A Very Bad Morning For Lance


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: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:40 am

I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?


While I agree with your premise that the doping system on U.S. Postal was established when he arrived there that does not change the fact that he eventually became the ringleader (allegedly) of it. So I don't feel the analogy is totally correct. If you joined a crime organization such as the mafia and eventually became the boss, are you entitled to leniency merely because you didn't start the whole operation?

Lance was clearly in complete control of U.S. Postal not long after he started winning tours and had a say of who was on the team and who was not. Plenty of guys were shown the door. He became the instigator.

Ferrari/ Fuentes enabled athletes access to the best medicine money could buy, but the athletes had to be brought to them. Kind of like a pimp and prostitute. Lance was pimping for Ferrari. Who is more to blame? We understand so much better now the actions of Lance toward Filipo Simeoni.

I am sure there are/were others like Lance on virtually every other competitive team. But most of them remain unknown. Is he getting a raw deal? When compared with other cyclists who escaped similar treatment, yes. When compared with his actions, no.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:23 am

Marlow wrote:His protestations that he stopped doping at such and such a date (in hopes of being reinstated now) should be met with very loud and raucous laughter.

On his claims that he didn't dope in 2009 and 2010, I don't know what to believe. On the one hand, he's a pathological liar but on the other hand, USADA's credibility is less than pristine and their claims about his biological passport are questionable (see 26mi235's post above).

But here's what we do know. Armstrong said that he rode in 2009 and 2010 under the impression that the peleton was clean. Armstrong went through a full training camp with teammates in 2009 and 2010. Armstrong would have known if his teammates were doping and his teammates would have known if he was doping. Once Armstrong showed up at races, he would have been able to figure out if the peleton was still doped the same way Greg LeMond and Andy Hampsten figured it out at the end of their careers. Furthermore, if the peleton was still doped, they would have known that he was doped, since it would have been impossible for a clean rider to finish third in the Tour if the rest of the peleton was doped. Also, presumably the testimony given to the Feds and USADA by Armstrong's former teammates included information about his activities in 2009 and 2010. If Armstrong is lying about 2009 and 2010, it should contradict this testimony and someone would be calling him out on the claims he made in his Oprah interview.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:26 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I guess "trafficking" is somewhat subjective in this context, but I wouldn't accuse Armstrong of trafficking based on my defintion of the word, since Amrstrong's teammates have all corroborated his claim that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before he ever joined the team after his return from cancer. Trafficker is a word I would use to describe folks like Eufemiano Fuentes and Michelle Ferrari. Keep in mind that USADA has already shown its willingness to engage in hyperbole and exageration when it called the U.S. Postal doping program "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen". Leaving aside East Germany and the USSR, how can USADA compare the U.S. Postal's doping program to that of Telekom, Banesto, Once, CSC and other cycling teams that it never investigated?


Understood, but here's the official USADA definition of trafficking, for their violations and sanctions purposes:

"Trafficking: Selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering or distributing a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method (either physically or by any electronic or other means) by an Athlete, Athlete Support Personnel or any other Person subject to the jurisdiction of an Anti-Doping Organization to any third party; provided, however, this definition shall not include the actions of “bona fide” medical personnel involving a Prohibited Sub- stance used for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes or other acceptable justification, and shall not include actions involving Prohibited Substances which are not prohibited in Out-of-Competition Testing unless the circumstances as a whole demonstrate such Prohibited Substances are not intended for genuine and legal therapeutic purposes.


And here are the PED offenses that can result in sanctions of up to a lifetime ban. Based on the above USADA definition of trafficking, and at least the last portion of violation 2.8, I think Armstrong was guilty of at least something that could warrant the ban he received, at least as per USADA policies:

2.7 Trafficking or Attempted Trafficking in any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method

2.8 Administration or Attempted administration to any Athlete In- Competition of any Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance, or administration or Attempted administration to any Athlete Out-of- Competition of any Prohibited Method or any Prohibited Substance that is prohibited Out-of-Competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any Attempted anti-doping rule violation
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:20 am

odelltrclan wrote:While I agree with your premise that the doping system on U.S. Postal was established when he arrived there that does not change the fact that he eventually became the ringleader (allegedly) of it. So I don't feel the analogy is totally correct. If you joined a crime organization such as the mafia and eventually became the boss, are you entitled to leniency merely because you didn't start the whole operation?

Lance was clearly in complete control of U.S. Postal not long after he started winning tours and had a say of who was on the team and who was not. Plenty of guys were shown the door. He became the instigator.

Ferrari/ Fuentes enabled athletes access to the best medicine money could buy, but the athletes had to be brought to them. Kind of like a pimp and prostitute. Lance was pimping for Ferrari. Who is more to blame? We understand so much better now the actions of Lance toward Filipo Simeoni.

I am sure there are/were others like Lance on virtually every other competitive team. But most of them remain unknown. Is he getting a raw deal? When compared with other cyclists who escaped similar treatment, yes. When compared with his actions, no.

I see where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Yes, Armstrong became the most powerful person in the U.S. Postal organization soon after he starting winning Tours, but he was not a trafficker IMO. To me the traffickers were the people who oversaw the day-to-day administering of dope to the athletes, such as the team doctors and managers, and also the couriers. I would compare him to a football coach at a big-time football university like Alabama's Nick Saban, for example. Does Nick Saban likely have a lot of players on his team who were bought or given illegal benefits in order to entice them to sign with Alabama? Certainly. Would I accuse Nick Saban of buying players? No, the Alabama boosters and alumni are the ones who buy players, but certainly guys like Saban, Les Miles, Urban Meyers and Mack Brown know what's going on behind the scenes.

The bottom line is that during the EPO era, Grand Tour GC contenders like Armstrong didn't care if their teammates doped or not, they just wanted riders who were capable of protecting them for miles on end on the flat roads and stay with them on all the big climbs in the mountains. A few days before the stage to Sestriere in the 1999 Tour de France, Armstrong pleaded with Frankie Andreu that he would need him to stay with him on the final climb and Andreu know that the only way he would be able to do that is with EPO, and the infrastructure was already in place at U.S. Postal for him to do what needed to be done. Doping wasn't the end, it was just the means to an end.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:22 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Marlow wrote:Good question. If I were 20 in 1990 and had real cycling talent and it was my life dream to be on a team in the Tour de France and found out the entire team I was asked to join was doping (and obviously getting away with it), it'd be very hard to give up my dreams and NOT dope. Doesn't make it right, but . . .

To me it seems that the reason the fallout for Lance has been as bad as it's been is because he was such a jerk and a bully, and because he taunted the powers-that-be.

His 'righteous indignation' about being accused throughout the years and smear campaigns against his 'enemies' has made him the pariah he is today. His protestations that he stopped doping at such and such a date (in hopes of being reinstated now) should be met with very loud and raucous laughter. He has become a cartoon character, like Bluto or Snidely Whiplash.


Except (see above) that Anne Gripper's opinion differs from what you are implying. She is one of the top three or four in terms of the Bio-Passport. She helped develop and then pushed through the biological passport and managed it until she eventually then departed the sport in 2010 for personal reasons (go live in Australia with someone [I think], eventually going in to a related area [Tri]. She appears to disagree with the USADA. Specifically, she said that she had seen Lance's data through 2010 and she did not see anything in it that indicated doping.

Note also, that the 2001 Swiss Tour test is also considered not to be a positive test result by the person most involved and most informed -- the highly regarded specialist who did the test (I think). Thus, the two places where he disagreed with USADA have very credible counters from people not expected to be very favorable to him, especially Gripper, who called him a "psychopath".
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:01 pm

26mi235 wrote:Except (see above) that Anne Gripper's opinion differs from what you are implying. She is one of the top three or four in terms of the Bio-Passport. She helped develop and then pushed through the biological passport and managed it until she eventually then departed the sport in 2010 for personal reasons (go live in Australia with someone [I think], eventually going in to a related area [Tri]. She appears to disagree with the USADA. Specifically, she said that she had seen Lance's data through 2010 and she did not see anything in it that indicated doping.

Note also, that the 2001 Swiss Tour test is also considered not to be a positive test result by the person most involved and most informed -- the highly regarded specialist who did the test (I think). Thus, the two places where he disagreed with USADA have very credible counters from people not expected to be very favorable to him, especially Gripper, who called him a "psychopath".


It would take me way too long to go back and find the data that I have seen regarding some of this. But, in a nutshell, Lance promised transparency in 2009/2010 so that all people could see his blood values. He was posting data through training and some races. This information was being regularly posted for all to see. Then, there were some who pointed out that some of the data being posted by Lance looked irregular. This was a hot topic for a while on Cyclingnews message boards. The people discussing this were not some dumb schmucks but people in the know, who presented compelling reasons as to why the data indicated irregularities. Then, suddenly, when all of this started happening, all the data was immediately removed from the websites where it was being published. Lance stopped revealing all this information when he had promised to provide it.

As per Anne Gripper, a question I have was whether she was looking at all of that data, or just a small portion of it, like only the race data from the the 2009 TDF? Furthermore, USADA has their experts as well. Not that she is NOT credible (because obviously she is) but professionals disagree all the time.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:12 pm

odelltrclan wrote:As per Anne Gripper, a question I have was whether she was looking at all of that data, or just a small portion of it, like only the race data from the the 2009 TDF? Furthermore, USADA has their experts as well. Not that she is NOT credible (because obviously she is) but professionals disagree all the time.


She is the institutional developer of the biological passport and worked to make it enforceable. From both what she said and the entire nature of the passport I would be STUNNED if she did not have all of the data through 2010. If she did not she would not have made that statement in the press, as she is not a fan of LA.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:36 am

Perhaps USADA was just fishing when they made the claims about 2009 and 2010 to see if Armstrong would admit to doping in those years. Maybe the peleton really was clean in those years as Armstrong presumed it was and USADA didn't really have anything on Armstrong in those years. The one thing that I think Armstrong is lying about is telling Landis and Hamilton that he got a positive test swept under the rug by the UCI at the 2001 Tour de Suisee. Hamilton and Landis don't know what actually transpired between Armstrong and the UCI, but I don't doubt for one minute that he told Hamilton and Landis what they claim he did. Another interesting thing about the Oprah interview is that by corroborating the story of the Andreus about his hospital bed confession and the story of Emma O'Reilly about the back-dated prescription, Armstrong implicated two doctors - one for perjury and another for writing a false prescription.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:46 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Perhaps USADA was just fishing when they made the claims about 2009 and 2010 to see if Armstrong would admit to doping in those years. Maybe the peleton really was clean in those years as Armstrong presumed it was and USADA didn't really have anything on Armstrong in those years. The one thing that I think Armstrong is lying about is telling Landis and Hamilton that he got a positive test swept under the rug by the UCI at the 2001 Tour de Suisee. Hamilton and Landis don't know what actually transpired between Armstrong and the UCI, but I don't doubt for one minute that he told Hamilton and Landis what they claim he did. Another interesting thing about the Oprah interview is that by corroborating the story of the Andreus about his hospital bed confession and the story of Emma O'Reilly about the back-dated prescription, Armstrong implicated two doctors - one for perjury and another for writing a false prescription.


I missed the interviews as I was out of the country. I read comments that he did not address the Andreu's issue and several other items specifically so that some of his friends (i.e. doctors, agent, etc.) would not be subject to perjury. So when did this happen? Was it on day 2? Are the interviews available anywhere on the net?
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:50 am

26mi235 wrote:
odelltrclan wrote:As per Anne Gripper, a question I have was whether she was looking at all of that data, or just a small portion of it, like only the race data from the the 2009 TDF? Furthermore, USADA has their experts as well. Not that she is NOT credible (because obviously she is) but professionals disagree all the time.


She is the institutional developer of the biological passport and worked to make it enforceable. From both what she said and the entire nature of the passport I would be STUNNED if she did not have all of the data through 2010. If she did not she would not have made that statement in the press, as she is not a fan of LA.


Problem is she worked for UCI, which was under the direction of some guys whose credibility is suspect at best right now in the opinion of many.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:04 am

Almost all of the issues that arose were during the regime of the prior head of the UCI. There is not anything remotely on the same level under the new head, even if the whole of the UCI is under a cloud.

As for the USADA 'going fishing', it is an absolutely terrible 'strategy' and may be, at least implicitly illegal. More importantly, it calls into question everything from their motives to their objectivity to their reliability. It they do not have the degree of certainty that they are claiming (less than one chance in a million), they have not squared that with the very different characterization of the person possibly most likely to know and care about the method.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:54 am

odelltrclan wrote:I missed the interviews as I was out of the country. I read comments that he did not address the Andreu's issue and several other items specifically so that some of his friends (i.e. doctors, agent, etc.) would not be subject to perjury. So when did this happen? Was it on day 2? Are the interviews available anywhere on the net?

It turns out I was mistaken on the Andreus but right on Emma O'Reilly. Here's the portion on the transcript dealing those matters:

    OW: What about the story [masseuse] Emma O'Reilly tells about cortisone and you having cortisone backdated - is that true?

    LA: "That was true."

    OW: What do you want to say about Emma O'Reilly? You sued her?

    LA: "Emma O'Reilly is one of these people I have to apologise to. We ran over her, we bullied her."

    OW: You sued her?

    LA: "To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don't even [know]. I'm sure we did."

    OW: When people were saying things - Walsh, O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu [wife of former team-mate Frankie Andreu] and many others - you would then go on the attack for them, suing and know they were telling the truth. What is that?

    LA: "When I hear that there are people who will never believe me I understand that. One of the steps of this process is to say sorry. I was wrong, you were right."

    OW: Have you called Betsy Andreu? Did she take your call? Was she telling the truth about the Indiana hospital, overhearing you in 1996? Was Betsy lying?

    LA: "I'm not going to take that on. I'm laying down on that one. I'm going to put that one down. She asked me, and I asked her not to talk about it."

    OW: Is it well with two of you? Have you made peace?

    LA: "No, because they've been hurt too badly, and a 40-minute [phone] conversation isn't enough."

    OW: [With] Emma you implied the 'whore' word. How do you feel about that today? Were you trying to put her down? Shut her up?

    LA: "I don't feel good. I was just on the attack. The territory was being threatened. The team was being threatened. I was on the attack."
Day 1 transcript

Day 2 transcript

Here is the link to the video from Oprah's website:

http://www.oprah.com/own_tv/onc/lance-a ... g-one.html
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:01 am

Wow! Thanks for the link. I had read he sidestepped a number of landmines like this (Andreus) etc to help mitigate the damage for them. Guys like the doctors and Bill Stapleton, his agent. Otherwise, they could face perjury and disbarment (which Stapleton, as an attorney would face if proven to have lied under oath).
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:02 am

odelltrclan wrote:Wow! Thanks for the link. I had read he sidestepped a number of landmines like this (Andreus) etc to help mitigate the damage for them. Guys like the doctors and Bill Stapleton, his agent. Otherwise, they could face perjury and disbarment (which Stapleton, as an attorney would face if proven to have lied under oath).

All throughout the interview, he refused to name names and avoided answering any question that might implicate others, especially when Oprah asked him about Michele Ferrari. That's why I think he refuted the story of the 2001 Tour de Suisse coverup. However, as I said earlier, if he wants any leniency from the powers-that-be, he's going to have to tell them where ALL the bodies are buried.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:40 am

The Operation Puerto trial starts today, and it's expected to produce a lot of fallout for the sport of cycling, since many cyclists, including Alberto Contador, will be called to testify.
MADRID — Just days after Lance Armstrong's doping admission, cycling is set for more damaging revelations when the long-delayed Operation Puerto case finally goes to court in Spain.

Seven years after Spanish investigators uncovered one of cycling's most sophisticated and widespread doping networks, some of its central figures will stand trial on Monday in Madrid's Criminal Court. The case, in which 35 witnesses are called to testify, is scheduled to last until March 22.

Judge Julia Santamaria will preside as six defendants are tried. They include doctors Eufemiano and Yolanda Fuentes, brother-and-sister suspects at the heart of a complex blood-doping ring that stained cycling's reputation in Europe.

Also on trial will be Jose Luis Merino, another medical doctor; and Manolo Saiz, former ONCE and Liberty Seguros team sports director. Vicente Belda and Ignacio Labarta, both associated with the former Kelme team, will also be on trial.

Many riders will be called to testify as witnesses, including two-time Tour de France champion Alberto Contador.

Cyclists will not be on trial because Santamaria can only rule on matters covered by Spanish law as it applied in May 2006, when police raids uncovered a mass of evidence in labs, offices and apartments in Madrid, Zaragoza and El Escorial.

This limitation means the scope of the trial can only focus on charges relating to actions that could "endanger public health." But that doesn't mean the trial won't lead to new revelations about athletes who cheated to get an unfair advantage.

"If one of the defendants says that, for example, he injected a certain athlete, then Spain's anti-doping agency or a sports federation could open an investigation to see if they could be subject to a ban," Eduardo Esteban, spokesman for the state prosecutor's office, told The Associated Press. . . . . .

According to documents reportedly seen by sports newspaper AS, defense lawyers will argue that Fuentes and his co-defendants did not endanger cyclists' health because they relied on the best technology available.

The proceedings will be followed closely by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which pushed for the case to go to court and will be a party to the trial along with the International Cycling Union, the Italian Olympic Committee, the International Association of Professional Cycling Teams, and former cyclist Jesus Manzano.

WADA is disappointed the trial is limited to cycling, as athletes from other sports were also implicated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... r=homepage

So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:21 am

Pego wrote:My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"

Because the ONLY reason ANYthing is a criminal offense (as opposed to immoral) is because someone regulated against it. Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic. The only reason I agree that PEDs should be outlawed is because to legalize them would, in fact, encourage even MORE abuse (over-usage) than we have now. PEDs, in reality, are just 'medicine' that can (and should) be prescribed by a doctor and used to 'benefit' one's quality of life. The problem we face is that some people, trying to get a competitive edge, overdo it and put themselves at real health risk, so yes, we are protecting them from themselves, not unlike seat-belt and helmet laws. If you deplore the 'nanny state' aspects of that, so be it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby indigo » Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:53 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


There have been a lot of death's in various Cycling Events. Hamilton's book details blood kept poorly and folks having their blood boil while racing or having blood too thick to pump correctly.

I believe Hamilton indicated he was caught with someone else's blood as the "matching" was not done well.
indigo
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:The Operation Puerto trial starts today, and it's expected to produce a lot of fallout for the sport of cycling, since many cyclists, including Alberto Contador, will be called to testify.

So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


I think that there was some Spanish distance runners in the listing and they got investigated but I think things were dropped.

Most of those implicated have not been nabbed for PEDs violations. The judge in charge seem to run an odd court; he determined that certain things were not illegal so he sealed the records etc., I think. I think it was to create not too much pain for Spain.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:54 am

indigo wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


There have been a lot of death's in various Cycling Events. Hamilton's book details blood kept poorly and folks having their blood boil while racing or having blood too thick to pump correctly.

I believe Hamilton indicated he was caught with someone else's blood as the "matching" was not done well.


What you are describing would represent medical malpractice, but that is not why they are being prosecuted.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:17 pm

Well, at least Armstrong is more truthful than Michele Ferrari, though I will give Ferrari credit for having a cool website address (www.53x12.com).

LANCE ARMSTRONG, during the recent interview, said that he didn't think he could have won all 7 Tour de France's without using testosterone, EPO and blood transfusions.

I think Lance is wrong.

[biochemistry jargon . . . . .]

Therefore Armstrong would have achieved the same level of performance without resorting to doping, also thanks to his talent which was far superior to the rivals of his era.


http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=126

If you're interested in his explanation and biomedical theories, which I ommitted since there's another thread for that discussion, check out the link above.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:14 pm

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


At this point it doesn't seem like they're going after the users, but rather the individuals involved in the planning and administration of the PEDs, based on the actions of those individuals that could "endanger the public health"...

Although it may have nothing to do with this case, and without considering the possibility of fraud related charges for PED use, I guess whether users of PEDs are prosecuted for criminal offenses could depend on the related laws in the jurisdiction where the PED usage occurred... In the USA, it's against the law to use a prescription-only medication without a valid prescription. (HGH,EPO, etc.) And it's often a more serious violation of the law to use a controlled substance prescription medication without a valid prescription. Anabolic steroids are DEA schedule 3 controlled substances. Other schedule 3 drugs include certain narcotic analgesics like hydrocodone (vicodin, lortabs, etc.)... Depending on the state, penalties for using these drugs without a valid prescription can range from misdemeanors to felonies.

And lastly, even if a prescription for the PED WAS issued by a licensed prescriber, the prescription is only valid by law if it was issued for a legitimate medical purpose. There's room for interpretation in that, but there are probably many who might feel that PED purposes aren't legitimate medical purposes, which could result in the prescription being deemed to be invalid.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:15 pm

Blues wrote:
Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:So why is cycling the only sport being looked at if Operation Puerto involved athletes from other sports too?


My question is "Why is a PEDs use criminal offense?"


At this point it doesn't seem like they're going after the users, but rather the individuals involved in the planning and administration of the PEDs, based on the actions of those individuals that could "endanger the public health"...

Although it may have nothing to do with this case, and without considering the possibility of fraud related charges for PED use, I guess whether users of PEDs are prosecuted for criminal offenses could depend on the related laws in the jurisdiction where the PED usage occurred... In the USA, it's against the law to use a prescription-only medication without a valid prescription. (HGH,EPO, etc.) And it's often a more serious violation of the law to use a controlled substance prescription medication without a valid prescription. Anabolic steroids are DEA schedule 3 controlled substances. Other schedule 3 drugs include certain narcotic analgesics like hydrocodone (vicodin, lortabs, etc.)... Depending on the state, penalties for using these drugs without a valid prescription can range from misdemeanors to felonies.

And lastly, even if a prescription for the PED WAS issued by a licensed prescriber, the prescription is only valid by law if it was issued for a legitimate medical purpose. There's room for interpretation in that, but there are probably many who might feel that PED purposes aren't legitimate medical purposes, which could result in the prescription being deemed to be invalid.


I understand all these laws, having to work with them on both sides of the pond for many decades. I simply do not understand reasons for prosecution of PEDs per se. If they want to call PEDs users "thieves", fine, do so. That I would understand. Medical malpractice of those that administer it? Fine. Illegal transportation of drugs across countries? That's smuggling, fine. Marlow says "Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic". I prefer laws that are logical (hopefully ethical, too :wink: ).
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Blues » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:44 pm

Pego wrote:I understand all these laws, having to work with them on both sides of the pond for many decades. I simply do not understand reasons for prosecution of PEDs per se. If they want to call PEDs users "thieves", fine, do so. That I would understand. Medical malpractice of those that administer it? Fine. Illegal transportation of drugs across countries? That's smuggling, fine. Marlow says "Has nothing to do with ethics or even logic". I prefer laws that are logical (hopefully ethical, too :wink: ).


I know that you, bambam, and a handful of others are already aware of the things I wrote, and I should have made that clear at the beginning of the post. I wanted to point out for those who might not know however, why simply using the stuff yourself could possibly result in criminal charges. In Nevada for example, using a DEA Schedule 1, 2, 3 (which includes anabolic steroids), or 4 drug without a valid prescription is a class E felony, punishable by 1 to 4 years in prison, although often offenders end up with probation if they haven't had prior offenses...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:15 pm

Bradley Wiggins says Armstrong is lying about 2009.

Bradley Wiggins is convinced Lance Armstrong doped when the American returned to cycling in 2009 and claims he was robbed of finishing on the podium in the Tour de France that year.

Armstrong has confessed to doping during all seven of his Tour wins from 1999-2005, but insisted he raced clean when he made his comeback in 2009.

Wiggins, the current Tour champion, finished fourth behind Armstrong in '09 and bases his suspicions on observations he made while racing alongside the American in key mountain stages.

"I can still remember going toe to toe with him, watching the man I saw on the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux a week later when we were in doping control together," said Wiggins, speaking at a Team Sky training camp in Mallorca.

"It wasn't the same bike rider. You only have to watch the videos of how the guy was riding. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... 9/1864331/

His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby tandfman » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:17 am

jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:34 am

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?


Its comments like these that I find irritating to no end. For years people defended Lance because he "never tested positive" (even though under suspicion). Yet someone else who has had little to no suspicion or failed tests is labeled a doper. Why is there a double standard. I know Jazz believed Lance was doped during those years, but there are many others who thought he was innocent yet have no problem blaming others as guilty. Wiggins does not deserve this.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:58 am

tandfman wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:His rationale for his suspicion is rather vague but I wonder if he's basing it on the fact that he was doped in 2009 and therefore Amrstrong would have had to have been doped to have beaten him.

Are you saying that it is a fact that he was doped in 2009?

No, no, no. I'm saying that if Wiggins was doped in 2009, he would be in a position to speak with certitude about Armstrong being doped, but obviously he would never admit to the reasoning behind his accusation. However, I have no reason to suspect that Wiggins was doped in 2009, since I believe that the peleton was a lot cleaner in 2009 than it was in the EPO era, before an EPO test had been developed. However, keep in mind that Wiggins did start ride professionally during the EPO era, so I wouldn't bet any money that he's never doped.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 7:42 am

Armstrong says that he won't confess anything to USADA, who he doesn't recognize, but he will spill the beans to the UCI which has proposed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Lance Armstrong's legal team has indicated that the disgraced former rider is ready to reveal more about the doping he did during his career but has made it clear he will not give detailed evidence to USADA – the United States Anti-Doping Agency - whose detailed investigation led to Armstrong's downfall.

USADA CEO Travis Tygart is due to appear on a special CBS 60 minutes programme on Sunday evening to respond to Armstrong's confession on Oprah Winfrey last week. USADA has confirmed to the media that Tygart met with Armstrong in December and talked about a detailed confession but has given Armstrong until February 6 to talk.

Herman wrote that Armstrong is more likely to cooperate with international sports authorities -- specifically the Union Cycliste Internationale, rather than USADA, claiming it does not have global jurisdiction over sport.

"USADA has no authority to investigate, prosecute or otherwise involve itself with the other 95% of cycling competitors," Herman claimed. "Thus, in order to achieve the goal of 'cleaning up cycling,' it must be WADA and the UCI who have overall authority to do so."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstro ... s-to-usada
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Tuariki » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:29 am

Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue. Hopefully the US Justice Department will ensure that Armstrong becomes a guest of the US government for a year or so and that the Courts will render him to his deserved level of wealth.
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby kuha » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:40 am

Tuariki wrote:Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue.


Well....only if you interpret "paragon of virtue" to mean "a moderately lesser chronic and sustained liar."
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:45 pm

Tuariki wrote:Compared to Armstrong, Marion Jones is a paragon of virtue. Hopefully the US Justice Department will ensure that Armstrong becomes a guest of the US government for a year or so and that the Courts will render him to his deserved level of wealth.

You may be disappointed to find out that the Feds have already thrown in the towel on its criminal investigation of Lance, so he won't be going to prison, but bankruptcy is not out of the question. However, I disagree with about Lance being worse than Marion. Marion is worse IMO for two reasons:

    1) Once he was caught, Lance didn't pretend that he never knowingly doped like Marion did.

    2) We know for a fact that all of Lance's competitors during his Tour wins were taking the same drugs he was taking, but I'm pretty confident that quite a few of Marion's competitors (eg. Pauline Davis) were clean in her global championship races.
Also, Lance is being punished worse than Marion since Marion got to keep her 1997 and 1999 world championship titles, she was only sanctioned by the governing body of her primary sport (IAAF/USATF) and she only recieved a two-year ban as opposed to a lifetime ban.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Pego » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:37 pm

I agree with jazzcyclist.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby bambam » Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:11 pm

I don't think the Feds are done with him yet. They are considering joining the federal whistleblower lawsuit that Floyd Landis brought.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby odelltrclan » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:04 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: However, I disagree with about Lance being worse than Marion. Marion is worse IMO for two reasons:

    1) Once he was caught, Lance didn't pretend that he never knowingly doped like Marion did.

    2) We know for a fact that all of Lance's competitors during his Tour wins were taking the same drugs he was taking, but I'm pretty confident that quite a few of Marion's competitors (eg. Pauline Davis) were clean in her global championship races.
Also, Lance is being punished worse than Marion since Marion got to keep her 1997 and 1999 world championship titles, she was only sanctioned by the governing body of her primary sport (IAAF/USATF) and she only recieved a two-year ban as opposed to a lifetime ban.


There is no possible way you can say that you know for a fact that every single person in the Tour was doping. And, if there were clean people in the peleton, which I believe there were, even if they did finish 150th. For someone to even be able to not be dropped against the rest to me would indicate they could contend if they were on a "level playing field".

Secondly, how in the world can you say that Marion was "worse" than Lance. Did she publicly denounce person after person, ruining their careers, reputations and livelihoods? Did she sue people who were telling the truth about her? Lance was a first class bully and went far beyond anything Marion Jones did and to claim her being worse than him is just crazy!
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Marlow » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:17 pm

Just watched the 60 Minutes piece on USADA. Good for Tygart!!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21135
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:53 pm

odelltrclan wrote:There is no possible way you can say that you know for a fact that every single person in the Tour was doping. And, if there were clean people in the peleton, which I believe there were, even if they did finish 150th. For someone to even be able to not be dropped against the rest to me would indicate they could contend if they were on a "level playing field".

I agree with all of this, but by "competitors", I meant team leaders and GC contenders, not everybody in the peleton, because I don't think domestiques would have had a chance to win the Tour even if the peleton had been clean in the Armstrong era. If you look at the times in recent history that teams have put two people on the podium (eg. Riis & Ullrich in 1996, Contador & Armstrong in 2009, Schleck & Schleck in 2011, Wiggins & Froome in 2012), in every instance, the team made the decision to protect two riders instead of just one. The bottom line is that if a rider's team doesn't make the decison early on in grand tours to keep him out of the wind and out of trouble, that rider has no realistic chance of winning.
odelltrclan wrote:Secondly, how in the world can you say that Marion was "worse" than Lance. Did she publicly denounce person after person, ruining their careers, reputations and livelihoods? Did she sue people who were telling the truth about her? Lance was a first class bully and went far beyond anything Marion Jones did and to claim her being worse than him is just crazy!

I guess since Tuariki used the word "virtue" and not "honesty", you might have a point. Lance is no doubt a bigger asshole than Marion, but Marion is a bigger liar than Lance. However, I must correct you on one thing - like Lance, Marion did sue people who were telling the truth about her, namely Victor Conte. Yes, Lance sued more people than Marion, but he was also accused by more people than Marion.

Also, let's look at the different cultures of these two sports. Track & field is mostly an individual sport, without the traditions and unwritten rules of team sports like baseball, hockey and cycling. One of cycling's traditions was omerta (code of silence), which based on my impression was as ingrained in the peleton as it is with cops and the mafia. We both remember what Lance did to Filipo Simeoni on stage 18 of the 2004 Tour, but do you remember how all the major GC contenders in the peleton were backslapping and congratulating Lance after he dropped back to the peleton with Simeoni?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby Brian » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:04 am

bambam wrote:I don't think the Feds are done with him yet. They are considering joining the federal whistleblower lawsuit that Floyd Landis brought.


I agree. This is a prime chance for them to show that 'crime doesn't pay" and they're not going to give up that opportunity.

Another thing: If criminal charges are brought and proved, he won't be able to profit from any book about his crime. Not sure if any money from a movie made from any book on the subject would also pertain to this Son of Sam law.

Since statute of limitations hasn't expired on his use of PEDS on his comeback tour attempts, no wonder he is still lying, to Oprah and whomever else. Personal freedom aside, lots of money to be lost.


Never thought too much about the drug use, especially since the rest of sport was always so dirty. But the more I read, the less I feel for him at all. Especially the intimidating of witnesses and potential witnesses.

I don't like bullies. And this stuff isn't just unethical...in the case of tampering with a federal witness, it's criminal.

I wouldn't have said this even two weeks ago, but I hope he gets hung out to dry.
.
Brian
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: A Very Bad Morning For Lance

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:44 am

Brian wrote:
Another thing: If criminal charges are brought and proved, he won't be able to profit from any book about his crime. Not sure if any money from a movie made from any book on the subject would also pertain to this Son of Sam law.

Since statute of limitations hasn't expired on his use of PEDS on his comeback tour attempts, no wonder he is still lying, to Oprah and whomever else. Personal freedom aside, lots of money to be lost.


Of course, Armstrong has stronger reason to hide the recent stuff. First, it can run afoul of some charges that older stuff might not be used for. Also, the evidence is not nearly so ironclad. There is not the kind of hard evidence on his drug use post 2005. None of the rider testimony is focused on the comeback years; the main evidence is the biological passport and that probably would not suffice for criminal charges. Also, if indeed Anne Gripper (who brought the bio-passport into existence) is of the opinion (has been quoted to say) that nothing in his bio-passport up through 2010 indicates doping, then that will be a hurdle that USADA will have to get over to make the accusation stick.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16337
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests