USADA to Ban Lance Armstrong for Life and Strip him of all tour titles

[SinTrade]

So their evidence is just testimony?

Lances anti-doping rule violations according to USADA:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.



The evidence has not been made public yet, but it shouldn't take too long:

VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

Read more: https://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24UeyPaSF

[rumborak]

I'm pretty sure the USADA wouldn't dare stripping Armstrong of just about every title he ever got unless they were damn certain they can prove it.

rumborak

[ResultsMayVary]

This thing is bullshit.  He's passed every drug test he's ever taken.

Yea, the USADA is really on a witch hunt. Any other phrase doesn't really describe how ridiculous this is. Not a single failed drug test on Armstrong's part, yet people think he's guilty based on the belief that 'all cyclists dope,' therefore Armstrong dopes. Its fucking ridiculous and pathetic.

[jsem]

So their evidence is just testimony?

Did you read my post?

Let me quote that part again.

Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are: 

(1)    Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2)    Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3)    Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4)    Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5)    Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

[rumborak]

So if the USADA has loads of witnesses willing to testify in court, they should ignore it based on drug tests that have an incredibly high amount of false negatives?

[yorost]

I'm pretty sure the USADA wouldn't dare stripping Armstrong of just about every title he ever got unless they were damn certain they can prove it.

That's not true, they are treating this like an admission of guilt.  Everything they accused him of, provable or not, sticks since he isn't challenging.  Anything trumped up or based on weak evidence is just as punishable as anything they can solidly back up.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but what other option do they have? "Oh, you say you're not showing up for the hearing? Well then, have a good day, sorry to have bothered you". Any sports body has essentially as the biggest threat to remove athletes' accolades, and if the athletes refuse to comply they obviously have to go through with it.
Especially since the evidence they have implies that most of his career was enhanced.

[El Barto]

So their evidence is just testimony?

Did you read my post?

Let me quote that part again.

Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are: 

(1)    Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2)    Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3)    Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4)    Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5)    Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

The part you bolded wasn't in your original post. 

Still, all that says is that they have evidence for one part, but they're not disclosing it, and they're accusing him of the rest of it. 

Also, is all of this over blood transfusions?  Seems like that's getting a bit dicey. 

[jsem]

The part you bolded wasn't in your original post. 

See post 27 in this thread, that was the original post, and it was in it. Anyway, see the article.

Still, all that says is that they have evidence for one part, but they're not disclosing it, and they're accusing him of the rest of it. 

Also, is all of this over blood transfusions?  Seems like that's getting a bit dicey. 

“As is every athlete’s right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge.  He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place,” USADA added in a statement.

And:

“The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.”

[yorost]

Yeah, but what other option do they have? "Oh, you say you're not showing up for the hearing? Well then, have a good day, sorry to have bothered you". Any sports body has essentially as the biggest threat to remove athletes' accolades, and if the athletes refuse to comply they obviously have to go through with it.
Especially since the evidence they have implies that most of his career was enhanced.

I really wasn't offering an opinion on the matter, but, yes, they would look foolish to not punish him fully.

[CrimsonSunrise]

This thing is bullshit.  He's passed every drug test he's ever taken.

This

[orcus116]

Pretty harsh penalty, especially for a guy who pretty much just said "eh, fuck it I've got better things to do" than actually admit anything. I really don't see the point of this outside of the obsession our society has with schadenfreude, especially when it comes to high profile athletes and celebrities.

[black_biff_stadler]

We build them up, we break them down, until they're falling to pieces.

[CrimsonSunrise]

We build them up, we break them down, until they're falling to pieces.

 

[jsem]

This thing is bullshit.  He's passed every drug test he's ever taken.

This

Ugh.

[black_biff_stadler]

I apologize on behalf of hef and Crimson Sunrise for their opinions failing to reach your standards.

[Chino]

Does the USADA have the right to take away a title earned in France? Serious question

[black_biff_stadler]

No.

[orcus116]

No. The UCI is demanding they hand over evidence too. Basically the USADA admitted that they interpreted his giving up the fight as actual admission of guilt, which is hilariously childish.

[Kotowboy]

Pretty harsh penalty, especially for a guy who pretty much just said "eh, fuck it I've got better things to do" than actually admit anything. I really don't see the point of this outside of the obsession our society has with schadenfreude, especially when it comes to high profile athletes and celebrities.

+ 1

We care more about what celebs are doing than non-celebs.

[rumborak]

This thing is bullshit.  He's passed every drug test he's ever taken.

This

Ugh.

As a follow-up, that sentence above only holds with the modifier "at the time the test was taken". Armstrong just stayed ahead of the curve, i.e. ahead of the tests that were available at any given point in time. They retested his blood years later and found unmistakenable evidence for ephedrine (IIRC).
Besides, it's not just hearsay they have as evidence. His own teammates are willing to testify against him.

rumborak

[yorost]

They retested his blood years later and found unmistakenable evidence for ephedrine (IIRC).

That's part of the issue with USADA, here.  They say they have that evidence, but they haven't shown it to anyone, yet.  Even then, look at Ryan Braun, they're going to have to prove their was no way the sample was tampered with over the years, right?  I'm not saying they can't, but right now it's just them saying they have it.

I partly dislike the whole idea of retesting and hunting athletes long after the fact, if you can't prove it on the spot then maybe just let it drop.  I get going after cheaters, but it's like instant replay, even if it's fair it really drains away the excitement.

[Fiery Winds]

This thing is bullshit.  He's passed every drug test he's ever taken.

This

Ugh.

As a follow-up, that sentence above only holds with the modifier "at the time the test was taken". Armstrong just stayed ahead of the curve, i.e. ahead of the tests that were available at any given point in time. They retested his blood years later and found unmistakenable evidence for ephedrine (IIRC).
Besides, it's not just hearsay they have as evidence. His own teammates are willing to testify against him.

rumborak

Wouldn't the onus be on the USADA as far as what they are able to test and enforce?  Retroactive testing seems like changing the rules after the game is over.

[rumborak]

That is a very weird way of looking at it. To me, doping is a criminal activity. Should people not be persecuted for past crimes even when DNA tests can now show a person is guilty?

[Fiery Winds]

It does not make sense for a drug to be disallowed if there is no way to test for it.  A rule without enforcement is like no rule at all.  To use your analogy, it would be like prosecuting people for crimes they committed before the law was created making it a crime. 

[rumborak]

The use of the drug was not allowed, basta. That's the rule. However, the tests were only so accurate in those days. So, in your rationale that is implicit approval for taking it?

That is a very interesting moral stance to take. Everything is allowed, as long as they can't prove it. And if they can prove it later, it's still fine.

[yorost]

Also, it's the entertainment business.  Once the limelight of the event is past, move on.  Maybe that's callous, but come on, what were the costs vs benefits of hunting Armstrong?

[Fiery Winds]

The use of the drug was not allowed, basta. That's the rule. However, the tests were only so accurate in those days. So, in your rationale that is implicit approval for taking it?

That is a very interesting moral stance to take. Everything is allowed, as long as they can't prove it. And if they can prove it later, it's still fine.

That's not much different than someone being found not guilty at trial, and then damning evidence surfaces later on.  Unless the charges are different they can' t be tried again.

[rumborak]

So, USADA posted their documents. Apparently 11 of Armstrong's teammates testified against him.

[pogoowner]

So, USADA posted their documents. Apparently 11 of Armstrong's teammates testified against him.

It does make me wonder what they're getting out of throwing him under the bus.

[black_biff_stadler]

Definitely not free LiveStrong bracelets.

[theliloutkast]

Serious question.

Why is it illegal to use Science to improve yourself?

[yorost]

I really can't respect USADA's insistence that they can strip cycling titles the way they are.  If they have proven their case they should be content to leave it to the sports governing body.

[yorost]

Serious question.

Why is it illegal to use Science to improve yourself?

Not necessarily illegal, more like against the rules.  Sports don't want to become drug expos, they want to highlight skill of their sport.  If it's always who has the best doping program you're looking at everyone that wants to break in having to dope.  It is a tough question, though, and probably one that's not going to get easier as humanity advances scientifically.

[hefdaddy42]

That is a very weird way of looking at it. To me, doping is a criminal activity. Should people not be persecuted for past crimes even when DNA tests can now show a person is guilty?

That is very different.  That is a crime.  This is, in essence, a game.