USADA has taken the position that failure to contest = guilt. I don't necessarily agree, because they haven't had to put their evidence to the burdens and standards of proof, but of course, neither has Lance. The USADA is something like 58-2 in arbitrations, and who knows that would or could happen. I recently lost an arbitration where I knew my client was right, but the arbitrator -- a so called "neutral" was anything but. By stepping away and not playing the game according to some else's unfair rules, Lance gets, I think, a draw. There will always be questions. He will never be cleared. But he will also never be declared a doper, based on evidence, either. I know I would be sick of it, and I think BigRR's analysis and Jar's conclusions are spot on.
I haven't had time to read the pleadings in the federal case Lance brought against USADA, which was dismissed. Snippets I've read in the news reports lead me to conclude that the judge has many of the same concerns as I with respect to the charging document (and thus the underlying evidence) and made some assumptions that it would be cleaned up prior to any arbitration occurring, and the requested/required information shared with Lance. Of course, that has not happened now, and is unlikely to happen (although this decision could be appealed, we will know in several weeks). Also, the ICU (International Cycling Union) is contesting the USADA jurisdiction over the proceedings, so more on that front -- which would required a detailed analysis of the applicable International Treaties something I don't have the time to get in to. While this may be "over" for Lance, I don't think its truly over yet, particularly with respect to the stripped titles.
Finally, the Motorola/US Postal/Discovery teams manager - Johan Bruyneel is supposed to go to arbitration on the claims against him, later this year. Likely same facts and witnesses as those aligned against Lance. So perhaps we will see USADA's evidence tested any way, and see if Brunyeel decides to challenge or pass. More to come on that front.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Re: Armstong dope denial
Thanks for that Guin.
To me this says a lot:
His bonefides for being hardcore about this kind of thing are more than well established; if even he didn't think there was enough to go to trial with that speaks powerfully....
I also wonder why, if it's so easy to beat these tests, (as some of what is in the articles rube posted suggests) why is it that so many of these folks, (like the witnesses against Armstrong) got caught? (In some cases multiple times.)
To me this says a lot:
That guy pursued Bonds to the ends of the earth, and went to trial against him without a whole lot to work with.....3. Jeff Novitsky conducted a two-year federal investigation of Lance, which concluded this spring without any charges. Novitsky is the anti-doping fed, and if he didn't think he had enough for an indictment (unlike the cases he investigated against BALCO, Bonds, Clemens) you can imagine how skeptical that should make anyone about the evidence. He would have had access to Hincappie, Landis, Hamilton, Andreu --- all of whom supposedly testified before a grand jury on these issues.
His bonefides for being hardcore about this kind of thing are more than well established; if even he didn't think there was enough to go to trial with that speaks powerfully....
I also wonder why, if it's so easy to beat these tests, (as some of what is in the articles rube posted suggests) why is it that so many of these folks, (like the witnesses against Armstrong) got caught? (In some cases multiple times.)
Re: Armstong dope denial
Ditto to what LJ said, thanks Guin.
Re: Armstong dope denial
Guin, that was a wonderful bit of writing.
I've no dog in this fight, but your compressive summation is very persuasive.
I've no dog in this fight, but your compressive summation is very persuasive.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Armstong dope denial
Interesting that Armstrong's 'defenders' do not say he didn't do it. He obviously did. They all whinge about how he wouldn't be convicted of it due to technicalities.
They all sound like Barry Bonds defenders.
Pathetic. Lance is dirty.
yrs,
rubato
They all sound like Barry Bonds defenders.
Pathetic. Lance is dirty.
yrs,
rubato
Re: Armstong dope denial
Wel most of us prefer to see the evidence than to condemn someone based on what's published in the press, but go ahead and judge the way you see fit.
As for "technicalities", since when has fairness and adherence to the rules been reduced to a mere technicality?
As for "technicalities", since when has fairness and adherence to the rules been reduced to a mere technicality?
Re: Armstong dope denial
As opposed to your analysis rube, which is nothing more than "Lance bad. Ugh." So much for being a scientist.... 
Gob, welcome to my world and thanks - this kind of analysis and writing is a significant part of what I do to earn my living.
Gob, welcome to my world and thanks - this kind of analysis and writing is a significant part of what I do to earn my living.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké