Armstrong gives up?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

Very interesting story this. I can see his point about being one-sided and unfair, but is he jumping the gun, in case something did come out?

I would highly recommend that people watch Roger Hammond's comments on this case, which he talked about on Stage 7 highlights of the Vuelta on ITV, it is available on ITV Player.

He talks a lot of sense

what does he say regarding the story?

Well he was on Armstrong's team in 05 and says he never saw anything there, but that is not in question.

He pretty much says that if he was Lance, he would want to do everything to clear his name, if he is innocent. He says while he understands that Lance doesn't recognise the case by the US Anti Doping Agency, he doesn't know why he wouldn't go to the arbitration so we could see the 'evidence' from the US Anti Doping Agency, if he was definately innocent

He then pretty much says that the cycling world really needed a definitive yes or no answer on this case, so it can move on from its past misdemeanours as it is much cleaner today. But unfortunately it is now all in the grey.

I think that was the jist of what he said

Shelsey93 wrote:

I would be very surprised if Lance didn't dope at some point. He may have felt it was OK to do so - after all most cyclists did at the time and it was probably the only way to enjoy any success.

He may also feel that he has been victimised somewhat. He has never failed a doping test, and probably wasn't involved in the type of hard-core doping that some others have.

Or it could be that the Bruyneel/Ferrari doping regime at US Postal and Discovery was perhaps the most hi-tech and extensive systematic doping programme that cycling has ever seen.

As for the Hammond comments, I can't imagine where Roger Hammond would ever see Armstrong dope. He only raced once with him all season and that was at RVV.

djlovesyou wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:

I would be very surprised if Lance didn't dope at some point. He may have felt it was OK to do so - after all most cyclists did at the time and it was probably the only way to enjoy any success.

He may also feel that he has been victimised somewhat. He has never failed a doping test, and probably wasn't involved in the type of hard-core doping that some others have.

Or it could be that the Bruyneel/Ferrari doping regime at US Postal and Discovery was perhaps the most hi-tech and extensive systematic doping programme that cycling has ever seen.

As for the Hammond comments, I can't imagine where Roger Hammond would ever see Armstrong dope. He only raced once with him all season and that was at RVV.

Hammond said he has never seen Armstrong dope. He rode with him in the Discovery team in 2005, which he said was all clean, as he only wanted to ride for teams where anti doping was a priority

As I said, he never really rode in any of the Armstrong teams. Why would Bruyneel dope the classics team, he's never given a stuff about winning anything other than one race?

My point was, when Armstrong was doping, Hammond would never have been anywhere near him.

I'm interested if they're going to release the evidence because over the years lots of information has come out (e.g. Andreu, Simeoni, Hamilton) but since they say there are at least a dozen witnesses I'm sure there must be previously unknown evidence to emerge which could be very enlightening. I'm also interested if there is anything about the supposed positive cover-up and bribes to the UCI.
I can't believe how many comments I see in various places who still believe in lance - the guy worked with a dodgy doctor for years, there are "at least a dozen witnesses", supposedly biopassport data and given that basically every rider in the top 10 in all those tours has some form of massive doping cloud over them, a clean rider beating them by minutes is just too good to be true. The way I see it, "not fighting on" is an admission of guilt, no matter how much he claims otherwise, and he's hoping that no evidence comes into the public domain.

WRT his victories, I suspect it will be like when Bjarne Riis returned his yellow jersey when he was removed from the record books (although wikipedia still has him as the winner, so this may not still be true). Ullrich has already said he doesn't want the titles he would gain.

just picked up an article from L'Equipe today. Michel Rieu, scientific advisor to the French anti-doping agency, claims that it was impossible to test Armstrong without him getting prior warning of his being tested (at least 20 minutes), before stating: "a lot of manipulations are possible in 20 minutes" (and giving examples of what steps Armsrong could take in those 20 minutes to make sure the test came back negative).

Full article for those interested (and who read French):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Armstrong-le-stratege/308442

Mad for Chelsea wrote:just picked up an article from L'Equipe today. Michel Rieu, scientific advisor to the French anti-doping agency, claims that it was impossible to test Armstrong without him getting prior warning of his being tested (at least 20 minutes), before stating: "a lot of manipulations are possible in 20 minutes" (and giving examples of what steps Armsrong could take in those 20 minutes to make sure the test came back negative).

Full article for those interested (and who read French):
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Armstrong-le-stratege/308442

Bernhard Kohl went into detail about how autologous transfusions are so hard to detect, can't find what he actually said but a lot of the salient points are in this article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/09/berhard-kohl-cycling-drugs-tour-de-france

I'm starting to understand the USADA's stance a bit more now.I originally thought they were being a bit arrogant in announcing they were stripping Armstrong of his Tour wins, even though I felt he was guilty.

But they obviously believe UCI were complicit in covering up doping during Armstrongs reign, and hence, are reluctant to trust them.

From what I've read, I tend to agree with them.

Armstrong has failed tests. One hushed up, one allowed a retrospective medical exception certificate to clear him.

There is only one reason for him not give up the fight. this way he can keep up with the witchhunt/ lies/ pressured witnesses bunkum - and hope some folk believe him. this way he does not have to face the evidence.

contrary to what some posters on her say he does not deny doping - he states he has not cheated and he has not failed a drug test.

The evidence against him is compelling. Folk with nothing to gain acting as witnesses against him like his masseuse. the biological passport. Previously "clean riders" admitting to doping as a part of their evidence.

All of UPS were doping - look at the number know proven, his doctor ( ferrari) is a known doper.

As his doctora dn his team leader are still contesting the charges the evidence agaisnt him cannot be revealed now - but some wil come out at thier tribunals and the rest afterwards.

Lance Armstrong is a known drug cheat.

Also even recently he should have been banned for manipulating tests. the drug tester called at his home. He refuse3d to alow the collection of a urine sample and went to have a shower taking 20+ mins. Plenty of time to mask any drug taking and not the actions of an innocent man

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-04-09/sports/17919604_1_doping-unannounced-tests-don-catlin

Probably guilty.

Armstrong is innocent I reckon. There's something wrong with USADA. Travis Tygart is a nut job just wanting to make a name for himself.

I'm reminded of those old black 'n' white Yank crime movies with the ambitious, young, pushy District Attorney.

Tygart similarities?

It is true, corrupt law enforcer is more likely outside of GTA than corrupt sportsman in the sport with the most evidence of corruption in it ever.

Armstrong didn't take drugs.

Armstrong didn't walk on the moon.

These statements have one thing in common: countless morons believe that they are true.

Official: ASO are saying that they won't be dictated to by these American bodies and will await outcomes from UCI.

What's the betting that Lance's name will be in the records for a long (all)
time, even if there're pointless asterisks appended?

I notice that Miguel is never mentioned...just a little too far back in time?

djlovesyou wrote:Armstrong didn't take drugs.

Armstrong didn't walk on the moon.

These statements have one thing in common: countless morons believe that they are true.

Oh come on dj : surely you know NASA filmed the lunar landings in the Mojave desert ?

Seriously though I don't think references to "morons" for any who don't share your righteous certainty as to Armstrong's perfidy are very helpful...
There are many here who may have plenty of suspicions regarding Armstrong but who are still very unhappy at the way in which the case against him has been conducted ...and would prefer trial first and execution afterward.

Would also prefer ( well I would anyway) to hear actual evidence from someone other than Landis or Hamilton...I want justice too , but I want to see it achieved by an unimpeachable process not the Spanish Inquisition.

alfie wrote:There are many here who may have plenty of suspicions regarding Armstrong but who are still very unhappy at the way in which the case against him has been conducted ...and would prefer trial first and execution afterward.

Would also prefer ( well I would anyway) to hear actual evidence from someone other than Landis or Hamilton...I want justice too , but I want to see it achieved by an unimpeachable process not the Spanish Inquisition.

Isn't that finally, after all the suspicions and innuendo, and secret books and dirty retorts, and liars telling new 'truths' and 'honest' people telling lots of lies........ isn't that finally what Armstrong was being offered? A trial. Him in a building, his accusers in a building and evidence brought forward that he could ridicule as factless or that his accusers could claim as the final truth he's always eluded?

Wasn't that the deal that he has just said no to? It's he alone who is saying no to a trial and yet, at the same time, he's also saying the lack of a trial (questions and evidence) should prove once and for all that he's innocent? Rather an illogical twist to logic. The suspected serial killer refusing to turn up to court because it might incriminate him and prefering instead to let people think what they like as long as he doesn't have to go to court, can continue to claim he didn't do it and can continue to live as a free man protesting his innocence? Would we really stand for such a sham of something called justice?

He was at the final stage of his career long fight for what he regards as justice - ie, "don't dare tell me I cheated" - he was almost there and he walked away from the final solution. It's all very well telling journalists they are wrong, telling fellow riders they are wrong, telling people he'll sue if he's accused of being wrong. But this was going to be the day in court - the moment when we'd find out if all the nuisance naysayers had any real evidence to back up the accusations. And Lance throws in the towel before it can happen. Unusual timing.

Some good points there , Fly...and I too was surprised Armstrong announced he was not going to contest the matter in court any more. Doesn't inspire great confidence in his case , though it could also be as he said he just doesn't care any more as he doesn't believe he can ever truly prove his innocence in the eyes of the world.
It shouldn't matter in the end anyway , as we keep hearing that all the evidence will be produced in the fullness of time. I accept that other cases are tied up with this one which may be delaying public revelation. When everything is put out on view the only difference is that Lance won't be there to give his side of things - through his own choice.
My complaint is that no matter how much USADA may be itching to get their man they should still be waiting for the whole procedure to be completed so that we can all see what the case against Armstrong really is before shouting "guilty".
Remaining silent is an option for any accused defendant - as the police warn them on arrest , inferences may be drawn , but they have the right. Until the trial takes place they remain nominally innocent. Not an exact analogy perhaps but I'm sure you see what I mean...

Anyway I am sure we will hear all we want , and more , before this whole business is finally put to bed in CAS or wherever.

A closer analogy is that his decision to not fight the charges is effectively a guilty plea, thus dispensing with the need for a trial.

alfie wrote:Some good points there , Fly...and I too was surprised Armstrong announced he was not going to contest the matter in court any more. Doesn't inspire great confidence in his case , though it could also be as he said he just doesn't care any more as he doesn't believe he can ever truly prove his innocence in the eyes of the world.
It shouldn't matter in the end anyway , as we keep hearing that all the evidence will be produced in the fullness of time. I accept that other cases are tied up with this one which may be delaying public revelation. When everything is put out on view the only difference is that Lance won't be there to give his side of things - through his own choice.
My complaint is that no matter how much USADA may be itching to get their man they should still be waiting for the whole procedure to be completed so that we can all see what the case against Armstrong really is before shouting "guilty".
Remaining silent is an option for any accused defendant - as the police warn them on arrest , inferences may be drawn , but they have the right. Until the trial takes place they remain nominally innocent. Not an exact analogy perhaps but I'm sure you see what I mean...

Anyway I am sure we will hear all we want , and more , before this whole business is finally put to bed in CAS or wherever.

You're right, Alfie, in the point that the USADA, in consort with the Cycling authorities themselves, should have waited for the final telling of the tale (which as you say will inevitably come out as part of their ongoing investigations involving others who have evidence to give or who might still be under suspicion of aiding Lance in his allegedly illegal activities) They should have waited for the final teling before actions were taken on the titles won and bans imposed. It is 'guilt' before testament - and yep,that's not the right way to go about things. It's a little like a panic attack to kill him off quickly just incase who they see as Mr.Teflon Lance conjurs up another 'get out of jail' trick. Kill his repuation off quickly before he changes his mind about going away quietly.

But as you say, we'll hear more details in time of evidence given and who is giving it. It's intriguing because in my heart of hearts I know that the story involves some very noble humanbeings who are being as accurate with the truth as they possibly can be and as they see it, and there are charlatans who are being very economical with the truth and who have, for one reason or another, vendettas - and the intriguing thing is that neither are exclusively in the pro or anti Lance camp. I think there are liars in both camps and people who believe they are being absolutely honest in both camps. I guess its an imperfect science but regardless of motivations of those involved, the main concern should always remain that one man built a career on saying he was clean. He chose to make it a moral issue by denying the accusations. The full story will let us know if his morality was honest.

I've avoided posting on this for a while, but having a bit of time on my hands will have a stab now. I'm no expert, but the below summarises my view based on what I have heard/read.

As far as I'm aware USADA do have the authority to apply sanctions independently of the UCI. The UCI can challenge (e.g. as they did with Contador's ban, or rather lack thereof) but national anti doping agencies can implement bans and sanctions in the first instance and do not need to agree them first.

Did Armstrong dope. Well (thanks due to Science of Sport), either he did or he has an incredible physiology. His sustained peak power output (over 40 minutes) is estimated as a minimum of 6.6W/kg, and based on likely rather than conservative estimates (not to mention the info given by Armstrong on his own power output) it is nearer 7W/kg. The expert views I've seen indicate that a power output of 6.2W/kg is the maximum that can possibly be achieved naturally. To put it into context Wiggins, Contador and Schleck all have a fairly similar sustained peak power output at about 5.9W/kg. So while they could conceivably have doped to achieve that, it is within the credible range that can be achieved with good physiology and training. Armstrong on the other hand... well, either it's doping or some really freakish physiology that should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate as all he'd need to show is that the oxygen carrying capacity of his blood is naturally huge.

However, all of the above is not to say that USADA have handled this well. Unless there is some legal reason I am unaware of I do not know why there was no hearing. In a normal court you don't jump straight to the sentence even if the defendent pleads guilty or refuses to mount a defence. In a court of law a lawyer would be appointed on their behalf, the prosecution would make their case to a neutral judge/jury and the appointed lawyer would do the best they could. Of course disciplinary panels are going to be lighter weight than that, but I would still expect a hearing, presentation of evidence and then an independent arbitrator making the judgement - with the evidence and judgement published. As it is, it does look like the USADA may have had a prosecution also covering the roles of judge, jury and executioner. If they wanted to withold the evidence for a while so that they weren't showing their hand too early in other contested cases, then they should have stated that was the case and Armstrong's judgement, not just done it in what appears to be secret.

Further I am slightly unnerved at the nature of the case against him, i.e. if reports are believed witnesses play a bit part. If they have offered lighter sentences to others for testimony against Lance then that would concern me hugely. First that the testimony is not reliable if there was an incentive either directly or indirectly to point the finger at Armstrong. Secondly and more importantly that dopers who are potentially still involved in the sport either as riders or coaches are getting light bans for the sake of someone we have already got rid of the traditional way. Finally, there should be a strong enough case on the basis of his power output alone plus biological passport data if it is available. Sport of all forms would benefit far more from further precedents on bans relating to proving the effects of doping rather than the action.

Were UCI complicit in hiding results? Would that make them as bad as the dopers? In answer to the first then quite possibly yes they were. Based on the blood testing done in the late 90s early 00s they must have known that a fair chunk of the peloton were doping. The average power output of the peloton in the late 90s, before they developed the EPO test, was higher than the winners in recent years. I don't think everyone was doing it, but certainly a very significant proportion. Part of me thinks that the UCI should have gone in guns blazing to stop the dopers, but another part of me thinks that is a little naive. Had every doping rider in the late 90s been banned what would have been left? And I'm not just talking about how many riders... but would there be any sponsors, tv coverage, etc. I've a sneaky suspicion that it would have been the end of cycling as a pro sport, at least for a time. And that means that you wouldn't just be punishing the dopers you'd be hitting all of the clean riders and innocent support staff. In the black and white world of right and wrong it's easy, in the real world not so much. As it is the UCI have pushed (albeit slowly) in the right direction. First making biological passports official and now being the only ones to ban on that alone. They have taken enormous strides to clean up the sport and as above, we don't know for certain that today's top riders are clean but they are at least credible and if they are doping they are getting much less benefit from it. I really don't know what happened and would hate to pass judgement, but looking at where we are now I can't argue too much.

The same is not true of USADA. Happy to ignore their own statute of limitations where they think UCI have been complicit, are they willing to do that in cases where they have been complicit (and there are alleged to be plenty of those). Have they like the UCI (however reluctantly) in cycling, and the Aussie ADA in all sports - pushed for biological passports for all? For me it seems like they are a reactive organisation, happy to get a high profile case so as not to look entirely disinterested/ineffective but not doing the kind of work that is really required to crack down. Banning Lance retrospectively is probably the right thing to do, but it needs to be done the right way and as yet I'm not convinced that has happened nor does his ban convince me they really are waging the war on doping in sport.

incontinentia wrote:In light of this any many many other doping cases, is there any value to the argument that athletes should be allowed take what they like and not be tested?

The sport of strongman already operates such a policy, and it seems to be working okay for them.

I bet the best athletes would still win if this was the case so why not?

It would be a truly, truly sad and black day for sport if such an attitude ever became the norm. I'd even go so far as to say it would be a truly sad and black day for mankind as a whole.

I'm amazed and, I'm sorry to say, a touch embarrassed that any sports fan could want such an outcome.

One key thing is that pretty much all illegal supplements are harmful and athletes being allowed to use them would encourage others to and thus cause large amounts of damage to society

A complex subject.

I wonder sometimes what constitutes an "illegal" drug.

something on the banned list?

But what governs which are banned?

E.G.-why isn't caffeine banned?

Wait a second -

an illegal drug is not only a drug that is on a banned list, an illegal drug is any artificial performance enhancing substance or activity that gives you an edge over athletes that aren't using such activity to compete.

Just because a substance or activity isn't on a known list doesn't mean that administrators aren't constantly on the look out for new substances, looking to perfect method of detecting such substances or activities and when and if they find such substances they will also add that new substance to the banned list and punish the user. That's why they now keep samples in storage - to check later on when exotic substances have been exposed and when there are tests down the line that will discover them.

Why always the confusion about what drug is on any given list? If you're taking an artificial product for the purposes of adding to your performance ability - that's cheating, that's wrong and that's punishable when/if exposed.

It's simple... don't complicate it.

Azabache wrote:But what governs which are banned?

E.G.-why isn't caffeine banned?

Because the use of caffeine is ingrained in our society, it has to be really abused to have a likelihood of causing harm and the benefits it can possibly give are minimal? May as well ban electrolye sports drinks or protein on that basis

Caffeine used to be banned, but the limit was something equivalent to 8 espressos.

What's the definition of "artificial"?

And I don't mean Travis Tygart's one.

This argument could work in the Clenbutador case, but Armstrong kinda took the banned substance list and treated it like one of those challenges at American restaurants where they offer prizes for anyone who can eat the entire menu.

EPO and blood doping are banned because they not only enhance performance, but they are also dangerous.

Armstrong cheated. He knew what was allowed and what wasn't allowed. It's pathetic that you're still trying to justify what he did.

Azabache wrote:What's the definition of "artificial"?

And I don't mean Travis Tygart's one.

The definition of "artificial" in sport is probably when you simply know you're doing wrong Any athlete asking the question probably knows he taking something or would like to. A clean athlete who wants to compete as such and wants to feel he/she is competing against likeminded people in a fair competition will just know the banned list and not take anything on it...they'll also not take any injections of substances from strangers who say it'll make them feel better, they won't let their blood to be used in exotic ways and have it pumped back into them.... you know when you're doing wrong, it isn't rocket science..it's like asking, "Well what exactly is stealing?" You steal something and you know you're stealing.

I'm no apologist for Mr. Armstrong. Just waiting for the "evidence"-when's it coming?

I've always kinda liked the second string tryers like Fernando Escartin.

Like many, I'm just completely bewildered by the whole situation.

What's there to be bewildered about?

Lance was charged with cheating, he's not contesting the charges because the evidence against him is clearly so overwhelming.

Very simple.

djlovesyou wrote:What's there to be bewildered about?

Lance was charged with cheating, he's not contesting the charges because the evidence against him is clearly so overwhelming.

Very simple.

This is pretty much it.

Lance does not want to contest the charges as he doesn't want to end up like Marion Jones and doing time in jail.

The genius of PBF wrote:Lance does not want to contest the charges as he doesn't want to end up like Marion Jones and doing time in jail.

I don't think there's any danger of jail as the state prosecutors have already dropped it. I was under the impression that they decided it was impossible as they'd need to demonstrate that he had used state funds to dope, not just that he doped. As he has a much wider source of income than an athletics competitor like Jones, and state funding would be much less than commercial that is much harder for them to do.

Big

The Grand Jury case was the one that was dropped - that was investigating whether money supplied by the US Postal Service (as a US Government-funded institution) was being used for the procurement of doping products (which I believe would constitute a Federal crime and undoubted jail time for those complicit). Since USPS (the team) had more income streams than just the sponsorship (e.g. a LOT of prize money and endorsement money from Nike, Trek etc), it was not possible to demonstrate within the law that Federal money was being used in this manner.

It does seem likely that evidence brought forward by the Grand Jury investigation played a large part in the case that USADA constructed against Armstrong, although of course we don't KNOW for sure exactly what the evidence is because Armstrong refused the option to take the case to arbitration and have the evidence heard.

Remember that taking performance-enhacing drugs is not a crime (although being an active supplier of them is, hence the minor US cyclist Joe Papp having gone to prison) - Marion Jones did not go to jail for doping but for perjury, in that she lied to a Grand Jury that was investigating BALCO.

Thanks, again, for a reasoned clarification to counter the sometimes rhetorical and hysterical assertions made here by the quasi lawyers.

Thanks for the clarification there dummy_half. Wasn't sure on the exact details, but it sounds about right and unless there are other investigations I am unaware of backs up my view that there is no danger whatsoever of jail. I have to admit thought that I'm a bit surprised that doping offenders can't be done somehow. I thought that doping was a criminal offence in some countries (isn't that why the riders were getting peed off in the Festina days, with French police being more intrusive than they'd like?). So though I can't see it happening I guess the French, if not others, could ask to have him extradited - it would make for a remarkable case! In a broader sense I'd have thought it was an implicit, if not explicit, condition of entering events that you are doing so clean. I'd have thought that taking money from event organisers/sponsors/etc on a false basis would constitute fraud. Thankfully though I'm not a lawyer and don't need to give it too much thought.

Just imagine the French court case:
The ambitious "DA"-Tygart
The rogue/villain/hero/tortured victim/actor/peoples' champion-LA
The defence counsel-a John Mortimer/Rumpole of the Bailey type
The judge-a vague, vacillilating John le Mesurier type
The faithful witnesses-Big George, Bruyneel...um?
The reliable prosecution witnesses-Hamilton, Landis, Kohl, Vino...
Other expert witnesses-McQuaid, Sherwin and his mate, Duffield
The gals-the pop singer, the wives

That's enough for a nightmare.

Big George was going to testify against Armstrong. No ex-riders would have been sticking up for him, not even his bestest friends.

The jig was up, time to let it go.

Azabache wrote:Just imagine the French court case:
The ambitious "DA"-Tygart
The rogue/villain/hero/tortured victim/actor/peoples' champion-LA
The defence counsel-a John Mortimer/Rumpole of the Bailey type
The judge-a vague, vacillilating John le Mesurier type
The faithful witnesses-Big George, Bruyneel...um?
The reliable prosecution witnesses-Hamilton, Landis, Kohl, Vino...
Other expert witnesses-McQuaid, Sherwin and his mate, Duffield
The gals-the pop singer, the wives

That's enough for a nightmare.

Ambtious DA: "Answer the question, Mr Armstrong."
Defence Council: Answer the question, Lance."
Judge: "Answer the question, Mr Armstrong."
Faithful Witnesses: "Tell them, Lance."
Prosecution Witnesses: "Just answer the question, Armstrong!"
Other Expert Witnesses:
The gals: "If you just give us your credit card, there's a store to die for down the road. We'll come back to support you when you're being taken down - promise"

Forgot to include the wonderful Dane-Michael Rasmussen!

Fillipo Simeoni can play himself.

He's one guy I feel happy for after all this time.

Let's all follow Boxing instead-now there's a noble sport!

yup, no steroids at all in boxing, and a great drugs-testing policy