Columnist looks at "trolls" who are anti-Armstrong

[kuha]

But "legalities" is a completely mushy term here. What, specifically, are the rules?; what, specifically, is the border between legal and illegal?; what, specifically, are the standards and criteria of evidence?; and what, specifically, are the rights of the accused? We cannot pretend there is any absolute standard here--which is why all of this remains such an absurd, stinking, and unsatisfying mess.

[Tuariki]

The radio sporting talk-back in NZ appears to be pretty much on the side of Lance Armstrong. The following sentiments come through:

1. USADA takes the stance that Armstrong is guilty until proven innocent.

2. Physical evidence of innocence in terms of the hundreds of clean drug tests is irrelevant according to USADA.

3. Since when does a US drug regulatory regime have the legal powers to dictate to other other countries and to international sporting bodies?

4. What credibility is their in the statements of confirmed drug cheats like Landis?

5. What is the relevance of drug tests from 2009 and 2010 to events before those dates?

6. Why hasn't USADA released the results of those 2009 and 2010 drug tests.

7. For how many years and how many times does Armstrong have to prove his innocence?

8. Has USADA tested samples that have been presumably held in storage? and are those samples now showing a positive?

In general, most New Zealanders appear to be concerned that justice must be seen to be done and in this case that doesn't appear to be happening. All talk back callers would be happy to have Armstrong stripped if USADA have the evidence. Like me, we are all waiting to see it.

Suspicions are not good enough. Evidence iswhat we want and need to see.

[Conor Dary]

Hey, hey. Leave it to the Kiwis to talk some sense.

Too bad the cricket side isn't doing better. Oh well, India is a tough place to play.

[Tuariki]

Hey, hey. Leave it to the Kiwis to talk some sense.

Too bad the cricket side isn't doing better. Oh well, India is a tough place to play.

Cricket?? What is that?
Don't know what you are talking about.
Winners, winners, that is all I know.
So I guess on that subject I will never know anything

[mump boy]

UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years

[mal]

UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years

That's cos the Poms want to cover up that their lying and cheating has been over turned.

Misery loves company.

[Conor Dary]

UK press have mostly gone along the lines of he's a lying, bullying, cheat and finally he's been nailed for what everyone has known to be true for at least 10 years

What a surprise. The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong. Who could have guessed that. And they didn't even have to hack any phones to get the story.

[Daisy]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

[kuha]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

The Brit papers can be absolutely hilarious, with wonderful writing, BUT most of them are on a perpetual search-and-destroy mission. The fact that they've taken this stance doesn't tell us anything of real substance.

[Conor Dary]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

The Brit papers can be absolutely hilarious, with wonderful writing, BUT most of them are on a perpetual search-and-destroy mission. The fact that they've taken this stance doesn't tell us anything of real substance.

I was going to say vulturous, but that is an insult to vultures. But search-and-destroy is good and pretty accurate.

[mal]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

1066, 1966 who can stand all this fun?

[lexvid]

From our very own headlines: A long look at the Lance Armstrong "Debate"

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

I 1st heard the rumblings more than 10 years ago and dismissed it as just rumours and innuendo. No more. Looks like Lance is as guilty as the rest of 'em.

Sad really but I guess it was too good to be true that he could win against suspect riders 7 times on God given talent. Guess I wanted to believe a cancer survivor had better scruples and morals than that.

[Mighty Favog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality

A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media, propaganda, or other methods, to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise.

This seems an appropriate academic idea to bring up when discussing Armstrong.

In Canada the anti-cancer athletic hero, Terry Fox, did not survive. Unlike Armstrong, he notably declined every corporate sponsorship offered to him during his ultimately unsuccessful trans-Canada run, including big bucks from McDonald's. The hundreds of annual Terry Fox Runs held in 38 countries similarly have no sponsors. Somehow, the Terry Fox Foundation has still managed to give 50% more to cancer research in 2011 alone than the Lance Armstrong Foundation has in its entire existence. 84% of money raised by the foundation goes to cancer research. I liked watching Lance ride through rural France while I was snoozing on the couch, but my money and my heart go to Fox.

[Tuariki]

From our very own headlines: A long look at the Lance Armstrong "Debate"

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

I 1st heard the rumblings more than 10 years ago and dismissed it as just rumours and innuendo. No more. Looks like Lance is as guilty as the rest of 'em.

Sad really but I guess it was too good to be true that he could win against suspect riders 7 times on God given talent. Guess I wanted to believe a cancer survivor had better scruples and morals than that.

This article by Ross Tucker is certainly the best summary of the situation I have seen. Clearly it doesn't look good at all for Armstrong. However, I am still of the opinion that it is important for credibility's sake that USADA needs to produce the actual evidence. If Armstrong is guilty then it is vital that there can be not a shred of doubt.

[mump boy]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

BUt this is literally a positive story

[mump boy]

You lot are hilarious

The nasty UK press are picking on our poor misunderstood hero !!

You probably think Marion Jones was hard done by as well

[kuha]

You lot are hilarious

The nasty UK press are picking on our poor misunderstood hero !!

You probably think Marion Jones was hard done by as well

You know, at SOME point logic has to trump the mere ability to type. You have cited the UK press as some sort of ultimate judge of merit here, and we have simply responded that the UK press love to tear up everyone and anyone. Thus, their anti-Armstrong stance isn't evidence of much of anything beyond the nature of the UK press.

Second, I'm amazed you could actually type the last sentence above without bursting into flame. Re-read gh's comments about the glee with which some non-analytical positives have been received here--and then take a guess (only one is needed) about the main target of all of that bad feeling.

[Cooter Brown]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more- ... ?pgno=1%29:

One of the witnesses who testified in the SCA arbitration was Michael Ashenden, an Australian scientist who has worked on developing laboratory-based methods of doping detection...“In my opinion, his results during the 2009 Tour de France are consistent with the use of blood transfusion,” Ashenden told the News, speaking of the doping method eyewitnesses have described as central to the Armstrong teams underwritten by Tailwind Sports.

Ashenden listened when Armstrong’s former teammate, Floyd Landis, confessed to doping in 2010 and began describing how the riders on Armstrong’s team masked their transfusions by taking small injections of EPO, an anemia drug that prompts the body to create new red blood cells. “It was not to increase the amount of red blood cells but to mask the decrease in reticulocytes that they knew they would get from a reinfusion,” Ashenden said, referring to the young cells that would appear absent after, say, a doctor reinjected the blood in a bag delivered from an apartment in Spain to a hotel in France during a Tour de France rest day. “The most sophisticated dopers with the most money are going to use transfusions, and the least sophisticated with the least money use drugs.

We’re really clear on how blood behaves when you dope.”

“It is not normal for those values to remain constant during a Tour de France, where typically the strenuous exercise leads to a dilution of the blood and a 10% decrease in haemoglobin levels,” Ashenden said. “Armstrong’s haemoglobin levels actually increased during the race where he finished third overall.”

Ashenden, who also had a hand in developing a test for plasticizers — residue of blood bag material — that might also come into play in the upcoming litigation.

[Conor Dary]

That is really swell. What does 2009 have to do with races from 1999-2005? Do these drugs go back in time?

And I still would like to know why US taxpayers are paying to investigate US athletes in a foreign race.

[EPelle]

I would hazard a guess that the tax-payers funded the US Postal Service's team to some degree, however remote. I could be far off base.

[bambam]

Has Riis' 1996 title been vacated? After all, he's an admitted doper.

No, it was specifically not taken away - citing statute of limitations.

[bambam]

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.

That's not quite true. As tennis is an Olympic sport it has to agree to the WADA code and when golf officially returns it will also have to go by WADA rules. Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

[bambam]

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.

There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

I hate the whole doping thing. I think they should eliminate it and get on with it.

[bambam]

...
Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? ...

Because in the end it comes down to legalities, and limitations are a solid part of the legal system in all civilized nations. (as far as I know)

You know, I thought so too, but I brought this up in London with a well-known British ATFS guy and he said that most crimes in Britain have no statue of limitations. Who knew?

[bambam]

The sanctimonious, pompous UK press doesn't like Armstrong.

Have they had anything positive to say about anything since the Falklands war?

How about the Revolutionary War?

[Conor Dary]

Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

I wonder why??? It boggles the mind to come up with any reason...$$$$$$

[odelltrclan]

Has Riis' 1996 title been vacated? After all, he's an admitted doper.

No, it was specifically not taken away - citing statute of limitations.

It was taken away and then later it was rienstated. He [Riis] has made claims he does not want to be recognized as champion because he knows he did not do it fairly.

[odelltrclan]

But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud.

It is not uncommon in other areas of the legal system where fraud nullifies a statute of limitations. In tax law, for example, generally (for federal cases) you have a 3 year statute of limitations for the IRS to assess taxes. In the cases of fraud however, there is no statute of limitations, meaning, if fraud is found 25 years after the fact and can be proven, the IRS can assess taxes and penalties and criminal charges as well.

In the sporting sense, if it is proven that an athlete has been committing fraud for that period of time, I don't see why it would be wrong to retroactively go back that far. The bottom line is that if the sport is trying to rid itself of doping and the stigma of doping, does this hurt or help? I think in the long run it helps the sport and creates more of a determent. The problem is we have to much hero worship and those also who could care less if the so called champion was doing drugs because they believe all were doing drugs. I think link above is good at discussing those issues.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08 ... s-and.html

By the way, as I read it somewhere else, I heard an interview of Mr. Tygart on the radio the day after the announcement by USADA stating that some of the evidence would be forthcoming and available to the general public fairly soon.

[mal]

Doping cycling is a can of worms.

There is a pre-epo period. In those times they only cared about the result of doping. Not the doping so much.

A cyclist had to have an Hematocrit less than 50. (Unless there was a genetric reason - as the Italian cyclist for lampre 's number is a natural 52, as is his Dad's. Daniel Cunego)

If you read the book on Pantani yo can see his numbers from the drug tests. It is clear that there is manipulation of his numbers, but his Hem was legal. Everything else was upside down.

The rules were different then. The way the rules were applied were different. Trying to rewrite history with today's rules is not a fair way of doing things.

Like coming after all the VC winners or CMO winners for committing violence.
(Poor analogy I know.)

[Pego]

I'll keep on with my old, broken record.

Enforcement of hematocrit manipulation is a mirage. Legalize autotransfusion and the issue is resolved.

[jazzcyclist]

...
Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? ...

Because in the end it comes down to legalities, and limitations are a solid part of the legal system in all civilized nations. (as far as I know)

You know, I thought so too, but I brought this up in London with a well-known British ATFS guy and he said that most crimes in Britain have no statue of limitations. Who knew?

There's no statute of limitations in the U.S. for murder.

[jazzcyclist]

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.

There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.

Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.

[jazzcyclist]

Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?

[Conor Dary]

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.

There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?

Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.

Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.

Very well said. You guy have hit on the nail....

[Conor Dary]

Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.

Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?

What?, the IOC and the drug people play favorites? Impossible!!!