A Very Bad Morning For Lance

[guru]

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

[DrJay]

Think Lance will get himself another Sports Illustrated cover next week?

How about he writes another book, called "It's Not About Me."

[kevinsdad]

Here's a question I asked on the thread that got locked which perhaps pego or bambam can answer. How could Armstrong's doctor get subpoenaed to testify against him? Isn't any discussion between a doctor and his patient supposed to be protected by physician–patient privilege?

I have no idea about the answer to your question, but James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 others in the Aurora CO movie theater shooting and HIS medical records with his psychiatrist apparently are not available to the prosecution. Go figure.....

Under the Federal code of evidence, also used by many states, there are many ways to lose the privilege. For example, Armstrong may simply have chosen not to invoke it because he thought the physician could help him. Or perhaps he waived it by voluntarily disclosing communications with his physician prior to the subpoena. Also, it doesn't apply to all communications between doctor and patient; only to those pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition, and communications about performance enhancement might arguably not be considered as such. It is doubtful that communications in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy are privileged either, and perhaps the prosecutor was proceeding on that theory.

[jazzcyclist]

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.

[26mi235]

Where is the evidence of perjury - he already stated a different version than she did; there is no new 'evidence' that says who is right about that conversation. External events (to that conversation) do not bear on the statement, just on the overall use of PEDs.

[Pego]

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.

I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.

[odelltrclan]

Assuming jazzcyclist is talking about Armstrong's oncologist, would privilege be negated if other parties hear the conversation?

Yes, that's the conversation that I'm talking about. His testimony contradicted the testimony of the Andreus. I wonder if he might face any repercussions for commiting perjury. I also wonder how Lance got him to go out on the limb for him like that.

I don't know what he said, but both EPO and anabolic steroids could be a legitimate treatment post-chemo.

Just to inform you of the facts of the alleged event, this was a meeting that took place at the beginning of his treatments. Dr. Miller said that he did not hear Lance admit to past drug use. The Andreus state that he did confess and listed all of the PED's he admitted to. Betsy is adamant that the said doctor was not even present at the meeting in question and could not have offered testimony.

[j-a-m]

According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program

[DrJay]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance- ... ?hpt=hp_c1

"The latest bad news came Friday when Dutch bank Rabobank announced it would no longer sponsor professional cycling teams after the controversy that has engulfed Armstrong and the cycling profession.

The bank, which has sponsored teams for the past 17 years, made it clear that its decision to end its sponsorships by the end of the year was to distance itself from the doping allegations."

"It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision," said Bert Bruggink, of Rabobank's managing board. "We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future."

[bambam]

According to WADA, there are gaps in the NBA's anti-doping program; who would've thought:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/85213 ... ng-program

I don't think there's ever been a positive PED test in the NBA. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[KevinM]

At least they did the right thing here. It's pretty clear that they had to.

Doesn't exactly make it the "right" thing.

[tandfman]

Are you suggesting that Nike should not have dropped Armstrong?

[KevinM]

Are you suggesting that Nike should not have dropped Armstrong?

I'm saying the idea that any part of NIke dropping Armstrong was done in an attempt to do the "right" thing is absurd.

[Cooter Brown]

Phil Knight was in town this week. I wonder if he dropped the news to Lance personally.

[jazzcyclist]

I just heard on CNN that USADA's actions will cost Lance $200 million in endorsement income. I had assumed that his monetary losses would at least be in the eight-figure range, but I had no idea that it would get into nine figures. That's a lot of incentive to dig in and refuse to do a mea culpa like all his former teammates are doing. I wonder how much cooperation the Feds and USADA wonder have gotten if all their potential witnesses had that much money riding on the line.

Also, I'm amazed at the distinguished list of dead-enders out their who seem to be defending Lance to the bitter end. Is it plausible in 2012 that folks as close to the sport as Bob Roll, Phil Liggett and Miguel Indurain sincerely believe Armstrong when he says that he never used illegal PED's during his cycling career?

[bambam]

I just heard on CNN that USADA's actions will cost Lance $200 million in endorsement income. I had assumed that his monetary losses would at least be in the eight-figure range, but I had no idea that it would get into nine figures.

Also, I would bet that his legal fees over the last few years, and now with this, have to be approaching $100 million as well. He has teams of lawyers, and they are high-rent lawyers too. They don't come cheap.

I see bankruptcy in his future. Legal fees like that with no further income coming in??? He better have invested well.

[jazzcyclist]

And now WADA is considering changing its statute of limitations specifically to get Armstrong.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has received suggestions to extend its eight-year limitation to 14 years in order to have more time collecting evidence to catch drug cheats in sport.

The suggestion is likely a result of controversies over the recent Lance Armstrong case where the US Anti-Doping Agency stripped the famous American cyclist of all his competition results, including seven Tour de France titles, dated back to 1998.

WADA's eight-year statute of limitations, however, threw doubts over USADA's action.

WADA president John Fahey thought changes must be made to adapt the World Anti-Doping Code to new situations.

"We constantly adapt and have our code to be effective with changing circumstances. You need to change the rules," said Fahey on Wednesday when he attended WADA's Asian Anti-Doping Education Symposium here.

"One of the suggestions is the current statute of limitations to be extended from eight years to 14 yeras," he said. "Some case showed that it takes a long time to get the evidence to catch up with cheats."

"You don't want a technical woe to say 'oh it's too late. Eight years has gone.' So more time is needed to catch more cheats," he added.

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/739071.shtml

The last quote is comical. They say they don't want technicalities to prevent them from pursuing past drug cheats, but technicalities is precisely the reason given when it came to the East Germans. "No can do. It's too late. We can violate the sacred statue of limitations."

USADA and WADA are about as credible as the NCAA IMO.

[j-a-m]

Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.

[jazzcyclist]

Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.

I used the word technicality because that's the word the WADA president used to describe statute of limitations, or to be more precise he used the phrase "technical woes". Semantic aside, do you get my point?

[Cooter Brown]

I see bankruptcy in his future. Legal fees like that with no further income coming in??? He better have invested well.

He sold his ranch house for $12M last year...

http://www.luxist.com/2009/01/11/lance- ... f-the-day/

and his other house in town is no longer listed under his name.

Looks like he was holding out until he got his money sheltered away from potential judgments.

[j-a-m]

Statute of limitations is NOT a technicality.

I used the word technicality because that's the word the WADA president used to describe statute of limitations, or to be more precise he used the phrase "technical woes". Semantic aside, do you get my point?

Yeah, I'm fine with your point; I meant that as a criticism of the WADA president.

[odelltrclan]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/prudhom ... ut-winners

Someone wants their prize money back. First in a long line of people who are likely to stand in line waiting for payment.

[odelltrclan]

Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.

[Pego]

Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.

Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out ?

[odelltrclan]

Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out ?

Believe it or not, I've always gotten your point, and I do believe a little bit of it. But, I think people are overstating him being singled out. But, I think it is also simply part of the circumstances. Some created by Lance himself as part of his methodology for fighting all the charges over the years. He successfully created a belief amongst many sports fans that he was being singled out. Maybe it is simply the territory for having the biggest success on the biggest stage of likely the dirtiest sport around.

Maybe it is also because he has gone to greater lengths than any others who have been caught. My biggest beef with Lance Armstrong is not that he doped, but that he went to great lengths to try and destroy others lives, careers, and credibility along the way. There are also rumors now that he may have been involved in fixing a race for bonus money [YES I SAID RUMOR - MAY NOT BE TRUE]. Most cyclists have never gone to these levels to perpetuate a lie. But, on the flip side, maybe none have ever been quite in a position like this to have to do so.

I simply wanted the truth to come out. If in 20 years, cycling decides that, "screw it, we had a bad era and we want to list the champions who actually won the race, doping or not, I am fine with that. I am fine with him keeping his titles if the UCI agreed to do so. But, put Landis back as champion, and Contador's 2010 as well.

I do find it a bit comical how the powers that be are advertising "the most sophisticated doping regimen in history". There is no way they can possibly know this. So, in a sense, when I see statements like this, or when I see Bjarn Riis get off while Lance is made to pay, I definitely see some hypocrisy. But I still think Lance has earned everything he has coming to him in a big way. But, haven't they all. A sad time for cycling.

And here comes some more . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

[bambam]

Everyone will be asking for their money back, and to keep it he will end up having to fork it over to the lawyers instead. Why I think he will be headed for a new Chapter in his life, so to speak.

[DrJay]

What a shitstorm for Lance. Has it reached maybe a Category 3 (on the shitstorm scale, not the cycling hill-climb scale)? Will it reach Category 5?

[tandfman]

Everyone will be asking for their money back, and to keep it he will end up having to fork it over to the lawyers instead. Why I think he will be headed for a new Chapter in his life, so to speak.

I assume you mean Chapter 7.

That wouldn't surprise me at all.

[jazzcyclist]

Phil Liggett says he's devasted.

"I was inclined (to think) surely he doesn’t dope, but now I look a fool, to be quite frank," Liggett told The Daily Telegraph from London.

"Quite clearly he has had a program going, with all the other guys."

"I am like everybody else. I had no idea such an in-depth drug scheme was taking place.

"I spent many hours with Armstrong over the years, but only at functions, doing things for him like MC-ing his cancer events.

"I wouldn’t call Lance a friend because you can’t get that close to him. But I really thought he was clean, and in 2003, he actually told me to my face, in his own room. So obviously I am devastated."

http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/vete ... 6500728116

[gh]

Is UCI shooting itself in the foot with the decision on Lance today? Demanding back prize money from all his tour wins. The first in 1999. They made no mention of Bjarn Riis, who admitted doping during his victory in 1997. This news was known well more than 2 years ago I believe. Or are they going to state the Statute of Limitations expired on him, but does not count for Lance due to fraud? Cycling entering a state of disarray.

Do I sense that you are beginning to see the point some of us have made that LA is being singled out ?

Of course he was singled out, much in the same way that Victor Conte was. I'm happy to see that unlike regular drug-war law enforcement, where the mastermind criminals are allowed to plea-bargain their way out of things while their minions on the street draw harsh sentences, that USADA is actually making a habit out of going straight for the head, rather than just picking off low-hanging fruit.

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

Indeed, perhaps even have a chilling effect on other sports and abuse, now that they know there's a proverbial new sherrif in town?

[kuha]

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

For me, the answer is no. Why should it? However, I AM impressed that they're not "reassigning" the medals, but simply leaving first place empty. THAT is every bit as important as dismembering Armstrong, since it clearly acknowledges that the problem permeated the entire upper layer of the sport. It is the systemic nature of the issue that has always been my real concern.

For GH: Why are you not pushing for the official testing of those 1984 samples and the publication of the results? And the re-testing of any other significant holding of "old" championship samples? Isn't more truth-telling better than less here, if we want to scare individual sports "straight"?

[Pego]

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.

[odelltrclan]

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.

So is that what you drive?

[Pego]

Wouldn't you say that nailing Armstrong will do more to clean up cycling than any 10 (100?) other busts combined?

Perhaps, I don't know. What I find personally repulsive is a cop that pulls a red sports car out of a speeding convoy of numerous cars and trucks.

So is that what you drive?

A Buick Enclave. Love it .

[jazzcyclist]

Of course he was singled out, much in the same way that Victor Conte was. I'm happy to see that unlike regular drug-war law enforcement, where the mastermind criminals are allowed to plea-bargain their way out of things while their minions on the street draw harsh sentences, that USADA is actually making a habit out of going straight for the head, rather than just picking off low-hanging fruit.

I somewhat agree with your analogy, but I don't view Armstrong as one of the mastermind criminals like Conte was. In cycling I view guys like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michele Ferrari as the criminal masterminds. Armstrong was just a good customer, and going after him is like the DEA going after a drug addict, not a drug pusher.