Lance Armstrong Stripped of 7 Tour de France Titles
And is apparently headed for a lifetime ban from the sport:
With stunning swiftness, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said Thursday night it will strip Lance Armstrong of his unprecedented seven Tour de France titles after he dropped his fight against drug charges that threatened his legacy as one of the greatest cyclists of all time.
Travis Tygart, USADA’s chief executive, said Armstrong would also be hit with a lifetime ban on Friday. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, he could lose other awards, event titles and cash earnings while the International Olympic Committee might look at the bronze medal he won in the 2000 Games.
Armstrong, who retired last year, effectively dropped his fight by declining to enter USADA’s arbitration process — his last option — because he said he was weary of fighting accusations that have dogged him for years. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests he passed as proof of his innocence while piling up Tour titles from 1999 to 2005.
Having never followed this story before, I was surprised when I received the news alert last night about it. I was vaguely aware there were allegations, but didn’t know there was any danger of such a drastic sanction.
The USADA and other governing bodies seem to be proceeding under the view that Armstrong’s failure to fight the charges (despite having contested them in the past) means they’re true:
“He had a right to contest the charges,” WADA President John Fahey said after Armstrong’s announcement. “He chose not to. The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them.”
I am not comfortable with that. It’s certainly not how things are supposed to work in this country, where you’re innocent until proven guilty, and the evidence has to stand on its own. Reading the article, it looks to me like there is some evidence Armstrong used steroids. For example:
After Armstrong’s second victory in 2000, French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges, but the allegations kept coming.
Armstrong was criticized for his relationship with [Michele] Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections.
In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5 million bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.
But I’m not sure how strong that evidence is. Armstrong says he’s just tired of fighting this:
“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now,” Armstrong said. He called the USADA investigation an “unconstitutional witch hunt.”
“I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999,” he said. “The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense.”
Armstrong may have doped himself and he may not have. All I’m saying is: the evidence should stand on its own.
He has never failed a drug test.
JD (318f81) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:50 amif I remember right Meghan’s coward daddy was one of the driving forces behind the creation of this neo-fascist extra-governmental organization
yet another reminder of how America is so much worse off for his service
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:56 amto think this useless whore coulda been president and we woulda been better off is a huge humiliation for our already hugely shamed little country
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:59 ammy guess is that someone wanted a payoff to go away and he told them to pound sand instead.
from what i know of it, the USADA has no standing to revoke anything.
redc1c4 (403dff) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:00 amI’m glad he flipped them the bird. I think Armstrong’s kind of a douchebag, but screw the USADA, and screw John McCain.
BradnSA (980254) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:09 amI get the presumption of innocence argument, but it seems like Armstrong is basically taking the “no contest” route. If we treat that plea as indicating guilt in the criminal context, why should it be so different in this one? (I know it’s not technically an admission of guilt).
I guess what I’m asking is, is there some difference between this and a no contest plea? Or are we uncomfortable with all no contest pleas?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:29 amI agree with redc1c4. I don’t see where the USADA has the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles; seems to me that responsibility lies with the Union Cycliste Internationale — the official world body for Armstrong’s sport. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if, on the recommendation of the USADA, they do just that.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:34 amBecause he’s denying the charges.
I think this story is a good lesson on the merit of a statute of limitations. These charges have gone unproven for an awfully long time. Eventually it’s time to admit they can’t be proven.
And I don’t understand why every athletic activity in the world is within US jurisdiction. They can take away your French victories and tax your Olympic medals? Maybe our government shouldn’t be worrying about such things in the first place?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:36 amI guess what I’m asking is, is there some difference between this and a no contest plea? Or are we uncomfortable with all no contest pleas?
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 8:29 am
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:38 amI mean… he’s an American cyclist. That’s the basis of their jurisdiction, right?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:38 amLike rock eroded by wind, there comes a time when a man gets worn down. Lance must have reached that point.
It seems there are a group of people who are intent on bringing Armstrong down regardless of how long it takes. It doesn’t matter if there is no proof. It doesn’t matter how many tests he’s passed. They can’t manufacture “proof.” They must rely on innuendo.
I believe Lance Armstrong should keep all his medals and trophies and tell the usada to pound sand.
Jim (748bc6) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:40 amI guess what I’m asking is, is there some difference between this and a no contest plea? Or are we uncomfortable with all no contest pleas?
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 8:29 am
It’s called not acknowleging subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction. You should have learned this in 1L.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:41 amTheir jurisdiction over the Tour de France?
They plainly shouldn’t have any.
And for such a strong conclusion, they need some powerful evidence. Lance was tested for drug use many times, and passed the tests, so it would take a lot to overcome that evidence. Where is it?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:41 amHe is not an administrative unit.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:42 amIt’s a risky tactic, they just might.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:47 am“It’s called not acknowleging subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction. You should have learned this in 1L.”
– nk
Actually, what I learned was that if you don’t contest subject matter/personal jurisdiction claims, you waive those arguments moving forward.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:47 amExcellence is proscribed in a world where everyone is a criminal, spreading the poverty is obligatory, affirmative action has no criterion for success, positives in society are icky, yada yada.
NCAA, e.g., loves them their Sandusky, their faux respect of minorities(unless you’re a Golden Eagle). Sports governing bodies are over-lawyered because they are over-funded.
Economic reset cannot come quickly enough, no money will remain to feed the parasites, pity the host must die.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:52 amHow many people are in prison having pled no contest to criminal charges? Are they all unfairly punished?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:52 amI think Lance Armstrong did a kind of doping which he thought never could be detected. This involves injections of normally occuring substances, like humnan growth hormone, testtosterone or something that will help in the manufactire of red blood cells.
But the Carbon-13 to carbon-12 ratio or carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio is different from other substances in his body. Things manufacvtured by the body will reflect the average carbon-13 to Carbon 12 ratio over time. The injected substances (not processed by the body) will stick out like a sore thumb.
Armstrong probably dropped out because he didn’t want evidence made public.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:53 amLance Armstrong Flashpoint for Applied Political Philosophy Debate
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:54 amActually, what I learned was that if you don’t contest subject matter/personal jurisdiction claims, you waive those arguments moving forward.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 8:47 am
No. You do not. Not for subject matter, ever, anyway.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:55 amThis is not a criminal court. If someone pleas no contest to a murder charge, that’s not similar to this issue.
They have had time to prove their charges, but have not.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:57 amArmstrong has never failed a drug test.
When he was a teenager, he was kicking serious butt in triathlons against much older participants.
The guy has had numerous medical tests that prove he’s just a freak of nature in his muscle endurance and ability to pump blood and oxygen throughout his body, et al.
He’s been fighting these unproven allegations for years, and it costs him a lot of money to do that. If he were to litigate this allegation and have it proven to be yet another insufficient charge against him, another one would pop up next year, and it would be an unending cycle (pun intended) that would see no end.
And, oh yeah, it would continue to cost him a lot of money.
Not challenging this particular allegation is not an admission of guilt.
The tabloids make allegations and inferences about celebrities all the time, but the fact that Joe Actor doesn’t get a lawyer to challenge each one does not equal “admission of guilt.”
Big corporations often opt to settle fraudulent lawsuits out of court with charlatans who sue them because it is cheaper to write them a $2K or 5K check than it is to go to court and defeat the lawsuit, not to mention the “cost” of the bad publicity that would entail from merely being sued, even if the corporation wins in court.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:57 amThe point being, just because a corporation chooses not to litigate in court, doesn’t mean they’re admitting “guilt.”
16. “Actually, what I learned”
No offense, sprout, but you really must watch your tenses.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:58 amNo Survivors
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:58 amHe is not pleading no contest, Leviticus. He has passed every test ever given him, and said he is done fighting their nonsense.
JD (318f81) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:58 amhe must be one of them super-genius criminal mastermind cyclists
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:00 amYou take your chances with personal. Government does not like being told “You ain’t the boss of me”, whether you pay your special and limited appearance fee or just ignore the summons. Most judges will respect your respect for them and give you a fair hearing in a limited appearance motion.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:01 amArmstrong passed over 500 test administered by this and other agencies. If they are now saying he is guilty despite passing all the tests, what is the purpose of the tests? And did they just admit that the tests are worthless?
Cecil (5aba63) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:01 amnk –
I should have been more precise. I was talking about (pre-answer) motions to dismiss. You’re right, of course, that a court’s subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:03 amIs that honest? I thought Armstrong contested these claims for many years. That’s not a refusal to examine the issue. It’s a refusal to keep coming back after they fail to make a case against him. As Elephant Stone notes, if Armstrong invests in beating the rap again, won’t they just start another trial immediately?
Why are we paying for this witch hunt?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:03 amAnother such victim is Conrad Black. The power of the government to cripple the sound and sane shall not be abridged.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:04 amJD – they’re saying a bunch of his former teammates are ready to testify against him. Does that not count for anything? Did Barry Bonds ever fail a drug test?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:04 amFrom the wiki on the USADA:
When evidence meeting one or more of the above violations is found, an independent anti-doping review board will make the recommendation whether USADA can move forward with sanctions on an athlete. Athletes can either accept or challenge the sanction through an established legal process. In the United States athletes can take a case before an arbitration panel with a final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Sanctions normally include one or more of the following:
Disqualification of results in a particular competition or event
Forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes
— My question: Why would anyone, especially an international body such as the Union Cycliste Internationale cede them this much authority?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:05 amthe Court of Arbitration for Sport
that’s gayer than putin’s call me maybe lip-synch video
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:06 amGreetings:
And somewhere, in the deep, dark depths of the City of Angels, which are very, very deep and dark, a smile begins its sickening crawl across Sheryl Crow’s aging face.
11B40 (2fdfd3) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:07 amI learned Civil Procedure from some big, scary-looking, black guy with dog-bite marks on his legs, from when he and Thurgood Marshall were fighting for civil rights in South America.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:08 amDoes it make any sense that the USADA just wants to “get” Armstrong? That there’s no basis for anything, but they just hate him so much?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:08 amthe USADA’s entire reason for being is to harass superlative athletes
harass them like the cowardly p.o.s. dope fiends common sense and logic suggest they are
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:10 amArmstrong probably dropped out because he didn’t want evidence made public.
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 8/24/2012 @ 8:53 am
— What “evidence” do you think exists that hasn’t already been made public?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:12 amThere is no presumption of innocence in the Star Chamber
Sir Walter (69ae76) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:13 am11B40, what the hell does “the City of Angels” have to do with Sheryl Crow? She hasn’t lived there in years.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:15 amSammy, we can read Wikipedia for ourselves.
Please ignore this if your children are above age twelve:
“Phineas and Ferb” starts a new season with “Where’s Perry?, Part Two”, tonight.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:17 amLeviticus,
Dude, we “get” that you’re in law school.
This is about a man who is tired of spending time and boatloads of money defending himself against allegations that have never been proven, yet are allowed to keep being recycled.
Armstrong is asking the question, “When does the witch hunt end ?”
And Armstrong says, “It ends now.”
If only Jon Corzine could warrant being chased by the bloodhounds.
Instead, athletes such as Roger Clemens and Lance Armstrong are targeted.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:17 am38. It’s called results-based measure of accomplishment.
I was on the board of an HOA in the Cities for some terms. One year the Pres.(POW) exhorted us to prove our worth to the trust invested by spending some of our hoard rather than returning a portion as we had neither created new regulations and the year’s end approached.
Government in microcosm.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:18 am43. Noted. I believe squirt gets to watch TV today on the basis of last night’s bedtime performance.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:20 amArmstrong tried to address these charges in a federal district court in Texas but the Judge dismissed his claim 3 days ago:
As usual, I’m not sure I agree with Judge Sparks.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:21 amElephant Stone, I started the “law school” thing, not Leviticus.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:21 amDoes it make any sense that the USADA just wants to “get” Armstrong? That there’s no basis for anything, but they just hate him so much?
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 9:08 am
— Contrast what you said with this:
“He had a right to contest the charges,” WADA President John Fahey said after Armstrong’s announcement. “He chose not to. The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them.”
— Do you somehow NOT think that this man has a “he tried to put one over on us, but we wouldn’t let him” mentality?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:21 am“Dude, we “get” that you’re in law school.”
– Elephant Stone
You forgot your customary modifier. How about a little consistency?
Get this, since you’re “getting” things: when the prompt is “presumption of innocence”, you’re going to have a discussion with some legal facets. Sorry if that bothers you.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:22 amJD, Happyfeet
Lance also cheated on his wife who had three small one’s at home and tried to leave them penniless.
Happyfeet,
USADA keeps sports honest and they can be sued and lose everything if they are wrong. The people they go after have almost unlimited legal representation at their disposal
Lance is not the first American cyclist to be caught cheating on the Tour De France and the USA cyclists as a whole have a storied history of blood doping.
EPWJ (2a58f7) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:25 amIcy,
I guess where we differ is that I think the “he tried to put one over on us” bit was a necessary precursor to the “we wouldn’t let him” bit, and that that makes the USADA’s interest more than just a spiteful one.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:25 am“USADA keeps sports honest and they can be sued and lose everything if they are wrong.”
– EPJW
That doesn’t sound right at all.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:26 amDRJ put this argument to rest.
Armstrong needs to keep on swimming in the sewer he picked, himself, in the first place.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:27 amArmstrong had challenged the USADA’s investigation for violating his due process rights. An Austin American-Statesman article summarized Armstrong’s complaints and provided this background:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:30 amRead my link. It raises even more questions about the USADA’s honesty.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:30 amThat’s the exact opposite of reality. The USADA is using my money to fund these attacks, and have unlimited resources to attack private parties with charges that have already been tried repeatedly, until the party just gives up.
In Lance’s case, it took many years, but in other cases, the athletes may have made deals with USADA and then continued competing. Deals that include saying Lance cheated.
I was going to elaborate on this, but as usual DRJ has already made this point more clearly than I would’ve.
I do not know if Lance actually cheated or not. I don’t want to be pushed into thinking he did just because of the volume of unproven allegations. I do think that it is wasteful and wrong for our government to be pursuing this matter at this time.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:34 amBy the way, these are some of the claims that Judge Sparks found were “without merit”:
Judge Sparks seemed more concerned about individual due process rights in the Planned Parenthood case.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:34 am33. Many of Bond’s test results are sealed by agreement with the union, but he’s failed with positives for seroids, amphetamines and marijuana.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:34 amArmstrong had testicular cancer. I do not know how those are treated. Is he being penalized for legitimate medical treatment?
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:35 amMy problem with all this is that I can’t see how a guy who had the courage to beat cancer then come back and dominate his sport for the better part of a decade would suddenly cower before some bureaucratic panel, even if they have a personal vendetta against him. In terms of the idea of this taking a financial toll on his family, wouldn’t Armstrong’s sponsors — Nike chief among them — have every incentive to help Armstrong prove his innocence? I’m sorry, but as someone who has admired Armstrong I can’t help but think that his refusal to press the matter any further is a tacit acknowledgement that he was not on the up-and-up during those years. I pray that I am never in a similar situation, but I would like to think that if I were being unfairly railroaded by a government agency then I would be willing to take it to the bitter end.
JVW (edec8d) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:35 amsteroids*
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:36 amNo offense, DRJ, but I see very little in that article that makes me question the USADA’s honesty, particularly relative to Armstrong’s or the UCI’s.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:39 amwho also cheated on his wife was our cowardly douchebag friend John McCain
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:39 amThe Landis story doesn’t give you pause, Leviticus?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:45 amOr the possible use of grand jury testimony?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:46 amLance also cheated on his wife who had three small one’s at home and tried to leave them penniless.
— Well, whaddaya know? Somebody took a dump and it landed right here. Aren’t we the lucky ones!
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:46 amJVW,
How is he supposed to prove his innocence if all the blood samples have been discarded?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:47 amLeviticus,
I apologize if I angered you by mentioning you’re in law school. I know it’s your passion, and you’re working hard at it.
But nobody will ever accuse you of lacking consistency, that’s for sure. 🙂
This whole thing is almost Orwellian…Armstrong has never failed a drug test. Yet there’s this neverending witch hunt to convict him.
When does it end ?
It may come as a shock to some people, but most productive people don’t want to spend any more time in court than is necessary—not even lawyers.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:48 amOf course, the biggest problem (from an American perspective) is that Armstrong has to prove his innocence. All those years of passing drug tests apparently don’t count for anything.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:48 amI see very little in that article that makes me question the USADA’s honesty
Never question honesty. Question observation, memory, recollection, and judgment (putting two and two together). The jurors are identifying with the witness much more than they are with you or your opposing counsel.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:49 am“The Landis story doesn’t give you pause, Leviticus?”
– DRJ
I think that kind of thing happens all the time, at least in the context of criminal law. Why does it bother you as much as it does? Especially if there are 9 other cyclists who can (and will) corroborate Landis’ testimony?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:50 amPresident Choom is a dope.
mg (44de53) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:51 amNo test needed.
60. In his first biography he reported at least a couple runs of chemo. EPO was used during that treatment, prior to his becoming a top cyclist and well prior to any of his Tour wins by a few years at least.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:51 amnk @ 71,
Advice well taken.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:52 am72. Landis failed his tests outright.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:52 amDoes anyone understand how this process worked? What was this “arbitration process” he declined to enter? Would it have taken lots of his time?
Gerald A (138c50) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:54 amYou gonna be a trial lawyer? It doesn’t pay, but there’s no better way to spend twenty years.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:54 amDRJ,
I also don’t understand why the drug tests should be dispositive. If there’s one thing we’ve learned on this subject over the past few years, it’s that athletes and their augmenters are constantly coming up with new ways to boost performance in ways undetectable to current tests.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:54 amGood point, Gary.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:55 amHow is he supposed to prove his innocence if all the blood samples have been discarded?
Comment by DRJ — 8/24/2012 @ 9:47 am
— If the blood samples actually proved anything, would there be a need for all of the solicited, hearsay testimony?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:56 amIn general I would say pursue the evidence and if Armstrong is giving up that looks bad on him. On the other hand, it sounds a bit like a conservative saying they don’t really like children to go to bed hungry after all, you can say it a million times and you will still be accused of it.
It has been a long time of accusations with little in documented proof. I know there is an ongoing war in technology of designing drugs and schemes that can’t be detected and new tests trying to find the latest scam. And then there are things like self transfusion which I’m not sure exactly how one could test for.
I guess we’ll see if supporters of him and his foundation stick with him or not.
Once upon a time there was a famous American cyclist named Greg LeMond who won the Tour de France and then came back and won it again after a serious accident where he was shot while hunting. From Wikipedia, there seems to be a long and involved story of interactions between LeMond and Landis and Armstrong over doping charges, but it’s Wikipedia, so all I conclude is there is more to research if one wants.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:56 amnk,
I figure all interesting legal roads lead to court at some point, and (accordingly) that it’s something to be comfortable with. I would hate to be buffaloed into a bad deal at some point because another attorney sensed that I wasn’t comfortable going to court.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:58 amIf there’s one thing we’ve learned on this subject over the past few years, it’s that athletes and their augmenters are constantly coming up with new ways to boost performance in ways undetectable to current tests.
— Really. Such as . . . ?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:59 amI think everyone should be required to repeatedly show their innocence. And passing a drug test does not count as proof. But bribed testimony from people that did fail is proof. Good Allah.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:00 amWhy the ‘swift’ action from USADA?
Armstrong doesn’t want to play along, but does that prove anything? Why not have their proceeding and do their best to represent Armstrong’s side of it, which we are aware of. Why just instantly say he’s guilty? That’s not justice.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:00 amLeviticus,
It sounds like you are equating accused criminals (who testify against others to save themselves from prison) with bikers (who testify against Armstrong to save their careers). It’s true that both have incentives to testify, but there is a downside if an accused criminal lies about what happened and is caught. What is the downside for the USADA officials or for a biker who testifies against Armstrong to save his career?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:01 am__________________________________________
The USADA and other governing bodies
It’s bad enough having to deal with faceless pencil pushers in the bureaucracy — ie, in government, at the IRS, for example — but to have to deal with a non-profit, privately run version of the same thing is another layer of the absurd, annoying and stupid. What Armstrong is dealing with perhaps is quite similar to what researchers and others who are skeptical of AGW have had to put up with from the cabal that treats the threat of CO2 like a religion.
I bet many of the types who relish being a part of such hierarchies and organizations all share the greed of having the-great-Oz-has-spoken power.
Mark (18b242) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:01 am“What is the downside for the USADA officials or for a biker who testifies against Armstrong to save his career?”
– DRJ
If they lie and are caught their respective careers are destroyed, a la Nifong.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:03 amI was never comfortable going to court. I slept little. With nightmares.
But, dang, boy, you don’t what a rush it is to win a case.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:06 amGerald A,
Here is a link to the USADA website regarding its adjudication system.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:07 amI don’t know who to believe. But either way I do know that losing faith in sportsmanship and inspirational athletes diminishes us all.
elissa (9ac10f) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:07 amLeviticus,
So a biker is faced with the choice of letting the USADA destroy his career now, or take a chance that lying might destroy his career later. Which would you choose?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:09 amThe U.S. Anti-Doping Agency erased 14 years of Lance Armstrong’s career Friday – including his record seven Tour de France titles – and banned him for life from the sport that made him a hero to millions of cancer survivors after concluding he used banned substances. USADA said it expected cycling’s governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation on why Armstrong should relinquish titles he won from 1999 through 2005.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:09 amThey have a saying in Africa, to the effect, ‘if an individual should advance himself above his neighbors, a thousand hands will reach up to drag him down.’
Same thing, we see it in these pages daily.
To whom it may concern.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:13 am“Phineas and Ferb” starts a new season with “Where’s Perry?, Part Two”, tonight.
Comment by nk — 8/24/2012 @ 9:17 am
I know. Saw ads on the Disney Channel while at my parents. We don’t have cable. Maybe you could point a web cam at your TV and we could watch it together. We’ll make the popcorn.
Phineas and Ferb combined with the best of Foghorn Leghorn and the gang, that would be awesome.
I wanted my daughter’s first word to be “platypus”, but I thought it was a stretch, so it was “aardvark”. Unfortunately, at the turn of the century, smartphones were not ubiquitous.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:16 amHow is he supposed to prove his innocence if all the blood samples have been discarded?
It’s a great point, DRJ, and I am certainly not a fan of the way the USADA operates. My response would be that Congress created the USADA, so if Armstrong & his sponsors were really intent on clearing his name then they can press this case in the political arena. Tell Congress that the USADA is unfairly pursuing a vendetta in which our hallowed system of burden of proof is turned on its head. Enlist cancer survivors, civil libertarians, sportsmen, and whoever into the cause. I can’t help but wonder that the fact that Nike is not front-and-center pressing Armstrong’s case is a quiet indication that they have their doubts about him too.
JVW (edec8d) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:16 amThe ironic thing is that I’m not a Lance Armstrong fan. His politics and marriages soured me on him, plus I’m not into bike racing. But this has gone on for years and I think the international racing agencies should not be able to pursue this in perpetuity. What’s next, drug tests from the grave — like the arsenic tests on Napoleon’s hair? At least that had historical significance.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:16 amWhat I’m arguing for here is an American-style justice system with specific rules and rights, as opposed to the endless pursuit of European-style justice that this typifies.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:18 amIt’s called envy, gary.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:18 amA-freakin-men, DRJ.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:19 amLosing faith in the rule of law diminishes us even more, elissa.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:19 am97. “Congress created the USADA”
A damning indictment if there ever was.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:20 amI doubt that.
But you do know that Nifong was a real person, right? People act like that, trying to build their careers via witch hunts.
And how is Armstrong supposed to prove his innocence? If that’s what it takes, why wouldn’t the witch hunters feel confident they have nothing to lose?
Or maybe they just want to sell products without the risk of being tarnished by either side of a controversy?
We can all read his case and read about the problems with USADA. They have failed to prove Armstrong guilty, so there’s that, too.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:20 amFrom the little I know, it seems the main evidence is in the form of people who say they know he did it from one reason or another, which would I guess be along the lines of how he did what he did without getting caught.
But then you have the question as to why are people willing to testify now and not before, and were they telling the truth before or now, and what kind of bribery or duress is involved.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:21 amFor all those who mention that he never failed a drug test, well neither did Marion Jones. And she was sanctioned. Armstrong agreed to USADA’s procedures when he took out a Pro license. For him to whine now is ridiculous.
Armstrong didn’t contest the charges because he didn’t want the evidence against him made public. This way he can continue to claim to be a 7 time TdF champ.
This won’t save him, though. His ex team manager has decided to submit to the arbitration process, so it’s likely at least some of the evidence will come out. And then when the inevitable civil suits against Armstrong begin, discovery will be more than painful for Armstrong.
Pigilito (9208f3) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:23 amThis thread is adding posts very quickly. As I said above, Wikipedia has some interesting things to say concerning who was telling the truth when and why regarding Greg LeMond, Armstrong, and Landis. But as I said before, it’s wikipedia and one would have to follow links to confirm stuff, and I don’t have the time.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:24 amI share your unease, Pat. We’re into “the seriousness of the charge” territory.
However, I can’t imagine the USADA is lying about the multiple first-hand testimonies they have from those who would have been in position to witness the incidents. It is entirely unfortunate that this evidence will never be tested.
I once shared a lengthy meal with Lance and one of his closer media friends during the time he was recovering from his first cancer treatments. I wish I could report that I came away with an unshakable regard for his integrity and honesty. Instead, my take was that he is uncommonly driven and goal-oriented. I can see where the charges are substantially true. Now, I’d never in a million years draw a final conclusion based on this. If this were a criminal matter, I’d vote to acquit in a nanosecond.
Ed from SFV (81526c) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:24 amit obviously would not surprise if Armstrong had doped but no one has ever shown up with actual direct evidence. The continual rehashing of stale allegations has destroyed my interest in cycling. The ADA is a farce.
SPQR (dd6e98) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:26 amOn the other hand, Pigilito, I wonder if Armstrong’s decision and the USADA’s actions — specifically, the decision banning Armstrong and taking away his titles — re-opens the door for legal relief in the United States. I’m not saying it does because I haven’t read the pleadings or briefed the law, but the case isn’t speculative anymore, is it?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:26 amMy daughter’s first word was “baba’, “daddy” in Greek, on [I won’t lie]. Her first sentence was “I love you”, in English, to me, six weeks before her first birthday. No lie.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:27 amDear Mr. Armstrong,
We received a phone call from someone claiming to be a US Senator representing Nevada who claims he received a phone call from someone who claims you’re doping. We can’t prove the phone calls, we can’t prove the doping, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen ! And until you can prove it didn’t not happen, then we’ll have to conclude that it happened, just like the claimers claim it happened ! We don’t care if you hide your college transcripts, your college loan information, your college thesis paper, your medical records, or documents pertaining to the purchase of a parcel of land adjacent to your house in Chicago that was facillitated by a convicted felon, nor are we going to ask you to provide documents pertaining to the Fast & Furious death of Brian Kelly—but we do expect that for the next ten years, you must litigate a blood and urine sample that you gave us that we have kept since 2003—or was it 2002 ?!—it’s difficult to read because the container has been sitting on a windowsill facing the sun—and by the way, why do you hate black people, and when exactly did you stop drowning puppy dogs ?
Sincerely,
the producers of “The Armstrong Witch Project”
(P.S. We have lined up some of your former teammates who have in the past claimed that they never saw you doping. Unfortunately for you, they all of a sudden remembered that they saw you doping !)
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:28 amDRJ, I’m pretty sure that Armstrong has only been married once.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:29 am“the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said Thursday night it will strip Lance Armstrong of his unprecedented seven Tour de France titles.”
Where the HELL do they get the right to do that??
I think the Amaury Sport Organization would have the ultimate say in declaring who won their tournament.
Who died and made the USADA emperor of all that it sees?
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:29 amDid these procedures include jurisdiction over French awards?
Didn’t these procedures include a statute of limitations that the USADA is ignoring?
Are they following a consistent and fair set of procedures at all? Isn’t that what Lance is “whining” about? They had a testing system when Lance won his races, and he passed. That’s evidence. That’s the only strong evidence I’m aware of,
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:31 am“So a biker is faced with the choice of letting the USADA destroy his career now, or take a chance that lying might destroy his career later. Which would you choose?”
– DJR
That kinda skews it, doesn’t it? The reason Landis is in this situation in the first place is that he doped. The destruction of his career would be justified. And there’s a third option: when you testify, tell the truth.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:31 amThat’s true, Icy. Armstrong was married to wife Kristin and they had 3 children, and then he lived with Sheryl Crow. I’m old-fashioned enough that his time with Sheryl Crow counts as a marriage with me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:32 am“What I’m arguing for here is an American-style justice system with specific rules and rights?”
– DRJ
Has Armstrong been denied access to American-style justice?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:33 amI thought he had just opted out of it.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:33 amI’m not talking about Landis, Leviticus. I’m talking about the teammates that Armstrong’s attorney claims were given incentives to corroborate Landis’ claims.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:34 amJust because it is in the borders of this country doesn’t mean it is American style.
You could say that in an Uncle Sam outfit on the St Louis Arch, but that is unAmerican.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:35 amJudge Sparks dismissed Armstrong’s case as speculative, Leviticus, in favor of the USADA arbitration process. The USADA website calls it an adjudication process.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:35 amA typical run in for Armstrong with authorities:
http://www.bicycle.net/2009/pat-mcquaid-defends-armstrong-over-showergate
I read a story some years back by an Irish stage winner, not a bud of Lance, just a friendly competitor. He was in a pub Christmas or New Year’s day and decided to give Armstrong a call just to wish him well, in a celebratory mood.
Armstrong was on some mountain in CO doing hill work. The chap, Roche maybe, on ending the call bitterly shouted in disgust, “Armstrong has just beaten me in next year’s Tour.”
I’ve ridden 100 miles at a stretch a number of times, 275 in week before I was fit enough. Watching him climb is beyond awesome. And I have huge lungs.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:37 amFor all those who mention that he never failed a drug test, well neither did Marion Jones. And she was sanctioned.
— She was sanctioned because she ADMITTED to using banned substances. Try to keep up.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:39 amNational Geographic wrote an article on Armstrong’s lactic acid levels, muscle efficiency, lungs and mental stamina. It undercuts the idea that he must have doped.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:40 amJD @#1–, Marion Jones NEVER FAILED A DRUG TEST EITHERand track testing in those times were much tougher than cycling. She passed 120+ tests over a 6-year period thru 2004 and yet admitted her use. Testing is ALWAYS GOING TO BE BEHIND USAGE.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:41 amhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones#2006_EPO_tests link to Jones
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:42 amArmstrong agreed to USADA’s procedures when he took out a Pro license
That he accepts something in order to practice his profession seems closer to coercion than agreement. We will see more of this in this increasingly statist world.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:43 amJones who, unlike Armstrong, admitted it, reff.
What’s the case against Armstrong?
USADA has already found him guilty and striped him, so where is that case?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:44 am“Judge Sparks dismissed Armstrong’s case as speculative, Leviticus, in favor of the USADA arbitration process. The USADA website calls it an adjudication process.”
– DRJ
Is there something wrong with that? Our law is shot through with exactly those sorts of proceedings; every administrative agency has them, in one form or another. And if Armstrong thought they wouldn’t do him justice, he could file for injunctive relief ni district court, and claim that the exhaustion of administrative remedies was futile.
His refusal to pursue American-style justice doesn’t mean that he’s been denied it.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:44 amReff – Ms Jones also admitted using.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:45 amIcy @ 124: Jones also went to jail for lying to a grand jury about lying about using PED’s. She denied every time, even under threat of perjury before finally telling the truth.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:46 amLeviticus – what objective evidence can be use to prove his innocence, and how many times must be do so, to how many organizations, over how many decades?
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:46 amHas Armstrong been denied access to American-style justice?
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 10:33 am
— This is what he is claiming.
I thought he had just opted out of it.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:48 amComment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 10:33 am
— Your willful acceptance of the USADA as a fair & just body, along with your insistence that Armstrong’s “I will fight no more, forever” declaration equates to a No-Contest plea is, to say the least, disturbing.
Marion Jones’ admission resulted from getting caught giving perjured testimony to federal agents in connection with the BALCO case. She admitted doping to get probation or a reduced sentence, but it didn’t work. She pled guilty to perjury and was sentenced to 6 months in jail. That’s how the rule of law works in America but not in other countries.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:50 amHis blood tests ought to count for a lot, JD – but they ought to be weighed against the testimony of people who claim that Armstrong was doping and beating the tests. We know the tests can be beaten; let an administrative law judge decide whether one party’s story is more plausible than the other’s.
Armstrong doesn’t want to go through that process. That’s his prerogative, and his guilt has not been proven. But you can’t blame people for having doubts, at this point.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:50 amWell, no, Leviticus. Relief from an administrative judgment, in a real court, is de novo. You just pay the filing fee. The administrative agency has the burden of going forward with the evidence and the burden of ultimate proof. Usually, the real judge just reads the transcript of the administrative proceeding.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:51 amLeviticus,
Armstrong did file for injunctive relief, claiming deprivation of his constitutional rights. That’s the case Judge Sparks dismissed.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:51 am“Your willful acceptance of the USADA as a fair & just body, along with your insistence that Armstrong’s “I will fight no more, forever” declaration equates to a No-Contest plea is, to say the least, disturbing.”
– Icy
As to your first point, I have seen no evidence to the contrary. As to your second, you haven’t argued why it should be viewed differently.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:51 amJD, the counter to that is that Jones, like all of these people discussed here, all denied using before finally admitting. That does not mean Armstrong has eithe lied or used. That does mean that your point about not failing tests is brought into serious disrepute because testing is not even remotely foolproof.
I would love to seeArmstrong submit his samples from 1996-2007for testing under the current testing formats. He would either be cleared immediately or…..
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:52 amArmstrong doesn’t want to go through that process.
B effin S. he has been through it repeatedly.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:52 amExcept Maryland.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:52 amDRJ
As I understood it he had an affair with Crow while still married and after he divorced had other affairs
Also he opted out fior arbitration on the advice of his attorneys who probably were wise to do so – people wont lie as easily in a high profile case to a jury.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:52 amJD
Jones only admitted using when she went to trial and the evidence was “overwhelming”
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:53 am“Armstrong did file for injunctive relief, claiming deprivation of his constitutional rights. That’s the case Judge Sparks dismissed.”
– DRJ
So does Judge Sparks’ dismissal amount to a denial of American-style justice?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:54 amI would love to seeArmstrong submit his samples from 1996-2007for testing under the current testing formats.
Abject silliness, reff. You play by the rules in place at the time, not rules decades in the future. The blood samples are gone, and more than a decade old. Maybe we should require all athletes to keep samples from every year they competed, in perpetuity, beyond their death, even though as you note, testing clean doesn’t mean anything to those that are convinced of his guilty.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:55 amIn a federal case, there’s the Seventh Amendment and the Anti-Injunction Act, among other laws.
Most states have the right to a jury trial in civil cases in their respective constitutions.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:56 amIt does to me, Leviticus. Armstrong’s case was dismissed at the TRO stage, even though he claimed he had been denied due process.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:56 amEPWJ,
Arbitration doesn’t involve a jury.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:57 amI would love to see 24/7 video of Armstrong from 1192 to 2007. If he submits this proof of his innocence to the USADA, then he’s innocent, otherwise: GUILTY.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:57 amHow can he submit samples that no longer exist?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:58 amShe passed 120+ tests over a 6-year period thru 2004 and yet admitted her use. Testing is ALWAYS GOING TO BE BEHIND USAGE.
— And this means WHAT? that NO PROOF WHATSOEVER actually proves something?
Icy @ 124: Jones also went to jail for lying to a grand jury about lying about using PED’s. She denied every time, even under threat of perjury before finally telling the truth.
Comment by reff — 8/24/2012 @ 10:46 am
— And this proves WHAT? that because she lied, Lance Armstrong MUST be lying, too?
There isn’t even ANY circumstantial evidence in this “case”. It’s ALL based on hearsay testimony from witnesses whose credibility could reasonably be questioned.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:58 amFederal law limits injunctive/declaratory relief. Pretty hard.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:58 amAh. I think I see what you’re saying, DRJ. Are you saying that since alleged deprivation of constitution rights tends to suffice for a showing of irreparable harm, a TRO should have been issued pending a decision on the merits?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:59 amNo, JD, it is a response to your post at 133. This would be the objective evidence of his innocence. I don’t know if they would be available, but they would give us a much more concrete knowledge of the reality we’re discussing here. As for the rules in place at the time, those are basically the same as now, with additions to cover new drugs as discovered. EPO, HGH, and steroids were all against the rules then, as well as blood doping/thinning, and the like.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:59 amDRJ
Lance armstrong has been under investigation since his 2nd win, Ironically the French had blocked access to his drug tests for years.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:02 amI would love to see 24/7 video of Armstrong from 1192 to 2007. If he submits this proof of his innocence to the USADA, then he’s innocent, otherwise: GUILTY.
Bingo
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:03 amDRJ, do we know the samples don’t exist?
Icy, my point neither stated or implied that Armstrong lied. They both were counters to JD’s point about never failing drug tests, and that testing is behind usage.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:04 am125. “Mental stamina”
I used to think of MJ as an icon of mental stamina, like having the flu and scoring 64.
Unquestionably, Armstrong’s greatest strength. The Mrs. has elite VO2 max, and me big lungs, the squirt looks to have both, including my straight knees and muscle strength.
But the heart, the resolution will have to come from within.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:04 amReff – the samples no longer exist.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:04 amDRJ
Yep, and Armstrong didnt want to go to jail either.
He has been told that’s where he was heading – I was surprized, yeah shocked that they jailed jones, but I think the sports commuynity has had it cheaters.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:05 amLeviticus,
Maybe. I haven’t read all the pleadings so I’m not certain if there might be another basis to defer to USADA jurisdiction. In general, however, an allegation of facts that a claimant’s constitutional rights have been violated should be enough to make it past the TRO stage. Plus, I’m curious about Judge Spark’s earlier contempt for Armstrong and/or his case. Maybe it was deserved but it strikes me as strange.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:05 amContinuing on from 154, but what sort of decision on the merits would be forthcoming at that point? It would have to be a district court case assessing the constitutionality of the USADA’s arbitration procedures, right?
I’m getting sucked down too many rabbit holes. My position boils down to this: air out all relevant evidence.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:05 amYou are channeling Harry Reid, EPWJ.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:06 amAHA!
Guilty.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:07 amJD, legitimate question, please: I haven’t seen that. Can you help?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:08 amFederal courts’ jurisdiction is what Congress says? Do some homework.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:08 amYou’re in reality a just right webmaster. The web site loading velocity is amazing. It seems that you are doing any distinctive trick. Furthermore, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a wonderful process in this topic!
android (bf1fa9) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:08 amLeviticus,
One of the arguments Armstrong made is that the USADA process violated Armstrong’s Fifth Amendment rights that no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb … be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Isn’t that what federal courts are supposed to consider?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:10 amThese days, every account of the lives of extraordinary men fills me with a deep sense of gratitude for my own ordinariness.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:10 amIf only Lance Armstrong had claimed to be 1/32nd Cherokee, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:11 amJones only admitted using when she went to trial and the evidence was “overwhelming”
Comment by EPWJ — 8/24/2012 @ 10:53 am
— In her case there was evidence that directly linked her to a manufacturer & supplier of steroids; although, as in this case, the only evidence that she had actually used steroids was hearsay testimony. And your point is WHAT?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:11 am156. In fact, cycling disqualified two of the French labs as vendors thereafter following two preliminary positives alleged against Armstrong.
The fact is there is too much money in sport, rather little going to the principals, that is behind these witchhunts.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:12 amDRJ – yes, and (now that I understand your argument) I think you’re right that Judge Sparks was probably wrong to deny Armstrong the opportunity to make his arguments against the USADA’s arbitration procedures in federal court. Before, I thought you were centering your argument re: a denial of American-style justice on the stripping of his titles by the USADA after he dropped his case, not the denial of his TRO request by Judge Sparks. Should’ve picked up on the latter, since you made early reference to your doubts as to Judge Sparks’ decision, but I wasn’t paying close enough attention. I agree with you on that point: Armstrong should have had a chance to challenge the constitutionality of the arbitration procedures in court.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:14 amHe has been told that’s where he was heading – I was surprized, yeah shocked that they jailed jones, but I think the sports commuynity has had it cheaters.
Comment by EPWJ — 8/24/2012 @ 11:05 am
— Uh, you DO know that she was jailed for perjury, right?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:16 amFWIW, I don’t care for him, at all. But I care for the USADA even less, as well as the rest of the organizations that have pursued him for decades.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:19 am170. Fine as far as that goes.
I’d rather just look into a man’s eyes and trust my intuition than inconstant Justice.
Clemens is a liar, Armstrong honest, because I know my own soul.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:21 amIcy, my point neither stated or implied that Armstrong lied. They both were counters to JD’s point about never failing drug tests, and that testing is behind usage.
Comment by reff — 8/24/2012 @ 11:04 am
— So, what IS your point, then? Are you claiming that the tests for doping are so hopelessly behind the times that the governing bodies MUST rely on the hearsay testimony of acquaintances in order to catch cheaters?
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:24 amIn fairness to Judge Sparks, he ruled that the USADA arbitration provisions are similar to the American Arbitration Assn rules, although he also expressed concerns about the proceeding:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:26 amreff,
The UCI previously claimed the 1999 samples were mishandled and not probative. In addition, a recent LA grand jury retested samples from the French lab and the prosecutor declined to prosecute.
However, in June 2012 after the LA prosecutor declined to prosecute, the USADA announced that it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that are “fully consistent” with blood doping. However, this report says the blood was discarded after the tests were negative, so I’m not sure which is true. Maybe this is what’s worrying Armstrong, but weren’t the claims of doping by teammates from before 2009 — when Armstrong returned to racing?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:29 amIcy,
reff is arguing that blood tests, while useful, are not dispositive, and (accordingly) that they’re a wobbly peg to hang a hat on. It’s not difficult point.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:29 amOK, so we have no evidence of innocence.
Guilty!
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:31 amNo, Dustin.
OK, we have evidence of innocence.
OK, we have evidence of guilt.
Trier of Fact!
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:33 am“I cheated and he beat me, so he must have cheated, too!” is what this comes down to. Blood tests were to prove there was no cheating; he passed all the blood tests, so … he must have cheated so that he’d pass the blood tests.
What is really required of Armstrong is absolute proof that he did not cheat. There can, of course, be no such proof; this circus goes on as long as there are humans around to argue about it.
htom (412a17) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:36 amUSADA requested that Armstrong be stripped:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/24/news/companies/armstrong-nike-endorsements/index.html?iid=Lead
Woods kept Nike, guess Armstrong ought to as well, no?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:37 amLeviticus,
I’m concerned with both. These are claims from the past 14 years that have been considered and reconsidered. Part of American due process is that prosecutors don’t get to relitigate charges they’ve already lost.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:37 amIcy, eyewitness testimony is not heresay, I believe, although I am not an attorney. And, yes, testing is WAY behind cheating, so, it will always be a problem.
So, eyewitness testimony about Armstrong’s use of PED’s is damning, but not guaranteed to get a conviction. Armstrong’s refusal to answer the charges is also damning, but, not, in itself, a conviction either.
But, both of those are statements of fact, right?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:39 amHas there been a proceeding proving guilt?
Because the USADA already has acted drastically, as though they have proven guilt. Their argument is that Armstrong’s refusal to continue like this proves the evidence of guilt has weight.
I think this is pretty stupid.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:42 amDustin, we do however, have evidence of guilt. Will Armstrong dispute that evidence in his defense? And, I’m not saying he has to testify. He has 500 or so pieces of evidence to back him, which, of course, open a can of worms about testing. He ghastly chosen not to go there, right?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:42 amSo, eyewitness testimony about Armstrong’s use of PED’s is damning
Nope.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:44 amYes, Dustin, that is the procedure used by the cycling community to deal with this. So, yes, Armstrong’s refusal to answer the charge creates USADA’s legitimate response.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:44 amIt’s probative. That’s the only thing I’m claiming.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:45 amJD, is is damning if there is nothing to refute it.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:45 amArmstrong’s refusal to answer the charges is also damning
He has answered these charges repeatedly.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:45 amArmstrong’s choice not to refute it makes it damning.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:46 amLeviticus,
I think you’ll enjoy your aspiring career as a lawyer because you appear to enjoy discussing the procedural aspects of law.
At the very least, you certainly do have a lot of passion about this Lance Armstrong person.
It reminds me of my cousin when he was in medical school. After studying each chapter of his textbooks, he became convinced that Aunt Sue or Uncle Larry was dying of this ailment or that potential disease.
Fortunately, I can report that Aunt Sue and Uncle Larry are doing fine.
(Aw, I’m just razzin’ you, bro.)
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:46 amNot to this governing body he hasn’t. He did TRY TO STOP THEM IN FEDERAL COURT, an action the Federal Court refused, telling himt to follow the process. Armstrong chose not to follow the process.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:47 amYes, Dustin, that is the procedure used by the cycling community to deal with this. So, yes, Armstrong’s refusal to answer the charge creates USADA’s legitimate response
No. The ICU governs, not the USADA.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:48 amNo, JD. I haven’t seen the ICU tell anyone that the USADA can’t do what they did, so, if nothing else there is an implied power in the USADA’s actions.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:50 amI was being sarcastic. Armstrong passing the tests is strong evidence of innocence. I realize you have dismissed it, but Armstrong already passed the ‘procedure’, and then the next one and the next.
They have failed to prove Armstrong guilty.
At the same time, people who are guilty of doping are kosher cycling under USADA if they play ball with this witchhunt.
What is the purpose of USADA? It seems they are rewarding dopers and on a witchhunt without proof of guilt. Pathetic.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:52 amSo you are just ignoring all the times he refuted it, including today.
Bizarre.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:53 amR.I.P. Jerry Nelson, muppeteer and voice of The Count from Sesame Street
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:53 amBut, I do see where they may take this decision to the International Court for Sport, so, they may not have given their last word.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:53 amReff – the USADA has no authority to strip the titles. The federal prosecutors could not bring a case. This is the 6477435764th bite at the apple.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:55 amNot bizarre at all, Dustin. Not any different Ghana Federal Court trying a citizen for a crime after being found not guilty in state court. No different than the Feds trying Roger Clemons twice. If evidence comes out that Armstrong has broken the rules, the governing bodies have the power to act.
Why is that bizarre?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:56 amWow, I hope I never wind up facing a jury.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:56 amIcy,
This has been an eventful week for passings of people in the entertainment industry.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:56 amI actually dig your R.I.P. alerts…I caught the ones you wrote earlier this week for Scott McKenzie and Phyllis Diller.
Both French and American law advocate a presumption of innocence, but I’m not sure it’s the same presumption.
In France, the presumption of innocence is a shield that attaches to protect the accused before conviction. American law recognizes the presumption as a rule that the prosecution prove the accused is guilty. The French system “gradually departed from the rule of proof component by insisting that suspects establish their innocence.”
This difference was apparent in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case. Even though the USADA is American, it is influenced by international groups so we may be seeing that dichotomy here.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:58 amAnd had Lance spent more money and time on it, they would have started over again.
Giving up on a repeated witchhunt is not evidence of guilty.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:58 amreff,
Our courts follow rules, just like sporting games have rules. One of the rules is in the Constitution that you can’t try a person twice for the same offense. There are exceptions but they are very specific, such as cases where jeopardy hasn’t attached. One of Armstrong’s complaints in the federal court is that the USADA violated that rule.
The Clemens’ trials were a special exception, because his first trial ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. The courts in Ghana aren’t relevant.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:03 pmJD, I can’t find anyone saying the USADA can’t strip the titles. Congress has assigned the control over doping ian Olympic sports to them, so, they must believe they do. The Federal investigators rarely go to court unless they believe they WILL CONVICT, so, that is a gray area all the time. The ICU doesn’t want to give up their power, so, they backed Armstrong in his last attempt to stop the USADA, but the judge told Armstrong to use up his options. He declined.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:04 pmI just don’t understand how some people can sleep at night knowing that this Lance Armstrong person is enjoying his freedom.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:07 pmDRJ, having been through a family friend being found not guilty in state court, then guilty in Federal Court using the same witnesses, evidence, etc., I’m not a strong believer in the process of double jeopardy, but I do understand the concept.
I understand the Clemons point, but not how Armstrong is being put in “double jeopardy” here. Elaborate please.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:08 pmJD, I can’t find anyone saying the USADA can’t strip the titles. Congress has assigned the control over doping ian Olympic sports to them, so, they must believe they do.
Le Tour de France is not an Olympic sport.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:11 pmDRJ, the GHANA reference was a dang iPad self correcting of something I typed. It was supposed to be the word “than” but I must have typed something else (??) and not noticed. I couldn’t figure out why you put that till I looked back.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:12 pmCongress may have granted USADA jurisdiction over US Olympic sports, but that does not give them authority over Le Tour, or the ICU.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:13 pmreff #199,
The UCI released a statement that leaves open whether it will accept the USADA’s jurisdiction and/or decision.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:14 pmCycling is an “Olympic” sport for purposes of the USADA. USA Soccer, for example has not ceded their control to the USADA as Cycling in America has. NCAA/NFL football has not either, but the USADA has asked both groups to do so.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:15 pmreff,
I’ve had that happen with an iPad. Sometimes it’s really funny but usually it’s just a pain.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:15 pmI’d say that “correction” is really funny.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:16 pmI assume Armstrong believes the charges were brought and resolved before, reff. I can’t give you any details because he wasn’t able to present his evidence in court.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:18 pmI can’t even duplicate it…I’ve been trying…..
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:18 pmThere must be some enterprising attorney who would just love to delve into all of the records that would be available in discovery?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:18 pmIt just seems unbelievable that they could take such an action without being able to point to some definitive proof that the rules were broken.
Sounds like an immense amount of “guilt by association”.
As for claims made in state and federal court, the charges would have to be different even if the evidence is the same. For comparison, it would be like trying Zimmerman in state court for manslaughter regarding Trayvon Martin and in federal court for violating Martin’s civil rights. Those are considered separate charges that don’t violate the double jeopardy clause, even though the evidence would be the same.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:19 pm217. Hold up, cowboys and mavericks don’t ride posse on this here range.
Oh, the simplisme.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:29 pmThen this could be a play by the USADA to see how far their authority in the sport can reach. That I would have a problem with if the governing bodies are already doing their jobs. If,mhowever, the sports involved are truly in favor of cleaning up their sports, an outside agency might help them.
I’ve been lucky enough to be involved with track and field on every level throughi the international level, and the drugs in our sport have hurt it so severely that nearly everyone questions any success. Even Usain Bolt carries questions. I remembering 1968 that Bob Beamon’s World Record long jump, a mark 2 1/2 FEET longer than the existing record brought “murmers” in the track world for a brief time until history showed his mark to be such an outlier compared to ALL his past and future jumps. FLO JO was suspect, as wells he probably should have been when you break a record b y so much, when your history showed so little. Ben Johnson killed us, the rumors around Michael Johnson, the latest with Caster Semenya, the female 800 runner from South Africa opening that debate…..my point is ANY question on doping is bad of a sport and needs to be investigated thoroughly, even years later, or the sport has no credibility.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:30 pmIcy,
reff is arguing that blood tests, while useful, are not dispositive, and (accordingly) that they’re a wobbly peg to hang a hat on. It’s not difficult point.
Comment by Leviticus — 8/24/2012 @ 11:29 am
— Yeah, I know, it IS unreasonable to expect that someone accusing you of putting a banned substance into your body actually produces evidence that you put a banned substance into your body.
Ya know what else isn’t difficult? Allowing reff to answer for himself.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:30 pmDRJ, which is why I have little respect for that clause of our incredible Constitution. It is the complete truth of how government has so little respect for its citizens. That the exact same evidence shows one to be not guilty of a crime, then allows a different interpretation of that evidence to find you guilty because of a “feeling” about the evidence tells me NO ONE is safe from the long arm of a law written to protect “feelings.”
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:34 pmIcy, if I see you put a banned substance into your body, that is evidence of you putting a banned substance in your body, right…….
(Now, to make this post complete, I’ll talk toyou just like you do to me)
…….asshole?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:37 pm195. And the Jews that filed into the rail cars, they were innocent or guilty?.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:38 pmNow, just so you know……I answered every time to your points, respectfully and, hopefully, factually, without disrespect.
Please stop being a dick, and either shut up, or, put a valid point without the snark…..
……asshole!
(ok, I’ll stop with the snark now…..)
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:39 pm229. GFY reff, cretin.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:39 pmOh, and I did that because you hammer the snark every time, either to me or to someone who is just trying to debate the point with you…..thanks for listening and responding….
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:42 pmWell, if I do not see you put a banned substance into your body, and I lie about it because of the coercion the USADA appears to be placing on dopers, that is evidence of you putting a banned substance in your body, right?
It’s just very, very weak evidence. The words of dopers… they don’t carry much weight. No wonder they have had to repeatedly try to prove these charges, instead of actually doing so.
We need to accept that this case is unproven, and therefore Lance shouldn’t be treated as guilty by the USADA.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:43 pmGee, gary, what a pleasant reply. I’ll have to use it back at you one day, especially when ou’ve been really snarky at me….
But, not this time. I’ll show you much more than you show me in the line of simple respect.
Thank you for your reply.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:45 pmIf they strip the titles, who gets them? Most (all?) of those in the competition are admitted cheats, and the those not will rapidly be accused. Do we have seven years of ” ” as the winner? Or seven years of (Armstrong, removed for refusing to defend himself again.)?
htom (412a17) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:48 pmDustin, I do not disagree with your premise. Judicial action, whether or not in our courts or in cases like this, rely on the word of criminals, felons, double-crossers, and the like. It is a part of the system that you seem to dislike. But, it is a part. Do you want to see it go away, or, can we use it? Armstrong could have chosen to go in and dispute this, and didn’t. So, the governing body involved acted on what they had.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:49 pmOh, and now that I have argued the ripples in place so hard….
I would vote Armstrong not guilty IF he could show dispute to the USADA.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:50 pmBoy….ripples???
Rules…..
Armstrong chose to give up his right to defend himself in this case. Yes, he is tired, and, yes, he believes in his innocence. He must fight….whether we like it or not….
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:52 pmDustin,
You’re discounting all of Leviticus’ knowledge accrued from his one year at *** Schoo of Law.
Despite zero evidence provided, Lance Armstrong is…guilty !
(Ha, ha, ha.)
[NOTE: Edited to remove name.]
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:52 pm#240, obviously, I meant to write “School.”
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:52 pm234. Dustin gets to the crux, there is no limit, no point at which the USADA is accountable in taking this case beyond reason.
The very idea that the sport must be protected over and above the greatest individual within the sport is ludicrous.
Next we’ll be giving ribbons for participation, winning is but a conviction.
Get lost reff.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:54 pmElephant Stone,..”no” evidence???
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:55 pmComment by reff — 8/24/2012 @ 12:34 pm
The evidence “showed” the same at both trials, it was just the juries that came to different conclusions.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:55 pmPerhaps the evidence was presented better to the jury that found the defendant guilty, than to the one who found him not-guilty. Or, maybe they just didn’t like the prosecutor for whatever reason.
reff,
Armstrong has been fighting these allegations for years.
When does it end ?
Why must he spend his life defending himself against unsubstantiated allegations ?
The burden to prove his innocence is not upon him.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:56 pmPeople on here bein’ unusually pissy toward each other today. Why?
elissa (9ac10f) — 8/24/2012 @ 12:59 pmThat is a difficult question. I want to be certain that if someone does lie, the stakes for them are high.
I don’t think they are high enough in this case, and I’ve seen examples where they aren’t high enough in Maryland’s system either.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:00 pmThis thread moves so fast it’s hard to keep up.
I didn’t know there were Cherokees in Ghana who road bicycles.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:00 pmgary, the individual is greater–bigger–than the sport? “The very idea that the sport must be protected over and above the greatest individual within the sport is ludicrous.”.
Yes, that is exactly what should happen. The rules are bigger and more important than the individual.
Do you really believe that Armstrong should be bigger-greater, more important-than the sport he competes in?
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:02 pmJD – I love you. But, if multiple members of his own team were willing to testify under oath that he was receiving injections from a known “bad actor,” it would be damning.
The only real attack that could be made is upon the character of them all. He would have to show that a dude known to give doping shots was, for Lance, shooting benign/legal substances.
Ed from SFV (81526c) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:03 pmDon’t know the whole story but the USADA was definitely witch hunting. Nobody can actually take the titles. Maybe on paper, But the titleswill always be his.
pctv (5833a4) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:03 pmreff,
That’s right…no evidence.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:07 pm249. You miss the point because you cannot answer it: Destroying the winner, regardless of the Truth, to save the sport is absurd.
QED, Sport is toast. And Ruling Bodies are more responsible than Biochemical engineers.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:08 pmFWIW, local radio quoted some local pro-cycling big-whig who is in charge of the Philly bike race (once called Core States) as saying essentially “it was about time Armstrong fessed up and came clean” for the good of the sport and young riders. So much for people believing he was simply tired of fighting.
JD or others may wish to comment, but my understanding is that the use of PED does not make anything “easier”, FWIW. Yes, it may be illegal, but the person is still training their butt off.
I always thought it a bit unfair that an asthmatic might be prevented from top competition because of medication, etc., but I understand it is hard to draw a line.
I guess it is happening academically too, though there are no “rules”, with people using prescription amphetamines, Ritalin, modafinil, and other drugs to heighten alertness and mental productivity.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:09 pm@reff #249
I submit that the USADA has made him so. In their attempt to destroy him, they have destroyed sport and their own reputation; and he should be commended for showing that they have done so.
htom (412a17) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:17 pm“Get lost reff.”
– gary gulrud
Hey. reff is awesome, man – and old school. Don’t be a jerk.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:17 pmElephant Stone, he can chose to ignore the charges, right?
I don’t know that it can, or should, end, at least until we can get to a point where everyone is on some type of “level” playing field.
An example: testosterone levels in normal people fall in a certain range. Don’t know the medical numbers, but, average people are just that, average. Those people with genetic differences fall in other ranges. If an athlete chooses to compete, they get tested at some point, and their testosterone must fall into a range. Know what? International track athletes can fall into a range 4-FOUR-times a “normal” human, because that is the level set by the governing body. You or I probably don’t fall “naturally” at a level 4x greater than “normal” so that would mean we could take teatosterone in addition up to that level. That means, for example, that Usain Bolt’s t-level could be 4x higher than Marvin Bracy of Orlando, the fastest high schooler in the USA this year, who ran 10.19. Bolt would beat him by 20 meters head up on best times, remembering that Bracy is running at a level that puts him in the top 100 IN THE WORLD. I don’t know if Bracy has been tested, or, if he has, if he is now taking additional testosterone to improve his level up to the “ACCEPTABLE” level. But, say he has not, and now starts to add this t-level. He becomes no longer “normal” but moves up to the new “normal” for athletes.
How does that ever become a “level” competition?? The rules allow for “legal cheating” (for lack of a better term) so, athletes push the envelope hoping for the payoff, and to not get caught.
I don’t know if Armstrong cheated, and I’ve saidi would vote him not guilty, but, I’d rather have the rules hammer him than find out later he cheated. It is the sport he chose, the USADA has some authority, a Federal Court failed to give him relief, telling him to go to back to the USADA, and he chose not to.
He loses this race, as it should be.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:20 pmSo, eyewitness testimony about Armstrong’s use of PED’s is damning, but not guaranteed to get a conviction. Armstrong’s refusal to answer the charges is also damning, but, not, in itself, a conviction either.
Comment by reff — 8/24/2012 @ 11:39 am
— Since WHEN has he ‘refused’ to “answer the charges”? That’s all that he’s been doing!
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:21 pmElephant Stone, eyewitness testimony is evidence.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:21 pmWhich people seem desperate to ignore, strangely enough.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:23 pmIcy, he just said he will not respond to these charges by the USADA. He refused to enter the arbitration process, ending his rights under those guidelines.
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:23 pmA: How do you know he killed him?
B: Because there were ten eyewitnesses!
A: But there’s no DNA evidence!!
B: But… there were ten eyewitnesses?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:24 pmTen eyewitnesses promised that they wouldn’t be prosecuted if they so testified.
htom (412a17) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:30 pmJD – I love you. But, if multiple members of his own team were willing to testify under oath that he was receiving injections from a known “bad actor,” it would be damning.
If those teammates had noble intentions and a desire for truth-telling, their testimony would not be a result of significantly reduced penalties for their actual bad actions.
MD- awesome question. They ban a bunch of silly stuff in an effort to catch everything. In my experience, the PEDs give the edge off the field, in training, ie increased red blood cell flow, reduced recovery time, increased time to reach lactic acid build up, etc … which can ultimately lead to increased performance. Getting a shot of steroids in your butt, by itself, will not make you faster or stronger. It will just hurt.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:31 pmA: But all those other people are proven murderers who were given deals to say that he was a murderer.
B: But it’s still evidence.
A: But there’s no physical evidence, and it’s been tried in the courts before.
B: But those other trials don’t count, we want him to answer to this government body.
A: But this government body is ignoring the American system of rules and is relying on shady tactics like coercing testimonies of proven murderers. It’s causing him to have to prove himself innocent over and over and over and over and he’s ground down and tired of it all. He doesn’t have to do this forever.
B: That he has chosen not to do this forever proves that he just doesn’t want the facts examined. He must be guilty.
Ad infinitum.
bonhomme (e75b3f) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:34 pmAd nauseum.
The story of Lance is more than PEDs. Insane VO2 capacity. Mental toughness beyond compare. Crazy work ethic. Physiology. Genetics. Hard work.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:34 pm“Ten eyewitnesses promised that they wouldn’t be prosecuted if they so testified.”
– htom
Again: does this not happen all the time?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:36 pmMr. reff, making my points with sarcasm — usually in the form of questions, which I actually would like for you to answer — is WHAT I DO. If you don’t want to read it, then don’t.
And when you’re thinking about how much of a jerk I am, just remember that I did not call you “dick” or “asshole”; it was the other way around.
Icy (3615bd) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:36 pmI recall that when Secretariat died the autopsy revealed a heart much larger than normal. There was a reason the horse had incredible stamina.
Maybe Armstrong has some physical abilities out of the norm, which would just be luck, combined with all it takes to train and be a champion, which is a lot of determination and hard work.
Don’t know.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:42 pmMD – google his physiological testing results. VO2 capacity off the charts. I even read one time that, like Wiggins, his veins were such that they were laid out in a more uniform manner, allowing for more rapid and consistent recovery times.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:47 pmThis entire thing is a pathetic witch hunt. They were unable to prove it for over 2 years. Dude is already retired, he’s proved himself 7 damn times, not to mention all the blood and piss tests he had to pass to ride in the first place, and since they can’t prove it, and he says “I’m done with this BS,” he must be guilty?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:51 pmGee Icy, if you don’t like the criticism of your snark, don’t post…
See how easy that was to fix your problem???
And, without my very unusual snarky words in the reply…
If you attack the person, expect return fire,,,,don’t like the return fire, don’t read it….
Of course, if you don’t like being called a dick or an asshole, don’t act like one….I posted 5-6 times in response to you, and others, and you just kept calling me out….why? It can’t be because you were acting like a dick or an asshole, right?
Or, is being snarky another way of acting like a dick or an asshole?
It is why I stopped before…..and maybe it is why you still want to be snarky…..(if you don’t want to read it don’t??? How do I not read something snarky AFTER I READ IT???…you were responding to and about me….)
But, I digress…..
With apologies to DRJ for being too snarky here…..
reff (de5acf) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:52 pmreff,
I only want a person “busted” if the evidence is there. Theoreticals are for liberals and law school.
The alleged “eyewitnesses” are largely a bunch of guys who;
1) in the past, made contradictory claims
2) have themselves been busted in the past
3) are probably receiving some “incentives” to make these allegations years after the fact
Additionally, this Lance Armstrong person has a documented history of being a freak of nature, dating all the way back to his high school years when he kicked the tails of much older, stronger, experienced triathletes.
Also, if there are alleged eyewitnesses who assert that Armstrong used such-and-such PED on such-and-such day, then how come the Armstrong lab tests administered on that particular day don’t support that ?
Is someone claims to have seen person X shoplifting, then the store security officer should reasonably be expected to find contraband on that person a minute later. But if that person is apprehended by security yet doesn’t have the contraband on their person, how do you weigh the “eyewitness” account in relation to the “lack of evidence” ?
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:56 pmFWIW, I favor the use of PEDs in sports.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 1:58 pm256. Old school knows it when it sees it.
What, may I ask, is your excuse for being a jerk?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:00 pmI still don’t get how USADA can strip someone of titles that they did not award, and do not have jurisdiction over.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:01 pm265. Norway just gave Brevik 100 days per school kid dead, less for good behavior.
Yes, this Lance A. really has not paid enough, for being hated.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:03 pmJD,
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:05 pmBecause they’re with the government, and they’re here to help.
Gary Gulrud,
He’s in law school. His profs tell him and his classmates that they’re the best and brightest, yada, yada, yada—and he believes it.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:10 pm272. And stay lost.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:11 pmJD – of themselves, USADA does not have any power. There are, however, agreements in place that anyone deemed a cheater by USADA is banned from pretty much any major athletic unions/contests.
Ed from SFV (81526c) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:23 pm“I’m gonna retire. I’m done with riding my bike.”
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:33 pm“You can’t retire, because we’re banning you! For life! No backsies! Nyah Nyah Nyah!”
Group hug time!
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:45 pmCycling has utterly discredited itself for me over the last decade, and this weird vendetta against Armstrong is only a part of it.
I used to be a huge fan and I’ve quit watching it entirely.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:50 pmSPQR
This isnt cycling its the anti doping agency – they also had according to the “five” at fox news 9 former teamates and coaches, several doctors and Lance who has been delaying it – is responsible for it taking so long
I mean, I dont think that he was the only person targeted – the person who came in second to him 5 times and three other times was stripped of his record 8 second places and was a german.
Apparently there is widepsread cheating in these distance cycling events has been for decades.
But anyone who says nevermind when he has to actually go to the hearing after delaying for seven years
come on now…
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 2:54 pmgary @ 253: that’s not what you said the first time. When you put the “truth” into #253, you make a different point.
Now, first, who’s truth? Armstrong’s? The USADA’s? The eye witnesses’? The USADA has presented theirs. Armstrong chose not to respond.
Second, everyone wants the truth, real and unvarnished, in this case. Armstrong will attempt to hide behind his now, and will probably succeed, to a point. NIKE has said they will stand with him, as they did with Tiger, and that is a business decision. But, after that, who will stand with him? I think if he had chosen to fight, and went public with that fight, he may well have garnered enough public support financially to have won. That would have been tough, but his reputation as a fighter probably would have carried him. He didn’t, which leaves open the speculation that he knows he would have lost.
Which, in effect, brands him now…..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:00 pm“What, may I ask, is your excuse for being a jerk?”
– gary gulrud
How have I been a jerk? I feel like I’ve been pretty polite over the course of this thread…
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:06 pmSome of y’all would make good ironic roommates on a 1990s sitcom.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:07 pmI also have no problem with people taking drugs and such under the care of a doctor. You only get to live once so good on you if you have the drive to be the bestest little pikachu you possibly can.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:11 pmI’ve never understood why any government body (including Congress) is even interested in what drugs athletes take. I never understood on what basis Congress held those hearings, and therefore didn’t give a crap about whether anyone had lied at them. What measures an athlete takes to get into condition is entirely between him and the governing body of the competition he hopes to win, and if they choose ot allow a drug, or to turn a blind eye to it, or just don’t care enough to do a competent investigation, or even accept bribes to ignore someone’s violation of the rules, is none of anybody else’s business.
Milhouse (8acf6a) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:11 pm273/Elephant Stone….would that it would be that easy….case after case, in criminal and civil law, and in arbitration, which is what this one is, are decided by bad witnesses. I agree with your description of the witnesses in this case, and yet you dismiss their “facts” because you don’t like their “image.” Unfortunately, the sport itself has that image, so nearly all in it come to us tarnished. Even Armstrong is tarnished, as noted in the link above. So, we will decide out beliefs on the tarnish we are given. I fall on the side of the rules set down by those in charge here, even if I don’t like Congress messing around with sport. The USADA investigated; Armstrong declined to reply. Rules say Armstrong loses. “Bounty-Gate” with the Saints in the NFL are about the same thing, especially with Jonathan Vilma. Problem is, that the Saints players refused to respond to the league’s charge, then want to complain to the courts that the league is unfair. NFL players, like Armstrong, want it both ways: you shouldn’t be able to charge me, cause I say you don’t have proof, and I’ve already answered the charge, but, if you charge me, I won’t respond and you shouldn’t punish me.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:12 pmEPWJ, your misrepresentation of Armstrong’s position on the USADA proceedings is of a kind of your many misrepresentations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:14 pmBut anyone who says nevermind when he has to actually go to the hearing after delaying for seven years
Lie. He did not delay this 7 years.
Doesn’t brand him poorly to me, reff.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:16 pmAlso, Elephant Stone, on your hypothetical: this isn’t a minute late, but years. The witnesses are themselves shoplifters, and everyone involved has used up what they stole. The policeman in this case, the drug tester, was blind to the theft, so he couldn’t see it at the time.
Drug testing is still behind the curve in sport…..and will be for a long time….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:17 pmJD, I don’t understand….what are you referring to here?
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:18 pmReff – how many times do you think is sufficient to defend onself? How many years should he do so? How many years after he retires should he continue to do so?
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:19 pmOh, JD, you were referring to EPWJ….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:20 pmLeviticus:
I think it depends on whether this is considered a criminal proceeding or an administrative proceeding. I haven’t seen civil cases or arbitrations where the governing body pressured competitors/coworkers to implicate someone, with the promise that they could keep their jobs or positions if they did so. The only exception might be the SEC, but that was in criminal enforcement matters.
As for Armstrong, I assume this is a civil, administrative or licensing matter instead of a criminal matter. I don’t think there’s any criminal sanction that could be levied against Armstrong here, other than a Marion Jones-like perjury charge if he lied in a legal proceeding. I haven’t seen any USADA claim like that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:20 pmWhich, in effect, brands him now…..
Reff – responding to that.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:21 pmJD, I don’t have a good answer to that one., which is probably why if I were on a jury here, Armstrong is not guilty. However, someone or some group in this sport/governing system has decided that Armstrong can be confronted now with “new” evidence of “old” charges. But, as I said, the sport/governing body/Congress has said that it can be done, and a Federal Court has “agreed” by telling Armstrong to exhaust his arbitration appeal first. Since this is “new” evidence he can do exactly what he has done: try to get it quashed, or walk away.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:25 pmIt brands him, JD….a good man who overcame, or a cheater….but, it does brand him this way: as a man who chose not to respond to the accusations when he could, BUT, claims his innocence…..
As I said earlier, I think he could have gone public relations on this and gotten support enough to keep fighting, and if he is right, won.
That it appears he just wants to go home now without a response says something bad to me….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:29 pmAs I said earlier, I think he could have gone public relations on this and gotten support enough to keep fighting, and if he is right, won.
He has been doing this for years.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:31 pmreff,
I appreciate the discussion and I agree with you that, fair or not, Armstrong’s remedy is to continue fighting. But I also understand why he might choose not to, even if he’s innocent, especially if he feels the review process is rigged or unfair.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:32 pmSpecifically, I understand Armstrong’s decision if he decided it’s better to let the USADA take the equivalent of a default judgment, rather than appear and participate in what he reasonably believes will be a proceeding that violates his due process rights.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:36 pmI suspect that Armstrong thinks it does not matter; they’ve declared him guilty, in the face of all of the previous attempts that failed, and want him to participate in a show trial with that conclusion. He tried to stop the show trial, and failed. Now, he’s got the balls — or whatever he uses for them these days — to say “No, thank you” and walk away.
htom (412a17) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:50 pmThere is no “upside” to Armstrong participating. He thinks the trial is not fair – whether you agree with him or not – and there is no benefit to him if he “wins”. Because the accusations won’t stop if he wins.
There is no reason to show up at a farce that has no benefit to him should he prevail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:55 pmhe should wrap all their houses and fork their lawns I think and then run away real fast to where they can’t know for sure who did it
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/24/2012 @ 3:56 pmEyewitnesses testified (or is that testilied) that Lance received injections(?) from a “Dr. Feelgood”.
Do these witnesses have first hand knowledge of what was being injected?
Has any substance that Lance was injected with ever been tested.
How comprehensive are the “tox-screens” used by the anti-doping agencies/labs in checking pre/during/post-race samples.
It seems there are two possibilities:
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92) — 8/24/2012 @ 4:15 pm1- Lance Armstrong cheated, and had the benefit of some very sophisticated masking-agents to “beat-the-test”; or,
2- He is a superb physical specimen and this has all been a vicious witch-hunt by a small cadre of really pissed-off people who are just jealous of success that they cannot duplicate, or enjoy.
SPQR
In other words – you have no argument… again…
Armstrong signed papers, binding him to the jurisdiction of the USADA.
Fox news confirmed that his lawyers and the lawyers for the charity asked him to answer the charges and to quit stalling.
Remember, Lance has the blood samples, a sample is always given to the athlete.
Notice he didnt submit any of his samples to clear himself
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 4:23 pmGreat point, SPQR. Lance already shows what happens when you win one of these. They start over again.
They haven’t proven his guilt, yet are acting like they have. That’s a big step towards proving their lack of fairness.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/24/2012 @ 4:29 pmI like Lance Armstrong he’s from Texas just like me and also he passed all his drug tests just like me plus also we both like the color yellow
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 8/24/2012 @ 4:38 pmMan, this is like being accused of a decades worth of not paying taxes. It doesn’t matter how many times they test him, how many cases he wins, OR HOW MANY YEARS HE’S BEEN RETIRED, it doesn’t matter. He’s been accused. He must prove he is innocent.
It’s the Harry Reid way.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 4:58 pmArmstrong signed papers, binding him to the jurisdiction of the USADA
Link please
Fox news confirmed that his lawyers and the lawyers for the charity asked him to answer the charges and to quit stalling.
Prove he was stalling
Remember, Lance has the blood samples, a sample is always given to the athlete.
Complete fiction
Notice he didnt submit any of his samples to clear himself
He has been cleared by the 500+ clean tests he has passed.
JD (318f81) — 8/24/2012 @ 5:00 pmNot a big fan of the 5th amendment, eh, chief?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 5:03 pmUSASA stripped him of titles in 1998, 1999 & 2000, titles that they still have no jurisdiction over, and 3 years prior to being granted jurisdiction over our Olympic and Pan Am Games athletes, of which Le Tour de France is not included.
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 5:57 pmNike is standing by Armstrong.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:02 pmEPWJ, between your lack of reading comprehension and your many misrepresentations … well, I got bored with zero credibility concern trolls long ago. And you specifically long ago.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:10 pmi stand with Nike and also Mr. Armstrong but not Todd Akin
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:13 pmGhost, his 5th Amendment rights have not been violated, and he can choose not to participate in the arbitration….
And, he is still a name, which means people will have an opinion, my guess of whom a majority will eventually not like his choice to walk away from his own chance for redemption.
SPQR, I disagree. This would be the one fight that could end it all, since, if he won this one, he would not only have his drug test results (which ARE tainted by the history of testing being so far behind the usage-needing to be overcome) but then have his direct peer group silenced, which in my view ends the direct questioning of his word.
JD, if Armstrong has his samples, he has the winning hand…..
If he is innocent….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:14 pmJD, also, the USADA has jurisdiction over certain “Olympic” sports as determined by the governing body, of which Cycling has granted oversight in the USA.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:16 pmDrug testing governing rights..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:16 pmJD, my apologies……I mistook a post by EPWJ for one of yours…..I sincerely apologize…..please forgive me…..I beg pardon…..on blended knee…..(pleads with tears in his eyes)….
Hope that was enough…..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:19 pmJD, if Armstrong has his samples, he has the winning hand…..
There is nothing to suggest that he does. Hairy Reed levels of nothing.
Reff – did you miss my point that they punished him for an allegation made 14 years later, and for events that occurred prior to their tenditious little org being granted its jurisdiction by Congress?
When did USA Cycling cede this control to them?
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:24 pmI now officially loathe reff.
GEAUX HONEY BADGER. !!!
JD (9fce91) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:31 pmJeremy did not break up with Candace; Karl is a good guy again; Perry’s secret identity is still secret.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:33 pmI am an Aussie and not completely au fey with the US system, but from what I can see is that Armstrong may be utilising the system so that he can take USADA to a civil court to settle this. By making no submission he is not providing them with his defence to the claims. Thus he has not actively participated in the closed system that USADA has chosen as its prosecutorial process. That they chose to use some many tainted witnesses may work in Tygarts star chamber, but would it actually be defensible in a court of law.
As a far off observer, I would think that Armstrong stood a better chance to fight the decision legally rather than through what he sees as a biased process. To fight it, he would need the decision to be made rather than challenge the process (that is different to the lawsuit that was dismissed). He has his drug test results, they have testimony from witnesses under either duress or of questionable motive and stature. He would be able to prove process and support his position, whilst USADA would have to provide support for theirs. I would think that this would end up as a slam dunk win for Armstrong and enable this to be finished once and for all.
It would be interesting to see if that was his actual tactic.
Angry God (2416de) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:34 pmreff, your attempt to paint a benefit to Armstrong in a verdict in his favor was simply laughable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 6:40 pmreff,
I think you misunderstood my analogy to shoplifting.
These guys Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are known cheaters and liars. They now say that Lance “cheated” during such and such race. Well, the lab work does not support that. If they say he cheated during such and such race, then the lab work for such and such race damn well better corroborate that allegation—but it doesn’t.
It’s like shoplifting when someone reports that guy over there stuffed some things down his pants, and then the security officer checks him a minute later and he doesn’t have any stolen goods down his pants—the allegation and the “lab result” do not coincide.
That’s my point about Lance.
The allegation does not coincide with the “lab result.”
It’s really unfair to Lance that there’s some open-ended statute of limitations on accusing him of doping during races that occurred a decade ago.
The man should not be expected to spend the rest of his life contesting unsubstantiated allegations for the rest of his life.
We keep hearing about all this alleged damning evidence against Lance, but it never pans out. This is the United States of America, and it is not incumbent upon someone to prove their innocence. Rather, it is incumbent upon the “prosecution” to prove the person’s “guilt.”
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:08 pmLance Armstrong could not possibly be a real birth name. With Ferrari as a girfriend? No way.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:11 pmnk,
Actually, his birth name is Lance Gunderson.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:13 pmThanks, Elephant Stone.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:16 pmSPQR, at least I pointed out benefits. If it was such a farce why would Armstrong do anything but just ignore it? Instead, he spent thouusands in Federal Court to complain that his rights were being violated by something that hadn’t happened yet. I think you missed that somewhere.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:31 pmreff, your “benefits” were nonsensical. I didn’t miss that he tried to get the “adjudication” stopped, and I even noted that the federal judge criticized the “adjudication” but declined to stop it based on vague assurances from USADA that were a joke too.
You see, I actually follow the sport.
But you still can’t actually describe any concrete benefit to Armstrong in participating in what is plainly a farce – the USADA has no authority over the races in question. An exoneration by them would be meaningless, just as their “adjudication” is meaningless.
I can easily see myself advising Armstrong similarly not to participate in a meaningless “adjudication” by a tribunal with no actual jurisdiction, with a vague charging document and farcical rules.
And you give us some sort of nonsense about “silencing” his peer group if he won? That’s the most clueless thing I could imagine you’d try to come up with.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:41 pmThe fairness of this to me is not revelant. If he cheated, he cheated. Testing is not foolproof, as shown by even better, more stringent testing in track and field that doesn’t catch people eithe. The rules about “increased levels” of improper substances simply allows for skirting of the rules, so, if evidence comes up years later, it should be pursued. My point about the blindness of the testing procedures is what you fail to see. If a test can’t find the drug, in today’s system that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. The masking agents, cycling the usage, the joke of “increased levels” all lead to failed processes. Think about the first thing you hear today when someone fails a test: “I used a produce that was tainted, or failed to identify the ingredients.”. These are people who know exactly what they put into and on their bodies, and their sport committees will run every test to protect them, yet, for some reason they still manage to have “increased levels” of something or other that 99.9% of the rest of us would never have.
And, as I said previously, the systemis full of bad eggs, all of whom are doing something, legal or illegal, to push the envelope. When they get caught, they eat their own.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:43 pmI find this whole Lance Armstrong thing strange. It seems to be a circumstance that if someone is successful, he must be destroyed. I know there are a whole lot of people invested in his destruction. They may have a case, but his denials and medical tests seem to prove otherwise.
Through either science or nurture, a new class of athletes has been created. Men and women today can accomplish achievements that would stun people who only lived a decade or two ago.
Regardless, the real question is what do you or society do about it if the case is science?
Should the government intervene to create a level playing field? If not, what policing method is the best?
Should people ignore the astounding accomplishments of athletes whether or not they could have been the result of doping? If society decides the field should be leveled, what is the mechanism?
I love sports and I love science. I want my team to win. I want science to be correct.
But we now live in a world where every accomplishment is questioned. What is the solution? I don’t know.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:44 pmRight now, the only apparent evidence against Armstrong is the word of 6-8-10 people who sat next to him daily for years, stating they did it, watched and helped him to do it-cheat. Is it enough? I don’t know, and we won’t find out now. I have said I would, based upon what I know now, vote not guilty. I also know, from the relative inside in track and field, that it occurs a lot more than we want to think it does. I know from the suspensions in cycling that, for the most part, nearly everyone “EXCEPT” Armstrong cheated, and he beat them all for years. Ugly circumstantial evidence, yes. I know that he could have fought it, was told by a Federal Judge to do that, and didn’t. I know that testing is nearly always behind the times in catching cheaters. Innuendo is not evidenc
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:51 pmInnuendo is not evidence; failure to defend yourself is not a conviction. But, when every basic truth lineup against you, quitting is not a not guilty call, either.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:52 pmInnuendo is not evidence, I agree. But apparently it is the way the new world works.
Personally I despise our new world of innuendo.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/24/2012 @ 7:59 pmJeremy did not break up with Candace; Karl is a good guy again; Perry’s secret identity is still secret.
Comment by nk — 8/24/2012 @ 6:33 pm
Seeing as how we weren’t invited to watch Phineas and Ferb with anybody, my daughter put on her recently purchased DVD of The Hunger Games.
I am mentioning this off topic here as there is no Friday sock-puppet addition and I feel compelled to express my angst, not at the movie itself, but in the special extras in an interview with Donald Sutherland he has to talk about how the fascist Bush regime makes the message of The Hunger Games timely and important…
The idea has been discussed that culture is more important than politics. IMO, the dystopian society of The Hunger Games is not the creation of President Snow as much as it is the creation of the Capital populace, the people enamored and possessed by appearance and luxury and being entertained- this is the Hollywood and media culture “on steroids” (a reference to the original topic). The main political idea is that of the totalitarian state where the elite know what is best for everybody else, and that is a big-government liberal trait more than conservative.
Thank you. You may now return to your regularly scheduled comments.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:04 pmI have to give an amen to MD. What is more important? Politics or culture. The left has emphatically provided their answer.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:10 pm336. Ignoring a rebuttal and restating a position already disposed of is not a discussion.
Landis and Hincapie we know, the latter a domestique for most of his career, both tested positive at one time or another. How come it makes any sense whatever to believe the most scrutinized athlete in sport could pass repeatedly w/o fail and only those who were caught bring evidence after the fact with guaranteed immunity?
You have no rebuttal, only hypothetical slanders thrown against the wall.
You are not believable, not even your supposed expertise, mere biochemical fabulism. Blood doping is all that is remotely credible.
Leviticus is a jerk for defending you.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:11 pmAnd now I have to wait until this years Phineas and Ferb is on Netflix.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:15 pmIt doesn’t make sense, when you put it that way, MD,
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:17 pmand Sutherland, who goes back with Fonda, and the Black Panthers, has a fine sense of projection.
I did not ignore a rebuttal, and I challenge you to show I did.
I have never said that the accusers were anything but bad themselves. Same thing happens in all levels of law and arbitration, all the time. Second or third time I said that.
I have said that I would vote not guilty, so, I’m even arguing against my interests, which doesn’t stand for much.
As for your “most scrutinized athlete,” thank you for reminding us he cheated in blood doping. So much for his total and unequivalent innocence in the cycling world.
I however will it tell you to GFY….you might try to look into your own hypocrisy here since you admit he cheated…..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:19 pmActually I must now apologize, since my last line was supposed to say that I will NOT tell you to GFY….I truly hate it when I can’t type.
Again, my apology for what I typed, and for the implication that will be taken from it. I was wrong for not making sure it did not curse or insult you.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:21 pmi type the darnedest things sometimes Mr. reff I blame the public schools
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:23 pm344. I’ll tell you what set me off, fraud:
Implying that calling a regular an “asshole” was mere snark, amply deserved.
Your spineless throw down claiming injury was unworthy of this forum.
The trolls who afflict us have more balls.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:24 pmLEAVE LANCE ARMSTRONG ALONE
just leave him alone
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:25 pmIt doesn’t make sense, when you put it that way, MD,
and Sutherland, who goes back with Fonda, and the Black Panthers, has a fine sense of projection.
Comment by narciso — 8/24/2012 @ 8:17 pm
Speaking of not making sense…I don’t know if you mean I am not making sense or what Sutherland was saying wasn’t making sense.
I guess if they are in the movies, being good at “projection” should be expected.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:28 pmhttp://www.irishsportscouncil.ie/Anti-Doping/Testing/What_happens_in_a_drug_test_Blood_/
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:34 pmAnd what is it that you’ve contributed to this discussion besides calling me names?
Damn, I think you’ve hurt my feelings…..or my balls….not really sure which since you seem to be playing with both….
Well, I’m so very sorry I hurt the feelings of your very good friend Icy, and, in so doing, your feelings. I will try so very hard to meet your very demanding standards of both knowledge and respect in the future.
In the meantime I thank our host for allowing this great discussion to take place in spite of my most grievous faults.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:36 pmWell at any time, did he test positive, or did some people who did, just make the accusation,
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:38 pmWe’re falling behind.
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:50 pmThe WSJ has 876 comments.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577608112651269078.html?mod=djemTMB_h#articleTabs%3Dcomments
He splits from Sheryl Crow, and now this….
Can’t we all just get along?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 8/24/2012 @ 8:52 pmOn another Congressionally created fustercluck.
The SEC tried to quietly move forward a plan to put Americans moneymarket investements in the deep freeze-to be liquidated on owners request when it fit the Fed’s schedule.
Board Member Luis Aguilar pulled the plug, saying they hadn’t even studied the effects of their 2010 changes to moneymarket rules.
Could it be this outfit is even more incompetent than the SEC?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:02 pmIn today’s world, repetition counts more than truth.
Nevelo (e3665f) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:03 pmThat’s not what I’m talking about, captain. I’m talking about you conflating guilt with silence. We don’t have a 5th amendment for guilty people to get off scot free, we have it to protect ourselves from an overzealous government.
We’re also supposed to have protection from double jeopardy, but I suppose when there’s no physical evidence, and are only relying on bought testimony, screw the rules, right?
Prove he was doping. They can’t. If they could have, they would have. It doesn’t matter one iota what you think about his guilt or innocence, you can’t prove it.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 9:33 pmUSATF drug testing policy puts the onus on the athlete. This policy is established from WADA, the parent group of the USADA. The best example of his guilt is found in their basic dripping testing policy, which says if you don’t answer the charge, or, in a more extreme example, don’t show up immediately for an unschedule test, you are guilty of the charge, or fail the test (the same thing). So, since Armstrong failed to answer the charge in arbitration, heirs guilty of the charge. Draconian, yes. Puts the onus on the athlete, yes. Guilty until proven innocent, yes. Rules they play under, yes. His silence tells the governing agency he is guilty by the rules he-Armstrong-plays under. So, under the rules as they exist, I just proved he is guilty.
I said earlier I think he should have kept fighting. I think public opinion would have helped him, birth in the media and financially. I respect his choice to stop, and I accept his explanation. I also know because of the rules exactly what his decision NOT to go to arbitration means as related to his doping-drug charges. He is guilty.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:12 pmThe WADA, World Anti-Doping Agency sets the rules. In this link you can see what they set up, and this is the model that the USADA follows.
You will find this very restrictive, because they are trying to stop the drugs for destroying the sport. I don’t like it, but, every athlete knows the rules.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:19 pmGhost, the 5th Amendment is an American right and privilege, one you can be put in a position to have to chose to give up if you want to do some other things in a world-wide act. Same thing as double jeopardy. DRJ earlier showed me how double jeopardy may not apply here.
This situation is not a legal one for Armstrong, although up he tried to make it one. The Federal Court sent him back to the USADA and their arbitration system. As I said above, Armstrong chose not to participate in that system, for his reasons. There is a price then to pay.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 10:26 pmEnough, please. This guy literally (literally) busted his balls to get where he is and he deserves better. The hollow-chested f**s and post-menopausal c***s at USADA need to be told where to go.
nk (875f57) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:01 pmReff,
Try to understand: you say that refusing to cooperate with authorities makes one look guilty. Based on that, I say, you must not be a fan of the 5th amendment.
It’s not about whether or not it applies here, it’s about your automatic assumption of guilt based one not participating in one’s own witch hunt.
And because PROOF should be needed, in any case.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:06 pmI don’t think I’ve said that, but I have said that these are the rules. Your problem is with the rules, not me. The 5th Amendment doesn’t apply here. I don’t have a problem with that, and apparently, neither did a Federal Judge. It is not my assumption, but it is the rules. The proof is in the eye witness statements that Armstrong chose not to dispute in arbitration. Please don’t blame me for that decision.
nk….do I sense a bit of hypocrisy from you compared to last weeks discussion???
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:31 pmNow, if this were an American legal system criminal law case, hthe 5th Amendment would easily apply, and Armstrong would sit at the Defense table, confident that his lawyers would tear apart the prosecution witnesses.
I would vote not guilty.
This, however, is a part of an agreement that Congress made with the WADA to put Cycling drug/doping disputes and investigations onto the hands of people and organizations that come from a legal background of “guilty until you prove your innocence.” I am not the one who says the silence is as much as an admission of guilt. The rules that Armstrong is dealing with does that.
It’s not my assumption. Please stop trying to state or imply that. Read the USATF of WADA guidelines…..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:40 pmnone of this has anything to do with “justice” really now does it
it’s all so very american I could puke
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/24/2012 @ 11:41 pm“Implying that calling a regular an “asshole” was mere snark, amply deserved.”
– gary gulrud
Don’t play that game, brah – reff’s been here forever. Icy is a regular; reff’s a Hall of Famer.
And, on that note, and I’m totally complicit: this is getting f*cking stupid.
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:19 amWorld Anti-Doping Agency?
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:26 amIf that had something to do with membership qualifications at the UN, I’d be for it.
nk
The rules are – you have to submit for testing at anytime.
you have the right to be retested (with vials number 2 or 3)
You cannot compete in world and now some NCAA events without agreeing to it
Armstrong agreed to these, it was his lawyers that demanded arbitration, and then he walked off.
Thats really about it.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:42 amWoah this weblog is excellent i love reading your posts. Keep up the great work! You already know, lots of individuals are looking around for this information, you can help them greatly.
samochody (f01dce) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:17 amreef #360,
To clarify, I don’t believe I said that double jeopardy may not apply here. I discussed the concept and noted that Armstrong claimed in his court case that it applies.
If I had to guess, I’d say it might apply since these seem to be charges that have been made and adjudicated before.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:04 amNational Soros Radio don’t need no stinkin evidence
Lance Armstrong: When A Hero Lets Us Down
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:06 amEPWJs track record remains intact.
Reff – I an going to agree to disagree.
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:38 amEPWJ writes: “The rules are – you have to submit for testing at anytime.
you have the right to be retested (with vials number 2 or 3)
You cannot compete in world and now some NCAA events without agreeing to it
Armstrong agreed to these, it was his lawyers that demanded arbitration, and then he walked off.
Thats really about it.”
More horsemanure from the concern troll.
Armstrong agreed to testing, and submitted to it. The testing never revealed a positive result. Now an organization that was not a part of the cycling organizations Armstrong belonged to has popped up, years later, and proposes to “adjudicate” (not arbitrate, you idiot) allegations that the actual cycling governing body is not asking to be investigated.
So what’s “really about it” is that, as usual, you don’t have a single clue what you are talking about, EPWJ.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:42 amthis thread has been quite hostile for no apparent reason
Dustin (73fead) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:59 amSPQR – it is just spewing, again.
Epwj –
Armstrong signed papers, binding him to the jurisdiction of the USADA
Link please
Fox news confirmed that his lawyers and the lawyers for the charity asked him to answer the charges and to quit stalling.
Prove he was stalling
Remember, Lance has the blood samples, a sample is always given to the athlete.
Complete fiction
Notice he didnt submit any of his samples to clear himself
He has been cleared by the 500+ clean tests he has passed.
Comment by JD — 8/24/2012 @ 5:00 pm
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:59 amI’m not referring to those bashing EPWJ for being a jackass.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:59 amProve he was stalling? Ridiculous statement.
trebek (e79b35) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:01 am“trebek” – do explain.
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:02 amJD, let me explain for Trebek. You made a reasonable request for proof about something that is vague enough to troll about, so Trebek/tye has decided to ‘call you out’ in a way that he hopes to get a reaction with.
Asking for proof Armstrong stalled or otherwise cheated is only relevant when we have a presumption of innocence and sane process. The entire USADA project of re-adjudicating already resolved matters and determining guilt based on a refusal to cooperate with a witchhunt compromises this basic value of process and presumption of innocence, so it’s a handy troll tactic to ignore this presumption.
I would just ignore him, but an alternative is mockery. Taking him seriously doesn’t make a lot of sense, in my opinion.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:08 amFifth Amendment double jeopardy need not be implicated. There are the common law defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel and law of the case, if there is identity of parties and subject matter.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:09 amDustin – yes. And the fact there is no evidence that he has stalled this for years.
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:11 amYep, Dustin got it.
trebek (e79b35) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:15 amSee, you can’t have it both ways…when a guy fails a drug test, you say, “Doping !”
But when a guy passes a drug test—or, over 500 drug tests in the case of Armstrong—you say, “Probably doping !”
I mean, if you believe the drug tests are allegedly worth administering to the athletes, then you have to accept the outcomes on both sides of the coin.
You can’t do a “heads you’re doping, tails you’re probably doping” kind of deal.
Otherwise, it’s an admission that the tests are not accurate enough. And if the tests aren’t accurate enough—then why are they being administered ?
It’s very possible Armstrong used PEDs. I don’t know. But a “conviction” must be found on evidence. The cheaters and liars who rode with Armstrong in the past had a DECADE (and more, in some cases) to stand up like men and make accusations.
They’re now doing it a decade after a race in question, and apparently in an attempt to get reduced penalties for themselves.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:17 amnk,
I agree those doctrines might apply but aren’t they state law issues? Armstrong needed the Constitutional issues to get to federal court.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:25 amtrebek,
Are you tye?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:29 am______________________________________________
We’re falling behind.
The WSJ has 876 comments.
That forum’s format, typical of most that are out there on the internet, is easier to scroll through. I admire Patterico and his blog, but why his web designer chose to be an outlier baffles me.
One of the postings at the online.wsj.com forum has a link that I find interesting:
^ The possibility that Armstrong is being both scapegoated and slandered really irritates me. Even more so if the situation he’s facing is analogous to the researchers who are choosing to remain impartial or contrarian in the global-warming debate, or if he’s like dealing with the flip side to the glove-don’t-fit-you-must-acquit jurors in the OJ Simpson case. Or if what Armstrong is facing is similar to those who are on the receiving end of the notorious “ambulance-chasing lawyer.” The irony will be quite sickening if that, in fact, does apply here.
If Armstrong knew he’d be this closely scrutinized and apparently didn’t mind being a willing participant in ongoing close study, would he have been more likely or less likely to stick drugs into himself? I’d assume LESS likely, which, in turn, means the USADA is MORE likely to be similar to an odd combination of the aforementioned global-warming fanatics on one hand and a bunch of OJ jurors on the other.
Mark (4fc1b2) — 8/25/2012 @ 7:41 amES – it is odd that they chose testing as the metric, he complied every time, passed every time, and now over a decade later, they are going to claim conviction and strip titles based on a sleazy plea bargain with actual cheaters. Now their own metrics are meaningless.
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 8:21 amNo disrespect to the Fifth, but it’s a pretty narrow defense, and I do not see how it creates a cause of action, preemptively, for the accused unless he is actually put in jeopardy by a criminal prosecution. Can’t the USADA’s Congressional charter give enough color to a federal question or, failing that, isn’t there diversity jurisdiction?
Even in criminal cases, BTW, Fifth
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 8:41 amAmendment double jeopardy does not subsume or preempt common law defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case, unless the applicable rules of criminal procedure of the jurisdiction foreclose them.
JD,
Exactly !
If they don’t have confidence in the drug testing, then why are they administering the test as a metric to determine who is doping and who is not ?
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/25/2012 @ 8:48 am“See, you can’t have it both ways…when a guy fails a drug test, you say, “Doping !”
But when a guy passes a drug test—or, over 500 drug tests in the case of Armstrong—you say, “Probably doping””
– Elephant Stone
No. When a guy fails a drug test we say “Doping!” When a guy passes over 500 drug tests, but has ten eyewitnesses willing to testify that they saw him using PEDs, we say “Maybe doping.”
See the difference?
Leviticus (102f62) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:07 am“No. When a guy fails a drug test we say “Doping!” When a guy passes over 500 drug tests, but has ten eyewitnesses willing to testify that they saw him using PEDs, we say “Maybe doping.”
See the difference?”
Leviticus – When you have ten eyewitnesses willing to testify that they “believe” they saw Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs, not that they “know” Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs and the drug tests come back clean, we say no doping.
See the difference.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:17 amMaybe doping is not the metric.
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:18 amJD
He didnt comply every time – see thats the rub – he was asked to provide for a new level of testing called – I think its called a genetic passport which catches those who use their own blood for doping, which evadess all tests except those using a genetic passport as a benchmark and can detech different oxy levels in a stream of blood cells
It was developed several years ago and lance has avoided it.
Armstrong withdrew from arbitration when he was informed that not only more teamates were coming forward but his coach as well who was going to sayd he cheated on every race and of and was coming to the hearing.
All this was: according to the Houston Chronicles article this morning and one of the attorneys involved this morning on Fox and friends
Apparently they had a very sophisticated system of drawing blood during high altitude workouts – I didnt follow all of it becaquse of all the shouting from the others – but from the body posture of the hosts whow ere intially sympathetic to Armstrong the news was so condeming that the guys on F&F were convinced that Lance was lying
Its a shame if its true becuase so many good people defended him here vigorously.
I think its true, for a man who never backed down, never quit, quitting the most important thing of his life – he must of been guilty.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:24 amHush, idiot. Why would he comply with what you claim after he retired? Is there a new test that can look back 14 years?
JD (9fce91) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:28 amdaley
non of them said they believe, they sid he did and so did they they are all finished in racing and sports including the coach – there may have been photographic and forensic evidence as well.
People just dont out and out lie and slander the most important athlete in the world in a sport who has millions of resources and millions of fans at his disposal – without proof.
Doesnt happen.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:28 amLefties – young or old – are always so quick to judge others, but they possess no moral authority, they’ve never held the moral high ground and they only pretend to have ethics or values.
Colonel Haiku (9650cd) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:29 am#387… JD is spot on.
Colonel Haiku (9650cd) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:31 am“He didnt comply every time”
EPWJ – If that were true, that would have meant an immediate guilty finding under the rules, so it sounds like BS.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:32 amsmells like it too.
Colonel Haiku (9650cd) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:32 amJD
you keep saying 14 years, if you are caught cheating today – all your career wins are stripped. He was suspected in his 2010 race again and with new testing suspected doping
I dont know if you are not aware of this?
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:33 amdaley
he was caught in 2001 using steriods which a certificate for a “cream” was summitted
he was suspected of doping in 2010 ironically in his last race – the testing showed possible traces of own doping and since he refused to submit to a genetic passport, an investigation uncovered a dozen coaches and teamamtes confessing to a sophisticated system of cheating.
Maybe eyewitness to crimes should be discounted?
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:36 am“non of them said they believe, they sid he did and so did they they are all finished in racing and sports including the coach – there may have been photographic and forensic evidence as well.”
EPWJ – Were they cross examined? How do they know exactly what they believe he injected into his body was performance enhancing? “There may have been photo and forensic evidence” – Either there was or there wasn’t. Do you know or not?
I want the exact nature of the testimony. I don’t care if they finished competing or not.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:40 amJD – armstrong did not pass 500 tests – he had several tests – blamed on his cancer medicine, blamed on creams blamed on prescription pills etc
He had a storied history of exceptions to failed tests – yes they were accepted by the testing body until a more stringent level of authority was given to the WADA and the USADA in 2005.
Back then local sports, and clubs accepted these “exceptions” from Armstrong – the steriod cream – that the other 600 yclists all suffering from redass – didnt use
In other words his career should have been over in 1999 when he got caught using steroids
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:41 amInnuendo is not evidence; failure to defend yourself is not a conviction. But, when every basic truth lineup against you, quitting is not a not guilty call, either.
Comment by reff — 8/24/2012 @ 7:52 pm
— Yes, but, does he weigh the same as a duck?
Icy (115db0) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:42 amdaley
yes they were – and they can be sued – they gave affidavits.
Some of them may have obstructed justice when the criminal investigation went on
We will find out – I can only tell you what was going on in the paper and this morning – I’m sure some of it is wildly inaccurate – but in 1999 he was caught using steriods and was excused by the UCI. Who had a vested interest in not banning their best cyclist.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:44 am“non of them said they believe”
EPWJ – Of course that is not what they are going to say, but how are they going to demonstrate strength of evidence enough to demonstrate actual knowledge.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:46 amThere is a difference between disagreeing with reff and Leviticus, in comparison to EPWJ just rewriting history. What a fabulist.
JD (13380c) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:51 amSomeone that used to work at EPWJ’s company told Harry Reid that when EPWJ got caught buggering teenaged goats in Iran he avoided trouble by saying he was in-country on a diplomatic mission to count Jooooos and that he was allowed to bugger goats because he held a genetic passport.
Icy (115db0) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:52 amI’m sure some of it is wildly inaccurate
A standard epwj knows well. Very well.
JD (13380c) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:52 amOr ‘words of that nature’ JD.
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:53 am“yes they were – and they can be sued – they gave affidavits.”
EPWJ – You claim some experience with the law so you should understand the difference between somebody being able to testify they have direct knowledge of somebody using performance enhancing drugs and only a belief that they used performance enhancing drugs. I have no idea what standard has been used by the U.S. agency.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:55 amActually, I think that all three of them are just doing little variations on the “BECAUSE he gave up the fight, this means that he is admitting his guilt” meme.
Icy (115db0) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:58 amEric,
I could get 27 endoctrinologists in a courtroom, and none of them, at $800.00/hr, would agree with each other on the quantitative detection of androgens. Give it up.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:59 am401. I’ve been using topical steriods virtually daily since junior High.
Glad I had no talent and aspirations.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:00 am“Maybe eyewitness to crimes should be discounted?”
EPWJ – As usual, I’m not seeing any links.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:00 amI was made fun in this thread for (I guess) mocking lady weightlifters in one of the Olympic threads. Just as an example, a healthy woman can conceal three hundred times the testosterone level of a man. (I want $800.00/hr for the explanation).
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:04 amIf he drowns, he’s innocent, if he lives he’s a witch, really it’s not that complicated.
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:13 am366. Son, I have no inkling how anything I wrote implied reff might be a newbie.
Moreover, what might your point be? Mendacity is socially acceptable whereas incivility is not?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:22 am417. Nominated as thread winner. A second?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:24 amI have an idea, don’t say its a good one, just we’d enforce some perspective on judges and regulators.
Ride 225 miles under 12 hours and you certify as Tour official/adjudicator.
In track make it a 5 minute 1500M. Swimming, a half-hour 1600. Then maybe these idiots would qualify a competition induced asthmatic using albuterol.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:33 amI have an idea, don’t say its a good one, just we’d enforce some perspective on judges and regulators.
Ride 225 miles under 12 hours and you certify as Tour official/adjudicator.
In track make it a 5 minute 1500M. Swimming, a half-hour 1600. Then maybe these idiots would qualify a competition induced asthmatic using albuterol.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:33 am“If he drowns, he’s innocent, if he lives he’s a witch, really it’s not that complicated.”
narciso – I like the boarding method better because you can hear the alleged perpetrators talk. Although it has been a while since I’ve been there, the Salem Witch Museum had a good exhibit of the practice. Put a board on top of the alleged witch and the local residents would keep piling stones on top of the board until the alleged witch confessed or expired. The alleged witch in the museum exhibit had a voice recording that kept saying “more weight,” which I thought was a very nice touch.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:44 amComment by Mark — 8/25/2012 @ 7:41 am
I am no exercise physiologist, and maybe JD knows more about it than I even though he is not an MD, but the scientific paper linked to by Mark has some interesting things in it (a multi-year study of Armstrong by a researcher). He has some observations on unusually low lactic acid levels and apparently increased muscle efficiency (because of muscle cell proteins?) that seem to be different than what one would get through using EPO or androgenic steroids, probably not growth factor either. But them again, I am not real sophisticated in this and may be wrong.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:52 amEPWJ,
Regarding the 2009-2010 blood doping allegations, the Austin American-Statesman reported Armstrong’s federal district court pleading alleged:
However, the USADA advised the court that Armstrong’s 2009-2010 results were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 11:20 amThe decision by Judge Sparks has been posted online and is available here.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 11:21 amWell, the technique varies, much like in the Cask of the Amontillado, but the goal is the same.
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/25/2012 @ 11:22 amThe interesting part of that decision to me is that Judge Sparks refused to intervene based on “speculative injury” to Armstrong. It’s not so speculative anymore, so I expect to see Armstrong move to reconsider and/or refile his complaint.
By the way, the head of the USADA is Travis Tygart. He graduated from the SMU School of Law.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 11:25 am“Well, the technique varies, much like in the Cask of the Amontillado, but the goal is the same.”
narciso – I see penumbras.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:05 pm“fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.”
Comment by DRJ — 8/25/2012 @ 11:20 am
I assume all that means is that his hemoglobin/Hematocrit were higher than normal, but depending on how much higher than normal, perhaps it was also “fully consistent with physiological changes of a highly trained athlete” as well.
“consistent with” does not mean “proves it is”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:09 pmIcy, do you need to play with ducks? Strange fetish, but whatever floats your boat…
reff (e3d583) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:14 pmMD – the testing Mark linked to is what I was referring to previously. Low levels of lactic acid, and abnormal vO2 capacity are not likely PED related. Having said that. If you know something I could take that would effect my genetics and physiology, please let me know.
JD (13380c) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:24 pmJD @372….appreciate that. Not sure if we disagree or if we are arguing from different perspectives.
I don’t like the rules of drug/doping testing because they are a “guilty until you prove your innocence” application, but, what else would work in sports? The rules force an athlete to answer every (reasonable??) allegation or be stripped of the right to compete/awards, so, this is what is happening. As Americans, we don’t like that; as believers in the rules as they are written, we understand that this may not be the best way, and, we will work on this as we go. It is a reason that not all governing bodies don’t use the WADA policy. Another example is the NFL drug policy, which ends up in court sometimes because it is written with American juris prudence in mind, as compared to this situation, where the FedCourt told Armstrong to go back and arbitrate.
Armstrong does not go into the USADA arbitration with an appearance of innocence, because the rules are not set up that way. NFL players are presumed innocent even after they fail a test until all applicable policies are applied, and then they “appeal,” they don’t “arbitrate.”
As always thanks for the discussion…..TBC
reff (e3d583) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:27 pmMD, keep in mind that “normal” for athletes is not “normal” but an “accepted difference” above what is normal for anyone, well trained or not. This reflects that athletes WILL use substances designed to raise levels of something up to a set level, such as testosterone, which can be as much as 4x that of a “normal person ” without failing.
This in no way is meant to imply or insinuate that anyone is cheating when they do this.
reff (e3d583) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:31 pmDRJ @ 370 & 384….
Thank you for clearing that up for me. I knew we had discussed it, and I understood your point. I didn’t go back to refer to your post but implied what you meant anyway.
Thanks again…
reff (e3d583) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:33 pmI am also pretty sure we can find plenty of hairy, husky women to satisfy nk’s desires without limiting the search to Olympic caliber weight lifters.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:37 pmnk, Drj, and well Jethro I mean JD
Look, he didnt pass 500 tests, especially an important one.
Whether his sample DID axctually pass the test in 2009, 2010 – I’m sure nk’s 800 will have at least 799 opinions on.
THE POINT IS – an investigation started and people started confessing……
Now – I could believe a scenario where all the top finishers in the TDF were as dopy as Armstrong – I also believe that doping doesnt amount to a pile of crap just like those rediculously silly hats they wear in the cycledrone.
Athletes have been known to not be rocket scientists.
The point is – this wasnt a 14 year vendetta – he was caught, even on a false positive?
I really wonder if these guys have more nweedle marks than a 68 Haight Ashbury fruit vendor
Whatever gets them up the hill
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:40 pmmaybe if he changed his name to Vinnie Jaworski and bought himself a nice double-wide on the outskirts of Twin Falls and poured himself a concrete slab for to put the grill and a couple lawn chairs and an igloo cooler all these John McCain-sponsored fascists would maybe just leave him the eff alone
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:42 pmIn engrish as Jethro says:
A false positive, started an investigation, everyone but Lance on the USPS team is saying we all doped and so did lance.
Lance says oh ne ne and wont give his samples for testing (and you know he has them)
And then when its time to face his accusers – slanders them by accusing them of some vendetta and then walking off in bad faith
Good grief
It
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:45 pmHey, EPWJ? Did you get all this from the DA you worked with “at a high level”?
Honest to God, you are a silly prat.
Simon Jester (48f9f1) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:50 pmI thought this was a joke – until no someone told me Romney’s coming out at the Convention as a liberal – I’m not kidding or digging – his speech is not going to be about jobs and turning around the economy – its going to be about his smarter better progressiveness:
oof – for all of you – I’m sorry – you did your best – but please dont tell me he’s not going to nominate progressives to the supreme court
, alarming conservatives who argue it’s a losing issue for his campaign.
Romney’s new willingness to talk about the issue could be a sign that he thinks the Massachusetts law could help him in November.
“My healthcare plan I put in place in my state has everyone insured,” Romney told a CBS reporter on Thursday. In a second interview, he called the law an “important accomplishment” that is “working, by and large, pretty well.”
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:51 pmSeriously, folks, this sounds like another in a series of bizarre drug addled rants. Remember the rock throwing-Border Patrol business? Reading Michelle Malkin’s mind? The number of Jews in Iran? What else?
Simon Jester (48f9f1) — 8/25/2012 @ 12:52 pmLance says oh ne ne and wont give his samples for testing (and you know he has them)
And then when its time to face his accusers – slanders them by accusing them of some vendetta and then walking off in bad faith
Are you on crack?!
JD (7117d9) — 8/25/2012 @ 1:08 pmI guess Eric’s still wishin’ and a hopin’ they’ll nominate “someone else” at the convention. Subtle thread jacks are one of the skilz I most enjoy about EPWJ’s never ending trolling.
elissa (1e9a66) — 8/25/2012 @ 1:23 pm“Hey, EPWJ? Did you get all this from the DA you worked with “at a high level”?”
Simon – Remember how EPWJ’s predictions of how James O’Keefe would fare in that epic Senator Mary Landrieu wire tapping scandal turned out?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/25/2012 @ 1:49 pmMD in Philly,
I agree. “Consistent with” is an interesting choice of words for the USADA to use.
gary gulrud,
narciso’s comment is classic so I’ll second your motion.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:05 pmEPWJ,
I don’t agree with your statement of the facts or your conclusions. Judge Sparks ruled against Armstrong but even he expressed “doubt [that] the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.” Opinion at page 28. Furthermore, at page 29, the Judge acknowledged that the USADA’s charges date back 14 years:
As Judge Sparks stated, he was mystified why the USADA is pursuing these charges but he nevertheless declined to involve the courts in claims that had not (then) resulted in injury. They have now.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:12 pmAlso, EPWJ, the Telegraph reported quotes from competitors who support Armstrong that say he has taken over 500 tests during his career:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:32 pmDRJ, I’ll repeat something here I wrote earlier. I think Armstrong is wrong to not fight this, even more after this statement, because, in my mind now, he has the real chance to end it. He can argue his testing, he can argue that the witnesses are bought off, he can argue that too much time has passed, and, he may be able to return to court for a redress of his latest grevience.
But, he has chosen not to.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:32 pmComment by DRJ — 8/25/2012 @ 2:12 pm
So, once Armstrong says, “I just lost x bunch of dollars from a cancelled promotion deal because of this” he can take it back to court again and expect it to be heard? In one way I understand that, but in another way the judge had to know what was going to happen and why Armstrong sought a hearing to begin with.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:35 pmRead Lance Armstrong’s statement and tell me he is wrong, reff.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:36 pmMD in Philly,
It’s a basic rule that cases have to present actual (as opposed to anticipated or speculative) harm or controversies but it has been waived in some cases. The abortion cases come to mind.
I also think some judges might have been more sympathetic to Armstrong’s Constitutional claims, i.e., that subjecting him to an unfair process is a due process violation. I’m surprised that Judge Sparks didn’t do that, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:41 pmFrankly, I *almost* hope Armstrong decides to refile or reopen his case but his statement suggests he is through with this matter. He took it to federal court — made “a federal case” out of it — and lost, so he did far more than many people could or would do. Plus, I’m not sure it would help to go back to court given Judge Sparks’ attitude.
This may be one of those Kenny Rogers’ moments.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:44 pmHe took it to federal court — made “a federal case” out of it — and lost,
Comment by DRJ — 8/25/2012 @ 2:44 pm
But it seems to me that to some degree he didn’t really lose as much as the judge said, “I don’t have a good reason to get involved in this now”, rather than saying, “They have reasonable evidence, Armstrong is guilty, get out of my courtroom”.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 2:54 pmJust to be clear, and to show respect for the host and commenters, I should never accuse anyone of drug use.
No matter how bizarre, dishonest, and irritating their posts.
That was wrong of me, and I apologize to all readers.
Simon Jester (d2b944) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:06 pmI’ll play a little Devil’s Advocate, for discussion purposes only….
I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.
The Court told him to go back to the process, because he had not finished with the remedies. If, as Armstrong says later in his statement, the USADA has so little right to be involved, wouldn’t the court have thrown the USADA out? Armstrong attacks this point again in another paragraph, so I repeat my point here: wouldn’t the Court act if thes rules were so out of place? Something there doesn’t add up.
Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?
Under the WADA rules, physical evidence is not the only evidence to be considered. Armstrong makes only a one line comment in the next paragraph on this concept, stating that the USADA “circumvents” their rulers on the deals with other riders. Circumventing is not “breaking” rules but finding ways around them. Making deals to get evidence is standard practice in all forms of law and arbitration.
When Armstrong talks about years and dates, he leaves out that the rules are constantly changed to reflect new testing, and the related evidence to this. As an example, HGH wasn’t even tested until this past year, so, there would be no physical evidence at all of the use of this, so,other evidence would have to be accepted. Any idea of a “statute of limitations” would be adjusted in the rules to reflect this, so, dates may not have bearing on at. (This paragraph does not in any way infer or imply that Armstrong used HGH.)
To close, Armstrong appeal here is both heartfelt and sincere, and he obviously believes in his cause. Long term, his future IS NOT TIED to success against the USADA, unlike a comparison to a Roger Clemons against MLB might be. NIKE has stood behind him now,and is not likely to turn in the future, if for no ore reason than economics. So, stopping now does not hurt Armstrong.
BUT….if he is telling the truth, beating the USADA would make him even greater, bringing him a future so much better for his sport, sport in general that deals with drug testing, his charity, and, in the end, his legacy….he should fight….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:09 pmreff @455
I repeat: that posts for discussion purposes only. It is not meant to be a reflection of my personal beliefs on this subject!!!
reff
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:11 pmMD,
The Court said Armstrong has to go forward with the USADA arbitration proceeding even though the judge acknowledged it might be an unfair proceeding. Armstrong decided not to submit himself to the USADA’s control, so I suspect the Court would not be receptive to rehearing Armstrong’s claim.
Thus, Armstrong’s choice was to participate in a proceeding he thinks is rigged or to give up. That’s a Catch-22 choice to me.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:18 pmAnd, I know what my last line says in #455….I’ve already expressed THAT in other posts…..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:19 pmreff,
The Court addressed the jurisdictional claims between the USADA, the UCI, and others. As I quoted above, he said they should learn to work together rather than revert to bitter infighting. That’s probably good advice but it doesn’t help targets like Armstrong, does it?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:21 pmI’ll add that this August 23, 2012, letter from Armstrong’s attorneys suggests they’re keeping Armstrong’s legal options alive, even if Armstrong isn’t. In addition, I think the last paragraph warns of possible defamation claims regarding the USADA’s future public statements.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:27 pm____________________________________________
However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts.
The positive impression I have of Armstrong remains intact. By contrast, the impression I have of USADA is similar to my impression of a non-accredited online college or a fleabag motel.
Mark (4fc1b2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:30 pmComment by DRJ — 8/25/2012 @ 3:27 pm
Game On!
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:41 pmHow do we get rid of the Google Chrome ad?
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:44 pmDRJ, the Court addressed the claims, but granted no relief. Somebody has granted the USADA powers here, in spite of Armstrong’s claims. They can do that in the future, but, there has to be a future for that to happen. It appears the future depends on Armstrong.
And, wouldn’t defamation against Armstrong depend upon proving malicious intent? If the USADA is acting inside their pervade, that would be tough.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:47 pmThe judge has already questioned the USADA’s motives, reff, so that means there was some evidence of ill will. Black’s Law Dictionary lists motive and intent as synonymous in defamation law.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:51 pmOk, and I’m not a lawyer, nor am I playing one on radio OR TV, not did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express anytime recently. But, if the judge was concerned enough to discuss it, but not enough to act on it, doesn’t it still fall into the remainder of the judge’s ruling telling Armstrong to go back and deal with the USADA? Wouldn’t Armstrong now get a chance to show that in arbitration, and, even if he loses, use the judge’s words to go back into the court for relief? Even more reason to fight, which by choosing NOT to do, he forfeits any chance to clear both his name and all the other complaints he lists as why NOT to fight….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:57 pmThree pages, two signatures, from Armstrong’s “attorneys”.
It seems to me a simple,
“Dear Sir:
Go jump in the lake.
Sincerely,
Attorney at Law”
would more than suffice.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 3:58 pmAnd, watching the LLWS, where California scores 10 in the bottom of the 6th to tie it 15-15 against Tennessee, only to give up 9 in the top of the 7th. Now, California has scored again; it’s 24-16, two outs bottom 7.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:02 pmOh well, game over. Tennessee vs.Japan tomorrow..
reff (4dcda2) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:03 pmreff,
I don’t agree that someone has granted the USADA power in this case. It has asserted authority along with the UCI and other bodies. This is similar to situations where multiple agencies (the EPA, state oil and gas agencies, etc.) assert jurisdiction over wind farms or oil and gas wells to make environmental and regulatory claims. Such claims may be valid exercises of authority, questionable use of power, or even abusive.
Returning to the defamation issue, Armstrong claims that some of the charges against him are barred by limitations under the agencies rules. If so, it’s possible that reasserting them now could be considered further evidence of the USADA’s bad intent.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:04 pmI agree with your comment 466, reff, but I think it’s a questionable decision to submit to arbitration if you believe it will be a sham proceeding.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:06 pmBall-less can do what he wants. Likely, his litigation budget is bigger than the USADA’s.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:10 pmArmstrong needs to find good lawyers. (I know the difference between “good” and “worthless”.)
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:36 pmLance! Say, son! I say, Son! Your lawyers suck, Son!
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:44 pmI’d never let Eric anywhere near my camel.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:47 pmDRJ
*sigh*
When there is a doubt – all of your achievements are questioned including the earliest one. The Judge didnt like foreignors not being certified was trite because Armstrong was competing in foreign events.
Armstrong is a wildly popular figure and has tarnished the entire racing world the facts are – there is strong if not overwhelming evidence he cheated- statements of support non-withstanding.
Judge ruled against Armstrong thats all that counted. His statment also read some of the charges go back 14 years.
Armstrong cheated, there is strong evidence he cheated. His self serving statements are without fact and foundation.
EPWJ (4380b4) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:51 pmreff loves DRJ…..true love forever….
The USADA has been given power over Cycling as an Olympic sport, of which Armstrong participated, by the USOC, which has that power. USADA is a subsidiary of the WADA, a participating member of the International Olympic Committee, so, their power, whatever that may be, is through this. Governing bodies of international sports generally, but not always, interact when drug/doping is involved, which reflects here in two ways.
First, when Armstrong says that certain governing bodies, such as USA Cycling, are in dispute with the actions of the USADA, that is only somewhat true. That leads to this. Second, the International Cycling Union, the international governing body of cycling, of which USA Cycling is a responsible member, has said they will await the USADA report befor deciding whether or not toast on those recommendations, tells us that the USADA does have authority to act here, even outside the realm of Olympic Cycling. Armstrong is surely within his rights to dispute this, but, the power is there for them to act. The USOC has given that to them.
Now, as an “American” group, the USOC, and I’m guessing, directly, the USADA, have to follow US law. If they were so out of whack, the court should have stopped it, especially in Federal Court, which has jurisdiction over Federal agencies like the USOC, and their extensions (right???). Of course, the courts can still get involved, IF someone takes it in (right???).
Armstrong should fight…..it seems to me he loses the arbitration, them crushes the arbitration in Federal Court (right???)
reff (76c7c5) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:52 pmClowns. None of your business. And do not ever … ever!
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 4:56 pmI see some confusion in this sentence, so I’ll try to clean it up.
Second, the International Cycling Union, the international governing body of cycling, of which USA Cycling is a responsible member, has said they will await the USADA report before deciding whether or not toast on those recommendations, tells us that the USADA does have authority to act here, even outside the realm of Olympic Cycling. Armstrong is surely within his rights to dispute this, but, the power is there for them to act. The USOC has given that to them
WADA is formed. USOC establishes USADA to work thru WADA and control testing/investigating. USA Cycling is a member of USOC, as well as ICU, for cycling. If WADA, and,in effect, USADA, makes a ruling, other groups, such as USOC, ICU, USA Cycling, are generally bound to their rulings. If the USADA acts against Armstrong, it is likely that the ICU and USA Cycling would follow their rulings as well. So, the Tour and other international cycling events are affected. The USADA suspends Armstrong, strips him of all titles in their perview, and those groups then decide if they will accept the rulings.
reff (76c7c5) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:06 pmreff,
As your link shows, the USADA is empowered to perform several functions including testing, research, adjudication, etc. But I don’t see where it has the power to sanction athletes and the USADA’s arbitration decisions suggest other entities — specifically the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport — are empowered to sanction athletes who have disputes with the USADA.
It appears from the USADA website that it sanctioned Armstrong on August 24, 2012. The USADA’s press release suggests the sanction was entered unilaterally pursuant to the World Anti-Doping Code. I’m certainly not an expert in sports law so perhaps the Code gives the USADA power to sanction when there is no arbitration decision. Do you know if it does?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:09 pmThe U ASS DA seems to me to be nothing more than a toothgless nothing, and Armstrong needs to get better lawyers if only becuase he’s an idiot.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:15 pmOne of Armstrong’s claims was that the UCI, not the USADA, has authority to charge and sanction him. Judge Sparks addressed that at pp 19-22 of his opinion. In short, his answer was that it’s not clear which rules take precedence.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:19 pmUnless,
The moron confessed to his lawyers, so even I would not take the case.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:20 pmYou’re a good and experienced attorney, nk, so you know that clients don’t always do what their attorneys recommend. Assuming Armstrong’s attorneys made these decisions, what do you think they’ve done wrong so far?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:24 pmI doubt that there is any lawful governmental rule, DRJ. The titles and monetary awards are gifts from NGOs. Sparks was kind and reserved in his discussion of the case. Armstrong needs some way to stop being a girl. And real lawyers.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:26 pmI type slow.
Assuming Armstrong’s attorneys made these decisions, what do you think they’ve done wrong so far?
Ask the client, “How were you hurt?” Ask themselves, “Is this illegal?” Ask thmselves, again, “Can we get money by going to court?”
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:32 pmOh, great. I’m arguing with DRJ over some sissyboy who burned out his testicles on a girl bicycle seat.
nk (875f57) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:38 pmWe’re not arguing, nk. I’m learning from you.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:43 pmOh, great. I’m arguing with DRJ over some sissyboy who burned out his testicles on a girl bicycle seat.
Comment by nk — 8/25/2012 @ 5:38 pm
You’re not arguing, you are merely having a discussion.
I’m just glad no one reported that Neil Armstrong was the first person to ride a bike on the moon. 😉
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 5:45 pmYes. The sanction is reported to the governing body to be approved. Most would be a rubber stamp, since the USADA, in this case, will report to all governing bodies that Armstrong declined arbitration, in effect making that an admission of guilt.
The same type of thing happens if an athlete fails to report for a scheduled drug test, or, if approached for an unscheduled test and refuses. That becomes a “failed” test automatically and a suspension occurs. Appeals and arbitration would follow, but, the suspension would stand if the athlete didn’t appeal or take it through arbitration.
reff (76c7c5) — 8/25/2012 @ 6:26 pmWait, what?! Lance Armstrong didn’t ride a bike on the moon?
And Neil Young wasn’t there?!
My whole world view has changed. I’m voting for Obama.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:12 pmWell . . . someone sure as hell got his Finkelman on today!
Icy (b29c1e) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:17 pmSNOOKI IS IN LABOR!!!
Icy (b29c1e) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:25 pmWho is Snooki, anyway?
htom (412a17) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:36 pmBreaking news…
The self-righteous USADA has issued a proclamation that Neil Armstrong’s title as first man on the moon is being stripped due to allegedly ingesting a performance enhancing drug that comes in an orange powder.
On the streets, it’s known as…”Tang.”
Despite the fact that Armstrong passed every drug test issued him in the rigorous NASA training program, the USADA has apparently found ten witnesses of questionable character and motive who are willing to testify that they saw Armstrong ingest this “Tang,” thereby giving him an unfair advantage over his inter-galactic rivals in the grueling race to land on the moon.
“Have you seen the grainy footage of Armstrong bouncing around, as if were in a moon-bounce at a Chuck E. Cheese pizza parlor ? That wasn’t just Armstrong’s morning bowl of Wheaties at work—he was ‘high’ on something !” stated Joe Witchhunter, the ranking chairman on the USADA. “If the astronauts in the space programs belonging to Belgium or Syria had access to Tang, they might have been the first to do the moonwalk.”
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:41 pmComment by Ag80 — 8/25/2012 @ 9:12 pm
Comment by Elephant Stone — 8/25/2012 @ 9:41 pm
🙂
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:45 pmreff,
I think I’ve found the answer to my earlier question. From the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing:
I read that to mean the USADA can recommend but can’t impose sanctions. The sanctions are imposed by the NGB, which is defined as the “National Governing Body.”
Isn’t USA Cycling the National Governing Body for American cycling?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:47 pmHaving said that, it’s possible the NGB has no discretion in imposing the sanction. I think I’ll leave that issue for another day, or perhaps another week or month or decade.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:50 pmThat’s hilarious, Elephant Stone.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/25/2012 @ 9:56 pmSo, let me get this straight: Snooki is having a baby by Neil Armstrong, but Neil Young said he’s the baby daddy while the USADA says that couldn’t be possible because of medical reasons while Joe Biden says shackles are preventing Obama from telling Wasserman-Schultz to stop whining about the lack of french fries at the White House as Michelle grows giant potatoes while Axelrod accuses Mormans of aborting black babies to avoid accusations of Acorn stealing votes?
Have I got this right? Just asking.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 8/25/2012 @ 10:25 pmYes, DRJ…USADA states what they believe the sanction should be, and the sport governing body then approves the action. They can chose not to, or to do something different, but, for example, in track and field, I have never seen them do this. Once the sanction is announced, that’s it. They will go back and reduce or increase the sanction depending on some other actions, but, it is applied.
Thanks again for the discussion….
reff (4dcda2) — 8/26/2012 @ 8:07 amUSA Cycling is the NGB, along with the USOC when Olympic events are included. USA Cycling is affiliated with the ICU, the International Cycling Union (or UCI when identified in the French language) so, if the ICU approves the ruling, then USA Cycling is actually forced to go along, or to lead the fight against the sanction. The USOC could also fight the sanction.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/26/2012 @ 8:09 amreff,
More Tang, less Kool-Aid !
Ha, ha, ha. 🙂
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/26/2012 @ 8:14 am501. Great, reff is almost to the point reached with DRJ’s link at 217.
Another 200 comments and he’ll get his head around this thing.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/26/2012 @ 11:42 amThere’s zero evidence. None. Never has been.
He’s not fighting back because it became clear that the USADA had completely rigged the game – they are playing judge/jury/executioner. They aren’t even following the laws that guide their agency.
Seems like a rational response to me.
Aarradin (bab74a) — 8/27/2012 @ 3:35 pmI wanted to write things about Lance Armstrong, more accurate details on the shooting near the Empire State Building (have to se what the thrad says) and Neal Armstrong.
Also about the information that Palisades Amusement Park definitely is closed.
Sammy Finkelman (a69e24) — 8/27/2012 @ 3:57 pmgahrie, only took 141 for me to show that I already understood what DRJ was saying….but, I was arguing that before she posted in 217, since I already knew that the failure to arbitrate would make Armstrong “guilty” under the policy….I had already seen many athletes, from Ben Johnson to Justin Gatlin with others in between sanctioned for failing to respond.
My mistake was assuming that you understood the “guilty until proven innocent” form of testing/punishment used in international sport….
As the Beatles once said…”I should’ve known better…”
reff (4dcda2) — 8/27/2012 @ 4:24 pmElephant Stone, if you can find Tang, let me know…always liked it…
reff (4dcda2) — 8/27/2012 @ 4:24 pmMy mistake was assuming that you understood the “guilty until proven innocent” form of testing/punishment used in international sport….
— Talk about beating-a-dead-horse-on-steroids.
Icy (9d4709) — 8/27/2012 @ 4:57 pmI would never hit you, icy…I left my violent tendencies in the Corps years ago…
reff (4dcda2) — 8/27/2012 @ 5:49 pmWell, I dunno. A man who hasn’t had any ‘tang in awhile tends to get a little antsy in the pantsy.
Icy (af241f) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:23 pmArmstrong is a wildly popular figure and has tarnished the entire racing world the facts are – there is strong if not overwhelming evidence he cheated- statements of support non-withstanding.
Judge ruled against Armstrong thats all that counted. His statment also read some of the charges go back 14 years.
Armstrong cheated, there is strong evidence he cheated. His self serving statements are without fact and foundation.
Comment by EPWJ — 8/25/2012 @ 4:51 pm
Pure unadulterated BS
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:24 pmTypical EPWJ in fact, can’t get any of the facts correct in detail but boldly proclaims their meaning.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:26 pmWhy are you assuming USADA has this authority, reff. Basketball is an Olympic sport, but USA Basketball has not ceded this power to govern the NBA to them. USOC and ICU are not the same.
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:28 pmNobody will ever accuse EPWJ of using performance enhancing drugs.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:29 pmWait, aren’t you an attorney? Doesn’t what the actual ruling said mean something to you? Just because one of Armstrong’s arguments did not win, doesn’t mean that ‘all that counted’ was decided. In fact, in this case, isn’t it obvious that they were NOT discussing the merits of the core issue?
Also, isn’t it easy to see that the ruling was wrong?
Are you actually setting out to be wrong? Is this a gag?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:31 pmThe USADA needs to change its mission statement so that it is the Anti-Dope Agency.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:35 pmThey should begin by stripping Mr. Dope and Chains of his first place medal in the 2008 election.
I’m pretty sure there are ten (million) witnesses who will testify that Obama is a dope, including some of his former teammates.
Least of all, his [Nope! I didn’t say it. I admit nothing!]
Icy (af241f) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:35 pmWell, actually, yes, Dustin. A judge’s ruling is the final word on everything that was litigated or could have been litigated.
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:36 pmOk. It’s a stretch to make like I care about this sport.
Which I figure is fair dealing. Like anyone gives a rip about Rugby.
But should someone wake up and wonder if the number two or three player was on drugs, too, will anyone hear?
Steve57 (e4f960) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:38 pmYou can appeal.
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:38 pmI was just watching NBC News…I had no idea Neil Young won the Tour de France.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:44 pmI agree with you that Armstrongs statements were exactly that
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:44 pmEPWJ,
Rough day at the rock quarry, today ?
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:47 pmEPWJ – misrepresenting people’s position is one of your little tics. Suffice it to say that if you claim to agree with me, you are likely lying.
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 6:53 pmEPWJ,
You sound crabby. I say you ought to get one of those Swanson Hungry Man salisbury steak dinners from your freezer, crack open a Pabst Blue Ribbon, and read Richard Trumka’s latest mailer about how Romney and Ryan are gonna push your grandmother over the cliff, and how they’ll appoint that John Bolton guy to stand up to the internationalists.
That’ll get your blood pumping.
(You won’t need that little blue pill tonite ! )
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:03 pmDang you, Elephant Stone,
I only have a frozen pizza and Smirnoff. Hersheys or Oreo Fudge Creams?
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:05 pmnk,
I would have thought you’d be eating a healthy mediterranean salad with some bread and olive oil, and a nice red wine. Coin toss on your dessert choices.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:14 pmI was just joking JD but I see you are in your “mood” again
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:27 pmIt isn’t if the ruling goes to the court’s own lack of jurisdiction, obviously, counselor. And other justiciability or standing issues ruled without prejudice are not final words on anything…
I guess you could argue that they are final words on standing and justiciability, but as you note, they can appeal, so final words they aren’t.
I should add that I didn’t even graduate eighth grade and learned all this from mad magazine and a dream I had once after ODing on MSG because of an experiment I was conducting with ramen noodle optimization.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:41 pmnk, except that the judge’s order of dismissal on the suit was not on the merits and as I understand it without prejudice. Its not res judicata.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:45 pmI was just joking JD but I see you are in your “mood” again
Yes. I am in one of those moods where people who overtly and aggressively lie bother me.
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 7:57 pmHas you heered of “law of the case”, Dustin?
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:11 pmExpess “without prejudice”, in writing, signed by the judge? If so, Ok, Dustin wins.
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:17 pm1004(b) is with prejudice unless the order writes it is without prejudice. L1, 1979.
nk (875f57) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:20 pmJD
Then seriously – you should stop.
You misrepresent and totally lie about my positions constantly to further yourself in the most disgusting manner, and you have done it for years here.
I never supported DD I never said there were millions of Jews etc. I never supported Murkowski et al. but you go on and on and on, knowuing that what you say is an untruth.
And you do it transparently to get me riled and to get me banned.
Armstrong could have, for a decade sued, any of these people for slander and didnt
Why?
Because discovery is a painful thing
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:24 pmnk, You see how the judge uses ‘even if’? There’s a reason he words it as though he is not resolving it. It’s because he isn’t.
Law of the case doesn’t apply to anything but the actual matters ruled upon.
In fact, the thrust of Sparks’s ruling was that his court isn’t the place to resolve the entire matter. His ruling seems confused to me because it shows many reasons why the arbitration is not going to properly resolve the matter either, but he was leaving ‘all that could have been litigated’ (except for jurisdiction) to the arbitration. That’s the law of the case, which I hope ceases to be when it’s appealed.
The USADA is a quasi government body. Its ‘court’ is practically a kangaroo court with an overt mission of ruthlessly forcing a preconceived result.
I do not know if Lance actually used steroids and these other techniques. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did and I’m not really a fan of his. But resolving that matter does not justigy the drastic manner of the USADA. I’d rather see what is basically a government body follow its own procedures (such as the eight year statute of limitations, such a mission breaking allowing of many dopers to cycle again if they cooperate on a has been’s case, etc).
Is the USADA a police agency? It shouldn’t be. Does its jurisdiction extend to awards given in France? I don’t see how it could.
If you look at the ruling Sparks made, and the arguments he was presented with, I don’t think he was resolving almost any of this case. Hopefully Armstrong takes this back to court.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:39 pmLOL
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:41 pmI am not attempting to win. I just enjoy debating law with those with more experience.
This is probably more helpful than my attempting to describe it.
But if I were to describe it, I’d say that Sparks was about as convinced as I am that the USADA is not going to provide much of a decent forum for this controversy. They are a plaintiff, not a judge.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:44 pmSomething musta gone down with PeeWee in Dubai or where ever it was. He never seemed quite this off B4.
Bath salts dint used to be for consumption.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/27/2012 @ 8:56 pm507. Like I said “almost”. Still have 160 to go.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:01 pm537. Fait acompli, prolly not. US cycling was nothing before LeMond, and they’re nothing now.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:06 pmJD, while I can’t site chapter and verse on the rules, several of the links I’ve made site some authority, as well as the last link by DRJ. I get the priviilage of dealing with some of this each year in track and field in the NCAA meets, as well as some past opportunities at the Olympic Trials andthe USATF Championships. Drug testing rules are a pain in the butt for athletes and the officials dealing with them.
reff (4dcda2) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:10 pmGary – Tejay is a stud.
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:10 pmReff – I read them. Just because track ceded authority does not mean ICU did. Just because they claim authority does not make it so. In the instant case, they are claiming jurisdiction over actions that allegedly happened 3 years before Cobgress granted them their authority. They are claiming to strip titles that they did not award. I cannot find anything that suggests the ICU ceded this power.
JD (b0764b) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:16 pm544. I stand corrected. But as the action has nothing to do with ICU testing, I bet they’re planning to blow Tygart off at this juncture.
Arrogant pissant will have to do a lot better on his summary deposition.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:19 pmEPWJ,
Please stop with your RuPaul drag queen denials. You’re a lefty in disguise, and a loyal soldier in the Fred Flintstone Army of Meatheads and Sourpusses which fights under the command of Richard “Bacon and Eggs” Trumka and Saint Saul Alinsky.
You troll around the internet attempting to plant little Trojan horses of discontent toward the GOP in the minds of blog readers whom you hope are undecided voters.
You know you’re intellectually ill-equipped to go toe-to-toe with many of the conservatives here, so you’ll never seek to defend your moocher left wing policy preferences in a straighforward manner. Instead, you just bash, bash, bash conservatives as if you’re that Amazonian Rachel Madcow or her alcoholic cohort with the tingly feeling up his trousers, by the name of Chris Matthews.
Dude, as a lefty, you’re entitled to support Susan Rice over John Bolton, but just be honest about it.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/27/2012 @ 9:41 pmI never said there were millions of Jews
— I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Armstrong could have, for a decade sued, any of these people for slander and didnt
— Sued WHO for slander?
Why?
Icy (af241f) — 8/28/2012 @ 3:09 amBecause discovery is a painful thing
— Is there anything else he should have done to prove his innocence? Written a book titled “I Rode Clean”? Done an in-depth interview with Oprah? Should he now (by your logic) sue you for libel?
http://live.wsj.com/video/who-are-the-witnesses-against-lance-armstrong/17B9A871-BE78-4FDA-97A5-DBA48813BB9A.html#!17B9A871-BE78-4FDA-97A5-DBA48813BB9A
He did sue and lost
Icy here is a really good video that basically tells they story
And to Note – when you cannot get an Austin Texas Judge to let you sue being Austins greatist athlete ever – thats got to hurt
Also I heard that his medical records including a video and audio where he rattled off a long list of enhancing drugs he was taking (which probably gave him cancer) was being sought.
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 7:12 amNow Lance Armstrong is so guilty it’s his fault he had cancer? Oh wait, the source is that EPWJ heard about it somewhere.
Good troll.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 7:24 amIt is beyond surreal, Dustin. Way beyond parody.
JD (318f81) — 8/28/2012 @ 7:26 amEPWJ,
You “heard” there’s a video “out there” ?
That’s not evidence.
Also, if the video does exist, that would not prove he rode any particular race with a banned substance in his system.
“Hearing” there’s a video “out there” and then attempting to use that “hearsay” as support for your thesis is the tactic of left wing punks like Harry Reid and your western Pennsylvania mafioso Godfather Richard Trumka.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 7:29 amDustin
that was a comment by a witness and a friend of Lance’s in his interview by the cancer team fighting his several cancers.
You need to educate yourself before accusing me.
the link between what Lance was taking and the years he took the drugs is well documented.
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:00 amestone
again the witnessess were In the room when Lance was interviewed because the doctors were mystified as to how he had several different types of cancer all at the same time.
Read the Wapo article and watch the WSJ video of the reporters who investigated Armstrong and broke the story that actually got the WADA to investigate further
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:03 amIs there anyone here, anyone at all, who is not convinced that EPWJ is a concern troll and presents no useful commentary?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:06 amEPWJ,
That doesn’t prove he had a banned substance in his system during a particular race.
Then again, I seem to recall in a past thread you claimed there was a video where an agent of Mossad “admits” Israeli culpability for 9/11, so you’re known for pushing “hearsay” and moonbat conspiracies.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:09 amNext week, this nuttiness will devolve into a George Soros/EPWJ funded ad where Mitt Romney is blamed for Lance Armstrong’s cancer.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:11 amAnd there was the time that EPWJ claimed that the cellphone video of the Border Patrol shooting showed stuff that it plainly did not. It was clear then that EPWJ was claiming to have watched video he had never seen.
He’s got a long history of making stuff up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:11 amSPQR
Eh, you denied it existed and I found it and the guy is still under investigation.
In other words you dont like what is said in the WSJ video
I understand
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:13 amestone
its a lifetime ban for single instance for several of the things he took
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:14 amSame bat time, same channel, ES
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:15 amnarcisco
The WSJ broke the story watch the video
Armstrong was accused from the very first race of cheating – and it was an ongoing investigation of five of his teamates that more evidence was uncovered against him
Or now is the Wall Street Journal lying as well?
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:18 amI don’t think anyone doubts it.
Concern troll suggests he intends to be effective at this. I think he’s just picking positions that he expects to be annoying, because of wounded feelings from all the other heated discussions. I honestly think that had JD criticized Lance in the thread that EPWJ would be making obnoxiously unbelievable claims in Lance’s defense.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:19 amEPWJ,
We “heard” there’s a video of you eating Chef Boy-ar-dee Spaghetti-Os, while feverishly typing away on your computer in your Aunt Martha’s basement.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:21 amWe see why you support anti-Israel moonbat Susan Rice over the strong and steady John Bolton, when dealing with the internationalists and appeasers of Jihad.
EPWJ, I did not deny the cellphone video of the border patrol shooting existed, rather I was the one who actually linked it into the thread and it showed that you are making stuff up.
EPWJ, bottom line is that you have zero credibility here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:37 amThis is exactly right. I still cannot understand why EPWJ even wanted to make stuff up about that incident. Except that as a threadjack.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:39 amBain Capital funded the company that made the drugs Lance Armstrong took that gave him super powers to both write music and walk on the moon once he got there by riding his bike?
Is that what happened?
We could have a tall tale/liars competition.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:47 amspqr
in other words you didnt like or watch the video of the wsj on lance
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:48 amLance Armstrong faked the moon landing. His name isn’t even really Neal! I heard that the real Neal Armstrong was about to blow the whistle on Lance’s faking of the moon landing, which probably caused Lance’s cancer. Is that related to Neal’s death?
There’s video of a boy throwing authentic moon rock proof at an investigator… who murders that boy in cold blood.
It takes a lot of ball to come up with a scheme like that.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:54 amYou could definitely see your skills within the paintings you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. At all times go after your heart.
handmade (bcf783) — 8/28/2012 @ 8:56 amAnd then he eats the heart, Dustin, you left that out.
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:00 amThat’s what I heard too, Narciso!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:03 amI don’t think “handmade” was paying attention. Wrong number.
Hearts of gold, even.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:07 amWait…so Neil Young is the guy who won the Tour de France, and Neil Armstrong is a rock singer from Canada.
Then who is this Lance Armstrong guy—is he the first guy from the moon to land on Texas ?
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:10 amSo . . . all of this doping that Lance was doing gave him cancer, BUT, none of his fellow riders — all of whom have testified that they know what Lance was doing because they were doing it, too — NONE of them got cancer.
Yet, Lance’s cancer was caused by his performance enhancement methods.
Guess he lost that game of roulette.
Icy (af241f) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:13 amConnect the dots, Elephant Stone, if you’re brave enough to see the truth…
about Sarah Palin!
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:15 amIcy, why would the other riders get cancer if they are really Illuminati robots?
Duh.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:15 amDustin, I admit I was slow to catch on about the connection to Sarah Palin. I was too focused on trying to figure out how to help Ted Cruz escape blame for causing Hurricane Isaac.
And are you sure about the Illuminati robots being cylcists—I thought the Bilderbergers were the cyclists, and the Illuminati were pulling the strings behind the scenes at “American Idol.”
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:37 amYes, we must help crypto communist Ted Cruz evade justice before operation Weather Machine Conspiracy passes the point of no return.
It’s on wikipedia. Plus, I heard it somewhere.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/28/2012 @ 9:45 amIt is truly a nice and helpful piece of information. I’m happy that you just shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
Best Router (fff817) — 8/28/2012 @ 2:28 pmthe first guy from the moon to land on Texas ?
Comment by Elephant Stone — 8/28/2012 @ 9:10 am
Don’t mess with Texas.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/28/2012 @ 2:32 pmIcy
Thats what a witness said – not my conclusion – read the WaPo article
EPWJ (d84fb0) — 8/28/2012 @ 2:47 pmZOMFGWTFBBQ
JD (b0764b) — 8/28/2012 @ 2:51 pmI do not even understand how I ended up here, but I thought this publish was once good. I do not realize who you’re however certainly you are going to a well-known blogger in case you aren’t already. Cheers!
whole food diets (c1133d) — 8/29/2012 @ 3:25 amI will right away clutch your rss as I can’t find your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me recognize in order that I may subscribe. Thanks.
bán máy in đã qua sử dụng,máy in cũ,may in cu,kho may cu,chuyen ban may in cu (16fd73) — 8/29/2012 @ 6:43 amEPJW, maybe you could share the alleged video with bán máy in đã qua sử dụng,máy in cũ,may in cu,kho may cu,chuyen ban may in cu? He/she seems interested.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 8/29/2012 @ 7:39 amYour hovercraft is full of eels.
Milhouse (73b659) — 8/29/2012 @ 7:21 pmMine is full of minors.
Milhouse (73b659) — 8/29/2012 @ 7:21 pmIs “clutch your rss” a new euphemism for sex? It is, isn’t it? No one ever tells me these things.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/29/2012 @ 7:25 pmSPQR,
I think it was an attempt to say “subscribe to your rss”, but the choice of words certainly invites a second thought. Translation can be a tricky thing. So can typos. Both together, lookout.
Besides, it’s only feets that gets kept in the dark.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/29/2012 @ 7:30 pmI liked up to you will obtain carried out right here. The comic strip is attractive, your authored material stylish. however, you command get got an edginess over that you would like be handing over the following. sick indisputably come further previously once more since exactly the similar nearly very frequently inside of case you shield this increase.
pregnancy information (a234f6) — 9/3/2012 @ 4:10 pmThat is very fascinating, You are an excessively skilled blogger. I have joined your rss feed and sit up for in search of extra of your excellent post. Additionally, I’ve shared your website in my social networks
minh chau online game mobile very hot (c62caf) — 9/6/2012 @ 9:50 pm