A Very Bad Morning For Lance

[Tuariki]

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.

[kuha]

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."

[jazzcyclist]

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.

[Pego]

I agree with jazzcyclist.

[bambam]

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

[odelltrclan]

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!

[Marlow]

Just watched the 60 Minutes piece on USADA. Good for Tygart!!!

[jazzcyclist]

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.

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?

[Brian]

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.
.

[26mi235]

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.

[Marlow]

Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

[jazzcyclist]

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.

I don't see where statute of limitations is an issue for the Feds since he hasn't testified under oath since 2005, and I don't see where it's an issue for the UCI since they've already stripped of him of his thrid place finish in 2009 and wiped his name from all of cycling's record books as though he never existed.

[Pego]

Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

Do you have support for this? I have never heard it before.

[jazzcyclist]

Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

He said that he started his comeback under the impression that the peleton was clean in 2009 because of improved testing. You have to remember that there was a 12-year period in which there was no test for EPO, but by the time he came out of retirement, cyclists could no longer take EPO with impunity.

[bambam]

Two (stupid) questions for Lance.

If you were able to win clean (sic) in the comeback, why did you dope in the first place?
Since you did dope for so long, does that not also carry over (strength-wise) into the comeback years?

He said that he started his comeback under the impression that the peleton was clean in 2009 because of improved testing. You have to remember that there was a 12-year period in which there was no test for EPO, but by the time he came out of retirement, cyclists could no longer take EPO with impunity.

But there was the 50 hematocrit rule, even while he was winning Tours. There is an EPO test now but from what I've heard, it has major problems as it is difficult to differentiate endogenous EPO from artificial EPO. They tend to use a thing called reticulocyte counts, which are open to interpretation. The 50 Hct rule is still valid and still used.

[bambam]

By the way, there are variants of normal in all this. About 2 months ago I donated some blood as part of a blood drive, and my Hct was 50.3, which would DQ me from professional cycling (not the only thing working against that). I assure you I was taking no drugs at the time and was not overly dehydrated, which also raises your Hct (its a relative measure). One other thing known to raise Hct levels is smoking, but since I've never smoked a cigarette (or anything else) in my life, that won't work for an explanation either.

Last time I had that checked was about 10 years ago when I was fairly sick, and my Hct was over 50 then, too. That time I thought I was dehydrated and had just finished a vacation where I road 30-50 miles every day, and thought that was the reason. Must be my normal Hct.

[26mi235]

As I recall, Pantani had a very bad crash about 1995; they went and measured the hemotocrit level and it was something 58 or so. I do not know how they did it or if it was a valid measure; maybe Jazz knows more.

There is wiggle room on HCT for riders that can show that their normal level is high like Bambam's. Not sure how they do that, though.

[gh]

Travis Tygart on 60 Minutes last night.

Well worth 17:34 of your time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50139841n

[rsb2]

I missed the original showing, so thanks for posting that - very powerful!

[26mi235]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130129/alex-rodriguez-steroids-hgh-gio-gonzalez-yasmani-grandal-melky-cabrera/?sct=hp_t2_a2&eref=sihp

posted on the Hall of Fame thread (to which it will eventually lead)

[Brian]

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.

I don't see where statute of limitations is an issue for the Feds since he hasn't testified under oath since 2005

I was making two different points in that paragraph and the preceding one about federal charges keeping Armstrong from profiting on any money made from a book and later movie and about other bad things coming his way from his comeback tour actions. [Should have maybe added another space between the paragraphs. Sorry.]

US statute 923 18 U.S.C. 371-Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (or Section 371, as it it is more widely known) contains parameters that include an illegal agreement, criminal intent, proof of an overt act. Admittedly, this is a very broadly defined statute. But what is important to Armstrong (and his cadre of attorneys) is that defrauding the government is not just limited to financial loss (in fact, financial loss doesn't even have to be proven). This statute is also concerned with the integrity of governmental institutions and agencies and any programs connected to these two entities.

Criminal intent can be as simple as knowingly making false statements in order to get what is wanted from the US government via said programs. In Armstrong's case, lying about doping to achieve/maintain sponsorship for the US Postal team. The big kick in the crotch for Armstrong is that, again, when dealing with an integrity issue concerning the US government, it is not necessary to prove any harm was done; the attempt itself is enough for criminal charges and possible conviction.

Swinging a fist at someone usually won't even result in assault charges, much less conviction, if no contact is made. But the backyard concept of "No harm, no foul" does not apply to attempts to defraud the US government.

[There is, however, the necessity of making the case that said attempt interfered with the ability of that involved government entity to proceed as usual in the future. But it can be done. At the very least, it would bankrupt Armstrong.]

There is the potential for a possible conviction re: the above because of Armstrong's alpha-male role role in creating/maintaining the use of systematic PED use among a team sponsored/funded by the United States of America (US Postal). The key word is conspiracy; breaking the law is bad enough, but encouraging/forcing others to also do so (or covering up a crime) makes it much worse. And a conviction for this would almost certainly invoke the Son of Sam law.

Anyone who thinks the US government doesn't take these things seriously has never known a person who has had a tax audit.
.

[26mi235]

[There is, however, the necessity of making the case that said attempt interfered with the ability of that involved government entity to proceed as usual in the future. But it can be done. At the very least, it would bankrupt Armstrong.]
.

This task is probably hopeless. Someone I know might be involved if it does go to trial and testimony but I would guess that, from what I know, there is nothing to use to show such loss or interference. It is probable that LA et al could show that the sponsorship help slow the decline in Postal revenues. Other considerations would be based on the changes that were occurring and were anticipated to occur in the postal industry world wide as government monopolies were being loosened.

Note that there has been really no negative publicity for the US Postal Service in this process compared to what some might have anticipated. I do not think that there is any 'there' there.

[jazzcyclist]

There is the potential for a possible conviction re: the above because of Armstrong's alpha-male role role in creating/maintaining the use of systematic PED use among a team sponsored/funded by the United States of America (US Postal). The key word is conspiracy; breaking the law is bad enough, but encouraging/forcing others to also do so (or covering up a crime) makes it much worse. And a conviction for this would almost certainly invoke the Son of Sam law.

Anyone who thinks the US government doesn't take these things seriously has never known a person who has had a tax audit.
.

It's debatable whether or not Armstrong was responsible for maintaining the use of systematic PED use at U.S. Postal but we already know for a fact that he didn't create it, since his former teammates have already testified that U.S. Postal already had a PED program up and running before Armstrong ever joined the team. Wouldn't the people who were already on board before he joined the team be at least as culpible as he is? Additionally, how could cyclists who doped before they joined U.S. Postal and/or who continued to dope after they left U.S. Postal credibly blame Armstrong for their PED use?

Also, U.S. Postal's sponsorship money didn't just go to pay Armstrong's salary, it paid the salaries of everyone on the team. Would the other cyclists, the team doctor and the team manager also be forced to return their salaries?

[odelltrclan]

I am certainly no fan of Lance Armstrong but I find the idea of the federal government suing him for fraud a bit nauseating. What damages did they suffer? What was their purpose in sponsoring a cycling team and what did they fail to get out of the deal? What does any sponsor get out of such a deal? While the U.S. Postal Service was a sponsor Lance and his team were among the most famous and celebrated teams in the world. What could any sponsor ask for more than that? They got as good as their money could buy. After they drop their sponsorship, years later, they "discover" Lance was cheating . Any negative publicity garnered from that, well, how does it affect them financially? Probably nil. Prove any form of damage they incurred by having one of the most popular teams in cycling.

I also find it hard to believe the powers that be at U.S. Postal could honestly claim to be so naive as to not know what was going on in the sport. They got the best any sponsor could have hoped for in the position they were in. Would they have been happy with sponsoring a team with no GC contender and/or a team that struggled to even qualify to make the Tour lineup? Cry me a river!

The federal government should not pile on now hoping to get easy money they don't deserve. It appears to be an easy target now so why not take advantage of it? If they want to that would /should be more bad publicity than having sponsored a team that turned out to be doping along with all other teams. Lance's money should go to victims of his bullying. It should go to those who he hurt with his slandering. There are plenty of those that were financially hurt. It should not go to a government who has shown they take little responsibility for sensible spending.

[Brian]

Good points, all.

And it will be interesting to see what line of thinking eventually prevails.
.

[jazzcyclist]

Armstrong refuses to pay back $12 million of his earnings.

Lance Armstrong does not intend to repay a Texas company that insured and paid U.S Postal team bonuses for three of his Tour de France wins despite his admission he used an array of performance-enhancing drugs in winning the titles, his attorney has said.

SCA Promotions has said it is considering filing a lawsuit to recoup as much as $12 million from Armstrong, which it paid him for his fourth, fifth and sixth Tour victories.

But Armstrong's lawyer, Tim Herman, told USA Today Sports there was no precedent for such a payback.

"My only point is no athlete ever, to my understanding, has ever gone back and paid back his compensation," Herman told the newspaper.

"Not Sean Payton or anybody else," he said of the New Orleans Saints coach who was suspended last season for his role in a bounty program. "They were suspended, but nobody said you've got to give your paycheck back."

http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/sto ... orney-says

[26mi235]

Didn't the Brit have to make payments on his 'winnings' if he wanted to be eligible?

[guru]

Despite Birotte's statement yesterday, Armstrong indeed under active Federal criminal investigation

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18415386

[gh]

a cartoonist's take on the big picture

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/2013/02/04

[tandfman]

Story now linked in the headline section of the front page (scroll down) says Armstrong may now be willing to talk turkey with USADA. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[guru]

Forbes: Armstrong most disliked US athlete

http://bicycling.com/blogs/thehub/2013/ ... s-athlete/

[26mi235]

Jonathan Vaughters has another, typically interesting and insightful piece on how bicycling can move forward, and it is not by having the MPCC sue Armstrong.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/opinion-its-not-all-about-lance-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

[26mi235]

USADA has asserted that Armstrong continued to use PEDs in his comeback, citing the biological passport. Apparently Dr Ashenden is one expert that they rely on (not certain). The other expert to weigh in on the topic, Ann Gripper who developed the whole mechanism for the UCI, has stated that she saw nothing in Armstrong's 2009 data indicating PEDs.

Now, the UCI is saying that Ashenden declared that Armstrong's sample, adjudged anonymously when it was randomly selected in 2009, to be 'normal' with no qualifications, see below.

The USADA repeatedly making the assertions that it has.

Blood is at the heart of the USADA's case against Lance Armstrong, specifically 38 blood samples taken from 2008 to 2012, in the custody of the USADA, and which are said to show suspicious fluctuations, an American newspaper reported. The American anti-doping agency hopes to use those tests along with witnesses to establish that Armstrong used banned drugs or methods.

Ashenden later said that the 2009 data indicated (likely) doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-has-38-armstrong-blood-samples-from-2008-to-2012

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-releases-armstrong-data-in-attempt-to-refute-ashendens-doping-claims

The UCI has reacted by saying, “As everyone should know, the APMU (Athletes Passport Management Unit, which is an independent unit established in Lausanne) regularly submits profiles to the experts of the panel. This procedure is strictly anonymous, which means that neither Dr Ashenden nor any other expert would ever have known when or how many times the profile of one rider or another was submitted to him. Having said that, the UCI wishes to confirm that on May 4, 2009 Dr Ashenden and two other experts on the Biological Passport panel received the profiles of eight riders. These profiles were selected randomly and included that of Lance Armstrong.”

“This profile was based on 9 results of analyses carried out in 2008 (October 16, November 26, December 3, December 11 and December 18) and 2009 (January 16, February 4, February 13, March 11).”

“In their responses (in the case of Dr Ashenden, on May 5 2009), it is interesting to note that of the three experts, Dr Ashenden was the only one to have defined this profile as “normal” without making any other remarks, comments or reservations (of the eight profiles submitted, Dr Ashenden was the expert who most often used the definition “normal” with no further comment).”

[jazzcyclist]

The piling-on has really gotten ridiculous. Per the article linked on the front page, now FINA has jumped in on the fun and they're banning Armstrong from competing in a masters swim meet in Texas.

Lausanne (SUI), April 4, 2013 – Following reports on the media referring the participation of Mr. Lance Armstrong in the Masters South Central Zone Swimming Championships in Texas (USA), FINA would like to clarify that:

1. This national competition is under the jurisdiction of the US Masters Swimming;

2. FINA Rule DC 15.1 states:

“Subject to the right to appeal provided in DC 13, the Testing, therapeutic use exemptions and hearing results or other final adjudications of any Signatory to the Code which are consistent with the Code and are within the Signatory’s authority, shall be recognised and respected by FINA and its Member Federations.(...)”

Therefore, FINA wrote a letter to the US Masters Swimming (with copy to US Aquatic Sports and USA Swimming) requesting not to accept the entry of Mr. Lance Armstrong in the above mentioned competition.

So now he's been banned from cycling, running, swimming and triathlons. What say you Conor Dary?

[Daisy]

He could play football.