USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
bomber
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: L'Australie

by bomber

I thought the references to recent seasons was more around the bio passport values indicating possible doping not actually having a positive test result?
Friends don't let friends ride Mavic... or Pinarellos!


My ex ride
My old rides

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3093
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

A few points:

As to this being a waste of money I am not so sure. Certainly much more money has been spent on far more questionable pursuits. If the evidence is good it must be prosecuted. It has nothing to do with finding out if Armstrong doped - that he did is simply common knowledge. It has to do with seeing justice done and not leaving our sport with the impression that you can get away with cheating. "Convicting" Armstrong is essential if cycling is ever to be perceived as clean.

As to the lack of fairness - Armstrong being singled out, sometimes resources (not just money, but manpower and time) dictate that you just go after the most important and most symbolic target.

As for those with concerns about Hamilton and Landis, how will you feel when big George tells the exact same story?
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5430
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

stella-azzurra wrote:This is just like an episode of the old Batman. I used to watch it (not when it first aired btw) every day with my brother. How the hell is Batman going to get out this one? :noidea: No way hes done. :twisted:

Tune in next time, same bat time, same bat channel.
Yeah, except Lance Armstrong isn't Batman, he's EPOMan.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

drmutley wrote:why? How's that work? And Johan can continue to DS for RS-N-K at the up coming tour?



Because WTC (World Triathaon Corporation) is the owner of all Ironman Triathlon/Ironman 70.3/5150 races. He could do another version like Rev3 or another race that is outside of WTC. But WTC has suspended Lance from doing any of their WTC races; the big ones being Ironman France that he was planning on doing as well as Kona later this year.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

J-Nice wrote:
Landis and Hamilton fit the bill, but if they have testimony from eight other riders (count 'em, EIGHT) mentioned in the USADA document, including that bastion of credibility and all-around nice guy George Hincapie and Armstrong's very own ex-wife, then the testimony of both disgraced ex-riders will hold equal weight.



J it is hearsay that Hincapie said those things. Hincapie has vehemently denied those statements. If he admitted to LA and himself both providing each other with EPO and testosterone, how could he even be riding still? His supposed testimony was given back in May 2011. He has since raced in 2011 and 2012. Doesn't make sense if he admitted to using EPO and providing it to another rider. If he did that, he would have been suspended. Sorry, it is still speculation.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
boysa
Posts: 1452
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 10:03 pm
Location: Too far from my bike.

by boysa

Does anyone expect the USADA to stand up and say, "Here is a positive test result. " If they can, then that is great and they've done a good job. Unfortunately, I believe what they are going to present will be a lot of conjecture, hearsay and possibilities. THAT is why I believe it to be a waste of money. At the end of the day, it will still be a lot of he said/she said. If he is guilty, then so be it. But please make sure the evidence is tangible and rock solid... In a court of law.

Sent from my phone...
"Deserve's got nothing to do with it." William Munny

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3762
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Unfortunately USADA is not a court of law. It is a non-profit organization. The Department of Justice already said there was no case against LA.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

shotgun
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:38 pm
Location: Philippines

by shotgun

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ban_What_Ban__2850.html

It was reported that Lance Armstrong, "is banned from competing in triathlon, a sport that he focused on after retiring from cycling competition," according to USA Today.

"The immediate impact is that Armstrong will be banned from competing in triathlons this summer," declared the Washington Times.

The other Washington paper, the Post, wrote, "As a result of the charges, Armstrong has been immediately barred from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011."

Anderson Cooper's news telecast led with the news of new doping allegations against Armstrong. A caption below the screen read, "Due to allegations, champion cyclist banned from triathlons."

Even Velonews led with the headline, "USADA suspends Armstrong over doping investigation."
None of this is, in fact, true. Armstrong is not banned from triathlons. Not yet. Rather, USADA's 15-page letter, sent to Armstrong's attorneys, laid out its thesis that Armstrong was part of a team-wide conspiracy to dope, and concluded with, "at this time, we are forwarding this matter to a panel of USADA anti-doping review board for its consideration and recommendation as set forth in the USADA protocol."

And, "... if this case proceeds beyond the anti-doping review board USADA will recommend a sanction..."

There is therefore no ban yet. Armstrong is free to compete in triathlon, or cycling, for that matter, assuming the race organizer will allow him into its race. And there's the rub.

"Armstrong is therefore suspended from competing in WTC-owned and licensed races pending further review," wrote the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) in a statement. This, because, "Our rules, as stated in the WTC Professional Athlete Agreement and Waiver, dictate an athlete is ineligible to compete during an open investigation." WTC owns and produces the Ironman brand of triathlons.
Perhaps there is some wiggle room in the phrase, "pending further review."

When would this ban threatened by USADA take place? "If a hearing is held in the regular course, you should anticipate a hearing date before November, 2012." It would then seem logical that a period of time would transpire while the independent Review Board adjudicates the matter and renders its decision. Even then, if the Review Board finds against Armstrong, USADA would then "recommend a sanction."

If a sanction is then returned, there is then the possible appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport), which would likely stretch into 2013.

During that time, there seems no reason why Armstrong could not continue to race in any event in which he's welcome, including triathlons.

KB
Posts: 3868
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:32 pm
Location: HULLGARIA UK

by KB

I think Tapeworm has got it right on this one. My view is that they would need incontrovertible evidence to prosecute him. People's statements mean jack, it's hearsay.

If they find evidence and take the 7 Tours from him, who are they going to award them to when delving into the also-rans, a lot of them have been tarnished in their own doping scandals.

Not to say that it's right, but it's apparent that nearly everyone he was competing against was on the same juice. And I also think that the charges were brought exactly to cause bad publicity to the sport when the Tour is about to start. Politics is a very dirty business.

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

No, peoples statements can have weight, a lot in circumstances. But the questions, and they will be hard questions, will be asked of those providing the statement. Any flaw of character, ulertior motive, history, will be exposed, and sometimes this is enough to have the evidence rendered useless or inadmissable.

If the USADA get it wrong I can see the Armstrong legal department suing them out of existence.
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

stax
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 3:35 am

by stax

[quote="Mr.Gib"]A few points:

It has to do with seeing justice done and not leaving our sport with the impression that you can get away with cheating. "Convicting" Armstrong is essential if cycling is ever to be perceived as clean.

As to the lack of fairness - Armstrong being singled out, sometimes resources (not just money, but manpower and time) dictate that you just go after the most important and most symbolic target.

So does this give the impression that you can get away with cheating if you are not too succesful and not too outspoken?

And surely singling out LA increases the vendetta arguement and also makes the whole thing void of 'justice' for cycling :noidea:

dereksmalls
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: New Zealand

by dereksmalls

Here is a link to the letter sent to LA if anyone wants to read it http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

User avatar
Tapeworm
Posts: 2585
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:39 am

by Tapeworm

A synopsis so far:-
http://3wiresports.com/
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

dereksmalls
Posts: 2012
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:20 pm
Location: New Zealand

by dereksmalls

Now what I believe , is, during his reign Armstrong was the best of fairly level playing field. Everyone at that top level, by top level I mean top 5 grand tour level, was fairly equal all things considered.

But from this statement made by USADA taken from that article Tapeworm linked "evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI,” cycling’s international federation, taken from Armstrong, in 2009 and 2010, numbers “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” - I'm confused

Does that mean in 2009 and in 2010 they had these results, knew they were "consistent with blood manipulation" but did nothing about it? Or they have only just come to that conclusion now?

User avatar
Juanmoretime
Administrator
Posts: 7056
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:08 am
Location: Urbana, Illinois

by Juanmoretime

I don't love Lance since I hear he is a real jerk in person unless it benefits Lance. I do think that if this evidence was known years ago and is just coming up now is BS. It appears more of a witch hunt retaliatory action then a legitimate and timely action for a doping failure. I also agree at Lance's level it is just a level playing field. It's their choice, future life and health they are playing with.
RESIDENT GRUMPY OLD MAN.

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post