Armstong dope denial

[Gob]

You should go into "faction" writing Guin! (Fictional/factual)

[The Hen]

I think she is more suited to Fictual writings.


As for Lance? He won the races. All of the races.

Hat's off to the Lance-man.

[Long Run]

I hope he didn't take drugs, but in a sport where taking such drugs was apparently the norm, nothing would surprise me. In answer to some of these points, if you read the USADA complaint, there are some answers (my comments in bold).

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. USADA's argument is that the doping and conspiracy were so wide spread that this is not a simple case of an athlete doping.

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. USADA argues that they are trying to protect their witnesses, but they do give a fairly detailed summary of what the witnesses saw and experienced.

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. I agree that the witnesses that are known are not credible. Makes you wonder about the next 7 or so.

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. Agreed, if there were a few witnesses like Hincappie, then we would know that at least some of the claims are true, but we may never know.

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. Novitsky has been particularly unsuccessful in his prosecutions in this field and losing another high profile case against the most admired of the athletes (no one doubt Lance has done a ton of good with his fame), could well end his career.

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. To me, the burden of proof explains it. Novitsky didn't have confidence he could prevail. But anyone who has gone before the semi-rigged system of agency contested cases, where the agency is presumed correct and can only have its decision overturned if it is shown to be clearly unreasonable, knows this is an uphill battle. This is what Lance was facing. Add to that, USADA decides on the arbitrator panel (the parties then go through a process to select or de-select arbitrators), and the arbitrators know they don't get on future panels if they anger the agency. So you have a panel likely to support the agency and a field heavily tilting to favor the agency. I can see why Lance did not want to have his legacy decided in front of such a tribunal.

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. If you read the allegations, there is no gray area or maybe there is guilt under one code but not the other. Either there was wide spread doping or there wasn't.

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. The USADA rationale is twofold: 1) evidence of earlier doping is proof that the doping continued through to allegations that are still within 8 years; and 2) where there is a wide spread conspiracy of covering up the doping, the statute period is tolled.

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). This could be why the Texas federal judge, even as he ruled this process could continue, was dismayed at the motivations of USADA.

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. USADA said they would provide all of that in plenty of time if the alleged perpetrators went ahead with arbitration.

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. Clearly, what we know of the evidence now is pretty weak. USADA claims it is overwhelming, but that could just be their hubris covering up a wishy-washy he-said she-said case.

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) -- and this does support the view that USADA is on a power trip rather than a pursuit of truth, 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? The reason I have a hard time buying USADA's case is exactly this -- how would anyone expect such a widespread conspiracy, involving so many athletes and employees coming and going over so many years, think they could get away with this? Either Armstrong/Bruyneel/et al. are stupid, have amazing chutzpah, or maybe USADA's case is a stretch. In every other sports environment where there has been doping, the athletes are very secretive about their actions, with only one or two confidants, at most, in on what is happening.

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 agree: it was a no-win situation for Lance. He almost would certainly lose in the arbitration, which would make him guilty in the eyes of the public which would not understand how slanted the the tribunal was. Of course, now, with Bruyneel and others maybe going ahead with the arbitration, he gets the best of both situations. He denies wrongdoing, but if USADA loses against any of the alleged co-conspirators, he will be cleared by implication.

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.

[rubato]

Lance's defenders all appear to be saying he should be allowed to get away with it; not that he didn't do it.



yrs,
rubato

[Econoline]

I had thought that, in other circumstances, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" was something you agreed with? No?

[Lord Jim]

Lance's defenders all appear to be saying he should be allowed to get away with it; not that he didn't do it.

I haven't seen one single word in this thread posted to this effect...

Are you reading a different one?

[Jarlaxle]

Lance's defenders all appear to be saying he should be allowed to get away with it; not that he didn't do it.

I haven't seen one single word in this thread posted to this effect...

Are you reading a different one?

Or this one through a fog of ethanol, perhaps?

[Guinevere]

The UCI has asked USADA for details about the charges and supposedly USADA is preparing a "reasoned decision" which sets forth the basis of its claims. It will be interesting to see if this document is released to the public, and what it says. Unfortunately, no matter what it says, the "evidence" contained in the document will not have been tested and subject to cross-examination, which is one of the most fruitful ways to analyze credibility. And that, Long Run, is why I cannot rely on USADA's complaint. I've read lots of complaints that on the surface look credible, but once the evidence was tested, were not able to meet the standard of proof.

A couple of other items of note: Former cyclist and cycling commentator Phil Liggett has come out saying that USADA's witness testimony was obtained through bribery and coercion, and claims he has spoken to people whom USADA attempted to coerce. Liggett is a friend of Armstrong, but is also well-respected in the sport, and close to many. USADA denies those claims, of course. More to come, perhaps.

No date yet for Bruyneel's hearing, likely close to the end of the year.

UCI has not removed Lance's name from the records books.

As for allegations that I'm somehow making excuses for a cheater, you all know I've been absolutely clear that I don't stand for cheating and rule breaking in sports, and I've been quite harsh is my assessment and condemnation of athletes like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Ask me how I feel about Pete Rose, too. If Lance cheated, I'd rather that he confess and we could be done with all of the innuendo and allegation. But I have yet to see reasonable, credible evidence that leads me to any conclusion that he cheated.

[Lord Jim]

you all know I've been absolutely clear that I don't stand for cheating and rule breaking in sports,

Guin, as someone who has been an interlocutor with you in some of those discussions, I can certainly attest to that...

And I'm sure that there is no one here who would dispute it. (Well, no one, save one dolt with severe reading comprehension issues who, with typical intellectual laziness, would rather just try to dismiss and discredit the arguments against his pre-determined position rather than deal with the thoughtful analysis and points made.)

[rubato]

I had thought that, in other circumstances, the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" was something you agreed with? No?

The evidence against is very compelling. He has shown no rationale which supports his case. And he has now decided not to contest the evidence of teammates who admitted doping with him. Either many of them are lying or he is. Many.

He is not charged with a criminal offense where the "innocent until proven guilty" standard is applied. He was charged with a civil offense where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is applied. And he fails this by so wide a margin than he has abandoned his own defense.

Lance is dirty. And he knows it.

I followed cycling back when Lance switched from triathlon to cycling and he was a notorious dick back then. I heard about his diagnosis and knew better than most how bad his prognosis was. He had brain and lung metastases, very advanced testicular cancer, and I did nto think he would survive. I was glad when he recovered and I wanted to believe the myth that fighting cancer had transformed him into a better man and was willing to believe his first tour victories were honest. But the facts piled up year by year and it was impossible.

The last great US cycling champion was Greg LeMond. Lance is a selfish liar.

The man he always was before.


yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

It seems you've made your mind up, but again, here is why this is not a closed case by any stretch. My comments are in bold.

The evidence against is very compelling. Says USADA, but their case doesn't really make sense, and we haven't seen the proof. He has shown no rationale which supports his case. Other than the fact that he's taken scores of drug tests and passed every one, and the fact that the three known testifiers are proven cheats, have an agenda and have been caught lying. And he has now decided not to contest the evidence of teammates who admitted doping with him. Because as pointed out by the legal counsel on this board, the tribunal is heavily slanted against him. It is nothing like a fair civil court trial that people are familiar with. Either many of them are lying or he is. Many. Again, says USADA. We don't know who or what these people will say. But as has been reported by Phil Liggett, there are riders who have said that USADA has used coercion and bribes to get them to testify. And as noted by the impartial federal judge, USADA's motivations are far from pure.

He is not charged with a criminal offense where the "innocent until proven guilty" standard is applied. He was charged with a civil offense where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is applied. This is incorrect. actually, the standard is whether USADA's position is supported by "clear and concise" evidence, whatever that means. If it is like a government agency, the standard is whether USADA's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, meaning USADA has to prove is that its conclusions of Lance's guilt are reasonable. That is, if Lance's case shows his innocence if a more reasonable conclusion, than the USADA claim of guilt, Lance loses as long as USADA's position is found to be reasonable. And he fails this by so wide a margin than he has abandoned his own defense. See above -- there was no point in allowing USADA to "win" in its favored forum. By stopping now, Lance can still claim his innocence with legitimacy. Why allow some power hungry no-bodies take down a legend, knowing the vast majority of people don't realize the process is rigged in USADA's favor.

Lance is dirty. And he knows it. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know and USADA has not proven its case.

I followed cycling back when Lance switched from triathlon to cycling and he was a notorious dick back then. Some say, and others I know who rode with him, liked him when he was young. He was brash and confident, and so he rubbed some people the wrong way -- like most every other successful 20-year old. I heard about his diagnosis and knew better than most how bad his prognosis was. He had brain and lung metastases, very advanced testicular cancer, and I did nto think he would survive. I was glad when he recovered and I wanted to believe the myth that fighting cancer had transformed him into a better man and was willing to believe his first tour victories were honest. But the facts piled up year by year and it was impossible. What facts? Just allegations and no proven test results.

The last great US cycling champion was Greg LeMond. LeMond was a America's greatest cyclist ever in my opinion, but how do we know he wasn't using PEDs, since many of his competitors were? Are we going let USADA lose on a bunch of graying old riders with threats and bribes to get them to make a case against him? Lance is a selfish liar. Tell that to the thousands who have benefited from the Livestrong Foundation, and been inspired by Lance's inspiring story. And even if your view of him is correct, even jerks are entitled to a fair trial before we find them guilty.

The man he always was before.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Oh come on Long Run, you're obviously just whining about how he wouldn't be convicted due to technicalities.

he was a notorious dick back then.

Ah, so he was something of a role model for you then....

[Guinevere]

I too know people who rode with Lance in he pre-Tour, pre-cancer days. As Long Run says, he was a brash confident athlete -- in this case he was riding mountain bikes on the semi-pro circuit. But so were all the other young stud cyclists I know from that time -- they were hot, fit, and living on the edge. Who cares, anyway? Its no reason to persecute the man, and it doesn't diminish his talents or accomplishments in any way.

[rubato]

It seems you've made your mind up, but again, here is why this is not a closed case by any stretch.

The evidence against is very compelling. Says USADA, but their case doesn't really make sense, and we haven't seen the proof. He has shown no rationale which supports his case. Other than the fact that he's taken scores of drug tests and passed every one, and the fact that the three known testifiers are proven cheats, have an agenda and have been caught lying. And he has now decided not to contest the evidence of teammates who admitted doping with him. Because as pointed out by the legal counsel on this board, the tribunal is heavily slanted against him. It is nothing like a fair civil court trial that people are familiar with. Either many of them are lying or he is. Many. Again, says USADA. We don't know who or what these people will say. But as has been reported by Phil Liggett, there are riders who have said that USADA has used coercion and bribes to get them to testify. And as noted by the impartial federal judge, USADA's motivations are far from pure.

He is not charged with a criminal offense where the "innocent until proven guilty" standard is applied. He was charged with a civil offense where the "preponderance of the evidence" standard is applied. This is incorrect. actually, the standard is whether USADA's position is supported by "clear and concise" evidence, whatever that means. If it is like a government agency, the standard is whether USADA's conclusion is supported by substantial evidence, meaning USADA has to prove is that its conclusions of Lance's guilt are reasonable. That is, if Lance's case shows his innocence if a more reasonable conclusion, than the USADA claim of guilt, Lance loses as long as USADA's position is found to be reasonable. And he fails this by so wide a margin than he has abandoned his own defense. See above -- there was no point in allowing USADA to "win" in its favored forum. By stopping now, Lance can still claim his innocence with legitimacy. Why allow some power hungry no-bodies take down a legend, knowing the vast majority of people don't realize the process is rigged in USADA's favor.

Lance is dirty. And he knows it. Maybe, maybe not. We don't know and USADA has not proven its case.

I followed cycling back when Lance switched from triathlon to cycling and he was a notorious dick back then. Some say, and others I know who rode with him, liked him when he was young. He was brash and confident, and so he rubbed some people the wrong way -- like most every other successful 20-year old. I heard about his diagnosis and knew better than most how bad his prognosis was. He had brain and lung metastases, very advanced testicular cancer, and I did nto think he would survive. I was glad when he recovered and I wanted to believe the myth that fighting cancer had transformed him into a better man and was willing to believe his first tour victories were honest. But the facts piled up year by year and it was impossible. What facts? Just allegations and no proven test results.

The last great US cycling champion was Greg LeMond. LeMond was a America's greatest cyclist ever in my opinion, but how do we know he wasn't using PEDs, since many of his competitors were? Are we going let USADA lose on a bunch of graying old riders with threats and bribes to get them to make a case against him? Lance is a selfish liar. Tell that to the thousands who have benefited from the Livestrong Foundation, and been inspired by Lance's inspiring story. And even if your view of him is correct, even jerks are entitled to a fair trial before we find them guilty.

The man he always was before.


yrs,
rubato

You have added statements I did not make and presented them as quotes. Please remove them. You are lying otherwise.

I'm beginning to see how you cannot tell the difference between Paul Krugman, who is a respected economist and writer, winner of the Clark medal and the Nobel prize, and people proven to lie nearly continually.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Either Lance is lying or his teammates are.

Either Lance is lying or there is some explanation no one has seen for why he paid nearly half a million dollars to an ex-team doctor.

If you read the history link I posted above (and now below) you would see that there is a long history of doping in cycling going back to the 1800s. Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Thevenet, Delgado, Kelly, Riis either admitted or tested positive for drugs (some in the era when they were not banned)

Again, I would respect him for saying "I did it because that is how to succeed in cycling" as others with more spine have done* but allowing him to lie and get away with it just makes everything worse and guarantees that more people will be harmed by being pressured to dope.

I've followed cycling for a long time and I understand the equation here. Better than you do, apparently. There is no collegiate cycling program which fosters the riders in the pro peleton. Historically these are all hard boys whose life choices were either work on the farm, in the factory making carpets in Belgium, or some miserable job in Ireland (Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche) or win. Before LeMond they didn't even know how to negotiate contracts and get a decent payday for their work. There is no cushioned and cosseted preparation like we have for basketball, football, baseball. It is a tough business and they made really hard choices to be successful.

" 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] "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

Tammy Thomas after years of taking androgens:





The East German sports machine forced naive girls to take massive amounts of androgens which ruined their health and changed their lives. Tammy Thomas proved that doping can make you successful, at a cost.

Being morally lax about Lance's obvious lying just hurts people. You shouldn't do it.

Lance cannot claim that he was forced into a hard choice like Anquetil and Merckx can. Lance was a highly-paid professional athlete (and shill) he has no excuse other than ego.


yrs,
rubato

*note how carefully I avoided the 'balls' joke?

[Jarlaxle]

I too know people who rode with Lance in he pre-Tour, pre-cancer days. As Long Run says, he was a brash confident athlete -- in this case he was riding mountain bikes on the semi-pro circuit. But so were all the other young stud cyclists I know from that time -- they were hot, fit, and living on the edge. Who cares, anyway? Its no reason to persecute the man, and it doesn't diminish his talents or accomplishments in any way.

I would imagine MOST professional cyclists would be brash, confident people! Heck...I would expect that from most pro ATHLETES, regardless of sport.

[Miles]

I would imagine MOST professional cyclists would be brash, confident people! Heck...I would expect that from most pro ATHLETES, regardless of sport.

AKA type A personality.

[Long Run]

You have added statements I did not make and presented them as quotes.

It was my intention to do indicate my comments by putting them in bold (when there are numerous small segments to respond to specifically, I find it cumbersome to use the quote/unquote for each one). Clarified that above in case anyone had trouble understanding that was the intent.

[Guinevere]

Jar, exactly.

Rubato, for a scientist, you seem awfully happy relying on rumor and innuendo, rather than empirical evidence. I find that strange, and it only further undercuts your very shaky and obviously personally-biased position.

BTW, your own article about the alleged payment to the doctor stated, in the article, that there were only allegations of the payment and no proof. Maybe you should try reading what you post, so you don't mischaracterize it.

[Long Run]

On the other hand, Guin, Rubato's position is similar to most of my friends who have a fairly high level knowledge of the sport and when people are taking PEDs. Based on the volume of allegations, the pervasive PED use in the sport, and the consistently superior results (which are often associated with PED use in strength and endurance sports), they've concluded long ago that Lance took PEDs. However, believing that based on the allegations and these circumstantial factors, does not rise to the the level of proof that would allow such a conclusion in any fair tribunal. (If there is more valid proof out there, then let's hear it so that we can conclude one way or the other).