Champion or cheat? How will we ever know…

humpty says:

11:45am | 27/08/12

“clear circumstantial evidence”

Seriously - if they are going to rely on ‘clear circumstantial evidence’ then why bother with the whole charade of drug tests and laboratories…

I’m not suggesting that LA is innocent, but surely ‘circumstantial evidence’ is a flimsy reason for millions of dollars, billions of man hours and hundreds of weeks - to pursue one guy, that’s retired….

Its the same reasoning the church uses:

Scientific facts - discounted

circumstantial evidence - reliable…

In my view, this is the whole problem with USADA and their case.  Pursue one guy, with (lets face it) limited evidence (counted as ‘circumstantial’ in your own view) in contrast to the hundreds of tests…

If you were pulled over for drink driving, passed the breath test, and the blood sample, but where charged by the cops on the basis of ‘circumstantial evidence’ what would you be thinking?

humpty says:

11:46am | 27/08/12

Also, even the US judge thought that the charges against Armstrong were based on shady motives:

Direct quote from federal court judge:

“USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”

Kate says:

12:23pm | 27/08/12

Of course they are out to get Armstrong. But there is a good reason. Bruyneel and Armstrong were the ringleaders behind the doping in the team. Offering the other riders a reduced sentence for their testimonies is the same deal offered every day to drug dealers for providing evidence against their bosses. The main ring leaders are the ones that the USADA are going after.
The fact that he never tested positive is just a ridiculous statement in trying to prove his innocence. Pantani, etc. never tested positive either. The riders had the upper hand in the battle meaning that they would only get caught if they stuffed up. eg: Blood doping with other peoples blood, badly stored blood or blood that was tainted with doping products when it was stored, as has a happened.

Kika says:

01:12pm | 27/08/12

Marion Jones never failed a drug test either… the masking agents are too good to rely solely on the tests.

So the rest of his team are busted, his doctors admit it, but Lance is still clean? Come on.

MaryM says:

01:13pm | 27/08/12

Kika, it’s a shame you (like so many these days) can’t make your point without resorting to taking personal digs at your opponent/s.

Borderer says:

02:08pm | 27/08/12

If you were pulled over for drink driving, passed the breath test, and the blood sample, but where charged by the cops on the basis of ‘circumstantial evidence’ what would you be thinking?
Best analogy.
The thing is USADA are basically taking him to court with no physical evidense for a crime that requires physical evidense and then internationally penalising him when they aren’t an international body. Do I think it’s likely that he used a banned substance, I suspect yes but I have no proof. I also suspect that some of the sucessful Chinese swimmers at the Olympics were maybe using banned substances, so we should strip them of medals too, perhaps anyone who is faster than a fat guy with asthma, 100m sprint now done in 20-25 seconds, any quicker and you’re obviously using.
Armstrong should be provided the presumption of innocence.

humpty says:

02:18pm | 27/08/12

Kika,

Despite everyone saying that Marion Jones never failed a drug test - she in fact did.

In 2006 she tested positive for EPO in her A sample - but her B sample later tested negative (so there was no need for her to defend it). this will be on the net somewhere I’m sure - she may have even tested positive more than once (I’m not sure)

In addition, she was known for ‘missing’ tests - ie not providing samples or ‘forgetting’, especially early in he career. For those that follow Track and Field, you will also recall that she mysteriously pulled out at the last minute of the Switzerland ‘Golden’ meet (can’t remember what its really called).  This was in about late 2005/early 2006(ish) -  not long before she finally admitted that she was using banned substances - the story is presumably that she failed tests prior to that meet - and decided to avoid the championship and come clean to potentially avoid jail time (didn’t work).

Also, comments about ‘masking agents’ are a bit of a furphy - you see all the masking agents are also banned substances - so testing positive to a masking agent would essentially be the same as testing positive to PED use!

Of course Armstrong did test positive once - but this was (supposedly) as a result of the use of approved medication for a sore bum (rashes from bike saddle).

In either case, my problem is not whether USADA want to chase drug cheats, just that they need to have some type of mechanism and process to follow, so everyone knows the rules up front.  The problem is that they make up their process as they go along and then the goal posts keep moving.

From LA’s point of view - he goes through this whole charade again (as he has done dozens of times since the early 2000’s - he wins again (thats a presumption on my part, he’s won every other time) - then the USADA change the rules, start again and 2 years from now we are back here talking about it….

That’s why he pulled up stumps and went home -

Nomad says:

04:06pm | 27/08/12

O.k. I am geniunely curious to know if, in a race like the Tour de France, it is physiologically possible for a clean cyclist to win when the 2nd, 3rd and 4th place getters are all on the juice.

Is it possible?

Glen says:

12:07pm | 27/08/12

“The only thing that should matter is the drug tests.” What’s wrong with eyewitnesses? Or possession? They catch more doping than the tests do.

USADA are accusing him of doping. That is, they are claiming that he has cheated at the top of his sport for a decade, and made millions doing so. Faced with what they believe to be the greatest sporting cheat of all time then you can understand USADA’s relentlessness.

marley says:

12:21pm | 27/08/12

@Tim - Marion Jones never tested positive either.  But there was plenty of evidence to establish that she used steroids and lied about it, including her own subsequent admission.  Fact is, the state of drug testing always lags behind the development of new drugs and masking agents.  A positive drug test is evidence that you’re drugging;  a negative one is not evidence that you’re not.

Tim says:

12:30pm | 27/08/12

Glen,
eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Particularly when it serves their own self interest to see it one way.
Possession would be much stronger evidence but when has he been caught with drugs?

“Faced with what they believe to be the greatest sporting cheat of all time then you can understand USADA’s relentlessness. “

Not really. He’s retired, it’s not like he’s going to win another race. If they really cared about doping they would be concentrating on current athletes. This simply looks like a witch hunt to claim a big scalp.

Tim says:

12:59pm | 27/08/12

Marley,
Marion Jones admitted it, Amstrong hasn’t.

“a negative one is not evidence that you’re not. “

Its also not evidence that the testing isn’t good enough either.

Nick says:

02:12pm | 27/08/12

A litany of former athletes have said that the tests failed to detect their doping.  The tests are a deterrent but they aren’t foolproof.  That’s why there are non-analytical positives, and that is what USADA have used to charge Armstrong.

Armstrong refused to arbitrate despite not even having seen the evidence against him - full disclosure is required under the code but he chose to accept sanctions rather than even sight the evidence.  It is an extraordinary decision to say the least.

Under the code refusing to arbitrate is akin to pleading no contest - if someone pleads guilty, or no contest, in the court system we don’t go through with a sham trial just to satisfy public curiosity.  Similarly under the code, so it is ridiculous to then claim we will never know.  We do know because Armstrong pleaded no contest.  Nevertheless it is even more ridiculous because Travis Tygart has said that they will release a reasoned judgement in order to satisfy UCI requirements so people saying there is no evidence are jumping the gun.

AdamC says:

04:08pm | 27/08/12

The problem for Armstrong is that many former associates, themselves cheats, are pointing the finger at him. I suppose these cheats could simply be telling the anti-doping authorities what they want to hear but , unless Armstrong is prepared to contest the accusations, how will the evidence ever be tested (or refuted)?

It is all pretty sad, really.

Nick says:

02:24pm | 27/08/12

I’m going to say you’re wrong, and the reason is that I know people who have finished on the podium at state and national level, myself included, who walked away from our dreams of professional cycling careers rather than dope. Vaughters wrote a piece recently where he said what would you do…well plenty of people said no thanks, but you don’t know them so you think they don’t exist.  USADA is protecting the safety of future cyclists.  People have died because of the win at all costs ethos that leads to doping, and even local amateur athletes and school kids have started doping.  Cycling put itself in this postiion by having an entrenched culture of organised doping.  Cycling made a commitment to clean itself up when it signed on to the antidoping effort.  Cycling is the problem with cycling and not USADA, WADA, or the media.

M says:

12:10pm | 27/08/12

What’s not to believe about it being filmed in a studio in Area 51? You don’t think they ACTUALLY landed on the moon do you?

Honest to god, some of you conspiracy theorists are getting quite whacky.

Nomad says:

01:20pm | 27/08/12

I take it you’re referencing the tweet Stephen Fry made over the weekend….

“@stephenfry: Now that Lance Armstrong’s been accused of taking drugs, I’m seriously starting to doubt his story that he walked on the moon.”

Kika says:

01:15pm | 27/08/12

Answer = masking agents and clever timing of use. Hardly any of them actually fail the tests these days.

Nick says:

04:32pm | 27/08/12

He’s not retired - he was racing as a professional triathlete.  The doctors he used are still active in the sport, the team directors are as well,so are the trainers, lots of is former team mates, he’s a team owner too…why is it a witch hunt - go to USADA and look at the list of athletes banned this year. All sorts of people you’ve never heard of.  You only think it’s a witch hunt because you’ve been reading Arrmstrong’s PR.

USADA has the job of protecting clean athletes, why should they not chase Armstrong when they believe he’s a key player in a massive doping conspiracy?  Targeting people is part of the anti-doping game now…it’s so sophisticated you can’t just use random testing.  You need to look at patterns, predict vulnerabilities, and then test or otherwise conduct checks.  Armstrong is worth over $100 million dollars, he paid $500K to a doctor known to facilitate doping and already banned whilst claiming to have no connection to him…you think he just likes to give his friends half a million bucks for kicks?

Who cares who get’s the wins?  USADA told UCI they think a truth and reconciliation process is required to clean up cycling.  Why not?  Just declare the sport corrupt and clean it up so future cyclists don’t have to put this crap in their bodies.

stephen says:

05:00pm | 27/08/12

It is not an ‘emotional attachment’ that gives rise to our defense of him, but the same portion of Justice that supposedly instigates this whole legal process, and that is that now Lance, in the total absence now of a Court of Arbitration which can decide his guilt or innocence, now the onus is on the ‘defendant’ to prove his innocence.
Crazy.
And the Judge Sam Sparks threw out Armstrong’s legal defense because he - Armstrong -  used 21 pages in an argument, as the Judge said, when he could have used 2.
Crazier.
ps I wish I could post here all the names of drug cheats in the Tour Triumvirate that I’ve been told were past winners, but I don’t think I could spell all their names.

Raymond Morris says:

03:52pm | 27/08/12

You’re doing it wrong if your knuckles are bleeding while riding a velocipede.