Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:35 am

Cooter Brown wrote:USADA has just stripped his 7 titles.

UCI has previously stated only they can strip titles.

Clusterfuck.


And the BOA said only they could determine the rules on who got on the British Olympic team. CAS disagreed.

If UCI has any status in the international sports movement (and hopes to maintain it), i think it it has no choice but to go to CAS and see what they say.

Or they could be seen as the same rogues as the American pro leagues.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Marlow » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:41 am

Matt speaks!! I'm impressed!!!
As Jon Stewart is wont to say, "Go on . . . " :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21133
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:45 am

gh wrote:And the BOA said only they could determine the rules on who got on the British Olympic team. CAS disagreed.

Evidently, I missed this story. Please elaborate.

By the way, USADA also says they will strip Armstrong of his Olympic bronze medal. I wonder what the IOC thinks about this.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" stripped

Postby Pego » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:53 am

Finally, I got it. Matt himself is the Last Prophet. Right, Matt?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:46 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:And the BOA said only they could determine the rules on who got on the British Olympic team. CAS disagreed.

Evidently, I missed this story. Please elaborate.

By the way, USADA also says they will strip Armstrong of his Olympic bronze medal. I wonder what the IOC thinks about this.


And take away his driver's license also, and his high school diploma...

So let us see. Is USADA claiming he cheated once? the whole time? The whole thing is ridiculous.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby CookyMonzta » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:51 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:And the BOA said only they could determine the rules on who got on the British Olympic team. CAS disagreed.

Evidently, I missed this story. Please elaborate.

By the way, USADA also says they will strip Armstrong of his Olympic bronze medal. I wonder what the IOC thinks about this.

I thought USADA/WADA didn't have the absolute authority to unilaterally strip anyone of any title. I thought the authority, in this case, belonged to UCI, and the procedure was that USADA delivered its report to UCI (or to WADA, and that WADA delivered its own report to UCI), and that UCI assessed the penalty as per recommendation from USADA or WADA.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby CookyMonzta » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:54 pm

Conor Dary wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
gh wrote:And the BOA said only they could determine the rules on who got on the British Olympic team. CAS disagreed.

Evidently, I missed this story. Please elaborate.

By the way, USADA also says they will strip Armstrong of his Olympic bronze medal. I wonder what the IOC thinks about this.


And take away his driver's license also, and his high school diploma...

So let us see. Is USADA claiming he cheated once? the whole time? The whole thing is ridiculous.

If they are claiming he cheated only once, they must answer the question, when?? If it was before his FIRST Tour de France victory, then your typical 2-year suspension would wipe out his 1999 and 2000 Tour wins, and everything else stays intact if there is no proof that he cheated again thereafter. They cannot simply throw out the rule book and wipe his entire record clean from 1999 onward because the dots are so hard to connect that they can't tell when the cheating began and/or when it ended, and how often he was deep in the dirt. Or did I miss anything, and there was testimony as to how deep he really was in?
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Dave » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:22 pm

Does anyone remember an article a few years ago where a journalist asked a bunch of Olympic atheletes if they could take a drug that would allow to win a gold medal and die in a year? It was shocking how many said they would.

We are shocked that athletes would take non lethal PEDs to help them win?

Anti doping is a lost cause.

I continue to believe that any athlete who cannot be disqualified within 24-48 hours of the competition has the result they are going to get. No more changing history going back 10-who knows how many years.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Dave » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:34 pm

MattMarriott wrote:Lance Armstrong, Usain Bolt,"Hussein Obama II" accused and stripped: first of 6 acts June 29 2012, next 5 to follow in 2012

Lance Armstrong. Usain Bolt, "Hussein Obama II" accused and stripped - first of six acts June 29 2012

Last Prophet predicted 2004 that the greatest cycling champion ever, Lance Armstrong, would be executed the same way as Marion Jones:
- first: falsely accused of doping, as many others before, part of the agenda behind the illuminati doping conspiracy; (1)
- second: all major TITLES erased from the official medals table, which is also part of the "Rewrite History" agenda pushed to the utter limits.

In 2007 Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt would be executed the same way as Lance Armstrong.
In 2008 after Usain Bolt set his world records at the Beijing Olympics, Last Prophet explained that Usain Bolt became the fastest man ever AND FOREVER.

Last Prophet explained immediately after the illuminati were forced to use plan B for the 2008 "election" and have "Obama" play counterfeit president and have him detonate as fake suicide bomber (like Nixon) later, that illuminati actor "Obama" would be executed the same way (2) as the two greatest sports champions ever, Armstrong and Bolt:
- accused of all sort of crimes (forging birth certificate; murdering "granny", etc);
- stripped of his title, with Hillary Clinton declared 44th president and successor of GW Bush.

All this part also of the supervised ethnic civil war script, to be launched together with the collapse of banks and anihilation of savings and pension funds of the human cattle.

The first of these six acts (accusation, titles stripping of Armstrong, Bolt and "Obama") timely took place (3) on June 29, 2012, hours before the start of the Tour de France.
The next five acts won't take as long as the first did. Actually they are all scheduled for 2012.

Notes
(1) http://doping-conspiracy.blogspot.pt/20 ... ll-be.html
(2) http://rewrite-history.blogspot.pt/2009 ... nia-v.html
(3) Lance Armstrong to face charges from U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
June 29, 2012
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/o ... igs30.html

In
http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... =8&t=47306


Friend, meds are OK, performance enhancing drugs less so. Just thought you might want to know this.
Dave
 
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:No, because the NFL does not fall under USADA's purview as ""the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." It was created in 2000 because the USOC was under increasing pressure due to conflict of interest credibility issues

So if what you're saying is true and USADA can involve itself in any Olympic sport, I would presume that USADA also has the power to strip Lebron James of MVP awards and Serena Williams of Wimbledon titles, and since golf is returning to the Olympics in 2016, I guess it can also take away Tiger Woods' 14 major golf titles if it sees fit.



The problem is the governing bodies of the professional arms of those respective sports are not signatories to USADA/WADA code. If there were to be a drug positive in the Olympics or something like a FIBA world championship then they would indeed face repercussions in those specific circumstances.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Friar » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:48 pm

The titles should simply be vacated. No winners

Yup, I'd go with that. Elevating #2 makes no sense.

Anti doping is a lost cause.

Then sponsorship will be too. Let them dope for no money.
Friar
 
Posts: 1022
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the Bay.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Tuariki » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:59 pm

Is Travis Tygart GOD?

To this uninformed Antipodean (New Zealand) one certainly gets the impression that Mr Tygart believes he is God and obviously he believes he has the power to waltz into any country in the world and take control of the sporting events of any country he feels like.

I have no idea of what the legal process here is. Belarusian hammer-throwers Ivan Tikhon and Vadim Devyatovsky are likely to lose their medals from many years ago because they tested positive many years later because of improved testing methods. Fair enough. That's how it should be. Disqualified and banned because of actual irrefutable evidence.

If USADA have been able to re-test samples of Armstrong and found them to be positive then great; take him to the cleaners. But treat him the same as everyone else, that is, publish the evidence, allow him the right to examine/test that evidence and then strip him of all medals and titles from the date of the initial proven drug test.

If the only evidence USADA have is that based on the testimony of Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton then that is no evidence at all - zero credibility.

To ban Armstrong and strip him of everything because he refuses to go along with the arbitration process appears ludicrous to me. Tygart's statements make it clear there was never anything for Armstrong to arbitrate other than a time and date and place for Armstrong to admit his guilt. Innocent until proven guilty is supposedly a fundamental tenet of US law - or at least I thought it was.

IMO opinion this issue is not about the rights of Armstrong. It is about the rights of all the rest of us.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby j-a-m » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:54 pm

CookyMonzta wrote:If they are claiming he cheated only once, they must answer the question, when?? If it was before his FIRST Tour de France victory, then your typical 2-year suspension would wipe out his 1999 and 2000 Tour wins, and everything else stays intact if there is no proof that he cheated again thereafter. They cannot simply throw out the rule book and wipe his entire record clean from 1999 onward because the dots are so hard to connect that they can't tell when the cheating began and/or when it ended, and how often he was deep in the dirt. Or did I miss anything, and there was testimony as to how deep he really was in?

You're raising a valid point, and that's just one of the many things that's wrong with the USADA "decision".
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:50 am

Tuariki wrote:
If USADA have been able to re-test samples of Armstrong and found them to be positive then great; take him to the cleaners. But treat him the same as everyone else, that is, publish the evidence, allow him the right to examine/test that evidence and then strip him of all medals and titles from the date of the initial proven drug test.

If the only evidence USADA have is that based on the testimony of Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton then that is no evidence at all - zero credibility.



Actually, they had TEN former teammates lined up to testify to the doping regimen of Armstrong. And as for any other evidence, I can guarantee you Armstrong and his legal team knew full well what they were facing, and the potential criminal and civil implications should that evidence be presented in a formal proceeding.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Tuariki » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:48 am

guru wrote:
Tuariki wrote:
If USADA have been able to re-test samples of Armstrong and found them to be positive then great; take him to the cleaners. But treat him the same as everyone else, that is, publish the evidence, allow him the right to examine/test that evidence and then strip him of all medals and titles from the date of the initial proven drug test.

If the only evidence USADA have is that based on the testimony of Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton then that is no evidence at all - zero credibility.



Actually, they had TEN former teammates lined up to testify to the doping regimen of Armstrong. And as for any other evidence, I can guarantee you Armstrong and his legal team knew full well what they were facing, and the potential criminal and civil implications should that evidence be presented in a formal proceeding.

On the one hand I understand we have several hundred drug free test results plus new high level testing procedures that presumably have failed to produce a positive on re-testing. That in my simplistic way of thinking is the only substantiated factual evidence in this case.

Against that there is supposed to be sworn statements by 10 former team mates but no actual evidence. We already know that several of those statements are by persons with no credibility like Landis and Hamilton. Who are the others. What is their credibility. What is their evidence?

If this is the US justice system you can keep it.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Flumpy » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:27 am

Tuariki wrote:Against that there is supposed to be sworn statements by 10 former team mates but no actual evidence. We already know that several of those statements are by persons with no credibility like Landis and Hamilton. Who are the others. What is their credibility. What is their evidence?.


10 sworn statements is evidence and surely it's because LA doesn't want more evidence in the public domain (At least with his co-operation) that he's withdrawn from proceedings.

Now he can say that the whole thing is illegitimate without ever having to face the proper charges.

He was given a chance to clear his name which has refused therefore he deserves whatever sanctions he's given (As long as they are handed out by those with the proper authority).
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Daisy » Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:02 am

Flumpy wrote:He was given a chance to clear his name

Even if innocent, how would he be able to do that?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Pego » Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:49 am

Flumpy wrote:10 sworn statements is evidence


All of them are saying "We all did that, the entire peloton." Why is Armstrong singled out?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:01 am

Tuariki wrote: What is their evidence?



As I have said previously, Armstrong hung because his ego wouldn't let him stay retired, and blood samples from 2009 and 2010, subject to more stringent tests than when he last competed, showed results outside normal range. With those results in hand, it was just a matter of gathering all the king's men to fill in the blanks.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Tuariki » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:03 am

Daisy wrote:
Flumpy wrote:He was given a chance to clear his name

Even if innocent, how would he be able to do that?

That's right. Besides passing every one of hundreds of drug tests what else can he do? I wouldn't accept as valid, sworn statements from people who have, I understand, been threatened with retribution by USADA if they don't cooperate.
Seems to me as credible as the Southern US courts that used to find black Americans guilty of anything and everything, regardless of evidence of innocence.
I am not claiming Armstrong is innocent but it seems to me there is no evidence of his being guilty but plenty of his being innocent.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby kuha » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:11 am

Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:10 sworn statements is evidence


All of them are saying "We all did that, the entire peloton." Why is Armstrong singled out?


Exactly. I know it's been said before, but....

I fully realize that more than a few see all this as some sort of "great thing." In fact, it's pretty much a complete farce. We all "know" (i.e., fundamentally believe) that the great majority of the peleton were doing pretty much exactly the same thing for all those years. Thus, the most logical thing would be for the authorities to put an asterisk on the entire period...or simply to leave it alone. To throw one figure into the volcano is to suggest that the revised results are now, somehow, "valid." We know (no scare quotes needed) that THAT is complete nonsense. In fact, the revised results are even MORE problematic because they lose the virtue of actually reflecting the historical fact of the races.

We also know that, on a level playing field, Armstrong won all those Tours. He may be unlikeable, a liar, and whatever else, but he was clearly the best cyclist of that entire period.

If the technical and legal point is to pass official drug tests, then those passed tests have to be taken seriously. If the point is to be SURE that no dopers compete at all, then these events must simply be cancelled. I don't see much realistic middle ground here.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:49 am

Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:10 sworn statements is evidence


All of them are saying "We all did that, the entire peloton." Why is Armstrong singled out?


Right. Because he is famous and USADA can blow their horn to the House Appropriations Committee, which is what this is really about. And it doesn't even effect an American event. Who cares about the French.

By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.

The whole thing stinks, but it gives righteous guys like Phil Hersh a big high.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:22 am

Tuariki wrote:Against that there is supposed to be sworn statements by 10 former team mates but no actual evidence. We already know that several of those statements are by persons with no credibility like Landis and Hamilton. Who are the others. What is their credibility. What is their evidence?

If this is the US justice system you can keep it.

You keep lumping Hamilton with Landis but that's a mistake. Hamilton only talked after he was dragged to the grand jury kicking and screaming, just like Andreu and Hincappie. The only difference between Hamilton and Andreu and Hincappie is that he repeated what he said to the grand jury to reporters, while Andreu and Hincappie have been silent about their restimony. Also, it was Hamilton who pointed out to 60 Minutes that U.S. Postal already had a full-blown doping program before Armstrong joined the team, and that it was wrong to lay the blame at the feet of Armstrong.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:31 am

guru wrote:
Tuariki wrote: What is their evidence?



As I have said previously, Armstrong hung because his ego wouldn't let him stay retired, and blood samples from 2009 and 2010, subject to more stringent tests than when he last competed, showed results outside normal range. With those results in hand, it was just a matter of gathering all the king's men to fill in the blanks.

The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby catson52 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
guru wrote:
Tuariki wrote: What is their evidence?



As I have said previously, Armstrong hung because his ego wouldn't let him stay retired, and blood samples from 2009 and 2010, subject to more stringent tests than when he last competed, showed results outside normal range. With those results in hand, it was just a matter of gathering all the king's men to fill in the blanks.

The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.


Are the East German and Chinese records in women's track and field the only ones that need closer investigation, and possible wiping off the books?
catson52
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:22 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:52 am

Statute of limitations is (way) gone in those cases, sorry.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:53 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.


And who pray tell is going to testify against the Chinese?
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:55 am

catson52 wrote:

Are the East German and Chinese records in women's track and field the only ones that need closer investigation, and possible wiping off the books?


The East Germans lost the war.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:00 am

Given that every nation on the planet was actively pursuing PEDs in a big way in the '70s and '80s (oh yeah, and '90s and '00s and '10s.......), singling out the East Germans is unequal application of "justice" if there was such a thing. Not their fault they apparently just did it better than everyone else.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:03 am

Conor Dary wrote:
By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.



MLB is not a WADA/USADA signatory
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby EPelle » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:18 am

They're not. However, WADA is attempting to increase its co-operation with MLB to incorporate stronger sanctions and MLB's ability to increase discipline for players who disguise their actions and attempt to distort the truth.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:24 am

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.



MLB is not a WADA/USADA signatory


That is convenient.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:38 am

guru wrote:
Conor Dary wrote:
By the way, why is Cabrera still eligible to win the batting title this year. Why doesn't USADA make a big fuss on that? The guy actually failed a drug test.



MLB is not a WADA/USADA signatory

If soccer, basketball, tennis and golf can participate in the Olympics without FIFA, the NBA, the ATP and the PGA signing up with USADA/WADA, I wonder why the UCI and the IAAF signed up. Why relinquish power without getting any extra benefits in return?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby guru » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:52 am

jazzcyclist wrote: I wonder why the UCI and the IAAF signed up. Why relinquish power without getting any extra benefits in return?



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics ... ting_N.htm
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby donley2 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 9:21 am

Tuariki wrote:
Against that there is supposed to be sworn statements by 10 former team mates but no actual evidence. We already know that several of those statements are by persons with no credibility like Landis and Hamilton. Who are the others. What is their credibility. What is their evidence?

If this is the US justice system you can keep it.


I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there is plenty of precedent for USADA to do this. The list of non-analytical postives (there pet name for your busted without a positive test) is significant even in track and field. It includes Tim Montgomery, Christie Gaines and I believe a few others.

This page http://www.usada.org/sanctions/ has 19 non-analytical positives dating between 2007 and now. That does not count Armstrong as one of those 19.
donley2
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby gh » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:20 am

I find it rather "amusing" that there was dancing in the streets when some unpopular athletes were busted on non-analytical grounds, but now that it has happened to an icon suddenly it's a horridly unfair process.

The creation of the ADAs definitely falls into a classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 10:29 am

I'm okay with non-analytical postives. The UCI has punished dozens, if not hundreds of cyclists over the years based on circumstantial evidence (eg. Operación Puerto, Festina Scandal, etc.). However, I didn't know that outside agencies like USADA could overrule the governing bodies of the individual sports.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:07 am

gh wrote:I find it rather "amusing" that there was dancing in the streets when some unpopular athletes were busted on non-analytical grounds, but now that it has happened to an icon suddenly it's a horridly unfair process.

The creation of the ADAs definitely falls into a classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario.


I think, and always have, that they are all ridiculous. If you want to save blood samples indefinitely for testing in the future, fine. But these non-analytical busts are just so random without any context of who else is taking something. Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

In the end it is just sport. The government spends more going after Armstrong, than anyone involved in the recent financial meltdown.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:18 am

Conor Dary wrote:Basically it comes down to who has enemies and are high profile enough to go after.

I agree with this 100%. It's no coincidence that Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong found themselves in the crosshairs of the Feds instead of some unknown utiiity infielder and a journeyman domestique.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

Postby Conor Dary » Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:00 pm

And the lesson learned is that drugs work, testing is meaningless, and be sure to keep the number of people who know down to an absolute minimum.

And finally, as in the words of Michael Corleone--keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. If someone had given Landis a job in cycling when he was down and out this whole Armstrong investigation would never had gone far.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests