A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
guru wrote: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.
guru wrote: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.
"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."
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?
jazzcyclist wrote: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.
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.
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 wrote: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?
j-a-m wrote: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.
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.
odelltrclan wrote: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 ?
Pego wrote: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.
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.
bambam wrote: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 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."
odelltrclan wrote: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?
gh wrote: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"?
gh wrote: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.
gh wrote: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.
But who had the power? In the Mexican drug wars, aren't the masterminds and the guys with all the power one and the same? In this story, it sounds like Armstrong had a lot more power than the Ferraris, and taking down the powerful guys may be what it's about.
gh wrote: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.
The application of justice here is incredibly uneven, but since Armstrong probably won't go to prison, it doesn't bother me as much as in cases where some that are guilty go to the big house while others do not. Lance will never want for food, shelter, a nice car, a plasma TV, friends, women, and groupies.
Armstrong made a lot of money for a large number of people in cycling, including the UCI.
I do have some reservations on the USADA. One of the points that they repeatedly claim is that he failed a drug test in 2001 and again in 2002. The guy who was in charge of that is absolutely beyond reproach and he said that he will never testify that it was a positive test, just one that drew attention going into the grey area. This very point is one where I had major doubts about what they really had, because if they kept trotting out that as one of their main points then it was possible that they did not have much.
jazzcyclist wrote:Remember, it was the FBI that did the heavy lifting in this investigation and then just handed over their files, which included all the sworn testimony, to USADA.
Simply not true. Everything in the USADA report was collected by USADA
USADA wrote:None of the evidence USADA summarizes in this Reasoned Decision was obtained from the United States federal law enforcement investigation involving Mr. Armstrong. After the announcement by U.S. District Attorney Andre Birotte on February 3, 2012, that he was discontinuing the criminal investigation of Armstrong’s conduct, USADA formally requested copies of non-grand jury evidence from the case. However, no documents have been received to date. As a result, none of the evidence assembled by USADA has come from federal law enforcement.
That may be but . . .
Despite his findings not being used in the federal court case against the American, who has always vehemently denied doping, the evidence gleaned did not go to waste.
It found its way to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), whose president Travis Tygart launched a similar, single-minded quest for the truth that would lead to the downfall of the world's most celebrated cyclist.. . . .Although the USADA will take much of the credit, UCI president Pat McQuaid believes Novitzky and the threat of criminal proceedings against many of those who testified against Armstrong was key.
Despite his findings not being used in the federal court case against the American, who has always vehemently denied doping, the evidence gleaned did not go to waste.
It found its way to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), whose president Travis Tygart launched a similar, single-minded quest for the truth that would lead to the downfall of the world's most celebrated cyclist.. . . .Although the USADA will take much of the credit, UCI president Pat McQuaid believes Novitzky and the threat of criminal proceedings against many of those who testified against Armstrong was key.
That's kind of what I suspected. Here are the key quotes from McQuaid:
"We tested Armstrong over 200 times and he was always negative, we tested the other riders many times and they were negative. Not only the UCI, but also USADA," McQuaid told AFP.
"Bear in mind that this report has not emerged thanks to a UCI or USADA investigation. It's Jeff Novitzky, a federal investigator, who collected all that information for the file.
I am grateful to USADA for what they have achieved. But they haven't achieved any more than the UCI could have achieved on their own," he said.
"They needed the support of the federal agents to do it, and that's evident."
As I said earlier, the FBI did all the heavy lifting. Here's David Millar's take on the importance of law enforcement in cleaning up the sport.
The downfall of Lance Armstrong has opened the world’s eyes up to what most of us within the sport knew, if not in the detail that the USADA file has revealed, that to win the Tour de France and many other big races was impossible without doping for a certain period of time. Of course races were won by clean riders, and many clean riders achieved remarkable careers, especially in hindsight, without doping, but the bottom line is that doping was rife and necessary to be the best.
Who is responsible for this? Most of us involved in professional cycling were in some way or another, it became a way of life. I’d hoped the Festina Affair would force change but the problem was too deeply embedded to be changed by one event.
It took several changes to take place. First came the anti-doping controls, they became more advanced, the drugs that had been previously undetectable became detectable.
Doping became a criminal offence in many European countries allowing for criminal investigations to delve deeper than any anti-doping agency or cycling governing body ever could; it was a criminal investigation that discovered my history of doping.
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.
?
.