According to the Associated Press, Lance Armstrong has decided not to go to arbitration over the US Anti-Doping Agency’s charges that he used performance enhancing drugs during his epic 7-year string of Tour de France victories.
“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 in a statement sent to The Associated Press. […]
“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.”
With Armstrong’s decision not to fight comes the reality that USADA will most likely strip him of his seven Tour victories and any other results during the most storied part of his career.
Armstrong’s full statement can be found here. ESPN.com posts an article similar to the AP story. And USA Today reports that USADA has confirmed that they will strip Armstrong of his Tour titles and impose a lifetime ban from competition.
I have to say, I didn’t expect he would fold. But this move was probably the best one of a series of unpalatable options for Armstrong. The long saga is over, and to use a hackneyed psychobabble term, it provides a certain amount of closure. For those seeking a full accounting of what Armstrong may have done during his professional cycling career, I’m not so sure this is quite the ending they envisioned.
More to come as the story develops.
My best guess: with UCI’s latest change of heart, Armstrong figured that he had no chance in federal court.
But I doubt this is over. Bruyneel is proceeding to arbitration, where Tygart can subpoena the same witnesses he planned to use against Armstrong. There’s still information left to leak, and confidential test results that have not been disclosed.
Personally … for me, Armstrong will be the guy whose example gave me hope when my mother was diagnosed with cancer … and whose Foundation provided us with information and other resources throughout the remainder of her life. Just a reminder that for some of us, there’s more at stake here than a bunch of yellow jerseys.
Larry,
I think you’re on to something with the UCI angle. And you’re right, the Bruyneel arbitration is yet to come, and could spring leaks, even if it’s a private hearing.
I’m thinking that this was Lance’s best way out of the corner he found himself in, salvaging as much of his image and reputation that he can. This is certainly what’s best for the foundation, and regardless of what one thinks of Lance as a person, they do provide good resources and help to people dealing with cancer.
Here’s a head scratcher: what if … USADA strips Lance of ALL his titles, and then becomes defunct itself as an organization in the next couple of years. What happens then?
snake,
Ouch! That one makes my head hurt. 😉
Rant, I expect that leaks will come from many quarters.
By the way, it’s not at all clear what USADA has the power to do at this point. According to the latest report, USADA not only intends to strip Armstrong of all his titles, but also intends to ban Armstrong from cycling FOR LIFE. I’d have to go back to the rules to figure out how USADA thinks it can impose more than the usual two-year ban. As for the titles … my recollection of the Landis case is that it was the ASO, not USADA, that stripped Landis of his 2006 TdF victory. Armstrong is claiming that only UCI can change the results of a TdF. You wouldn’t normally think that an agency in one country could by itself change the results of a race conducted in a different country … would you?
Does USADA have proof that Armstrong doped during all seven of his Tour victories? Or is their theory that if a guy is proven to have doped at any time during his career, then USADA has the power to wipe out any results the guy achieved career-wide?
Larry,
I think USADA is approaching the sanctions from the point of view of an long-term conspiracy, rather than an individual doping offense. I’d have to go and check the UCI and WADA rules, but I think they can impose such a ban in this kind of case. “Aggravating circumstances” is the terminology I think they used when updating the WADA code in 2009.
We’ll see if the UCI and the ASO follow through and strip Lance of his titles.
Rant, “aggravating circumstances” allows for an increase in ban of up to 4 years. That’s WADA Code 10.6. Normally a lifetime ban is possible only upon an athlete’s second doping violation. I suppose Tygart could be claiming that it proved more than one doping violation, though it would seem that every doping case potentially involves multiple violations. The WADA Code allows for a lifetime ban in cases involving trafficking, or whatever it is that WADA Code 2.8 is supposed to cover, and in all likelihood that’s where Tygart is looking.
LA gives up this fight he can’t win anyway, regardless of being guilty or innocent, and “USADA reacted quickly and treated Armstrong’s decision as an admission of guilt”. This is completely nuts. Will the public ever get to see the so-called evidence ?
pommi, as best as I can tell, the key “so-called” evidence was going to be testimony from Landis, Hamilton and others. It would have been given in a private arbitration hearing and then (in all likelihood) selectively leaked. It may still be given, and still be leaked, if Bruyneel goes ahead with his USADA arbitration.
Some of the witnesses will tell their stories eventually, in forums like the 60 Minutes TV show. I suspect that in the next ten years, Armstrong will tell his story too.
Yes, Tygart claimed he would introduce evidence that Armstrong’s biological passport results were “consistent with doping”. But that was just nonsense — either the results show doping or they don’t. The false negative rate in PED testing is so high that any drug test is theoretically “consistent with doping”.
Perhaps Tygart was going to resurrect some of the older charges against Armstrong, such as the EPO testing of old Armstrong urine samples that was leaked to L’Equipe, or the business about the supposedly suppressed doping positive against Armstrong in 2001. Who knows? It’s also possible that the federal criminal investigation against Armstrong unearthed new stuff that impressed Tygart (we can assume that the feds have been sharing their investigation results with USADA), stuff that we don’t already know. Who knows?
But obviously, the key shift was the willingness of Landis, Hamilton and others to testify against Armstrong. If you were expecting these witnesses to testify and be cross-examined in public, like Brian McNamee in the Clemens case … well, that wasn’t going to happen under any circumstances.
In at least one sense, Armstrong got it right in his press release: no matter what he did, people were going to believe what they wanted to believe. Innocent or guilty, Armstrong has nothing to gain by pursuing this matter any further.
In the PED era, there are (and always will be) only two types of athlete: (1) those who are proven to be dopers beyond a reasonable doubt or who confess to doping, and (2) everyone else. It is one of the small benefits of the decision Armstrong made tonight: arguably he remains within classification no. 2.
TT will need to leave his desk today and go to the mailbox.
Bruyneel, Ceyala, and Marti will not show up for arbitration.
Armstrong has been thrown under the bus to protect the powers that be in cycling and in sport generally.
For Armstrong personally his press release of August 23rd is very sad. It amounts to a confession without a confession. It shows the enormous depth of weakness of a man who without a doubt has a great athletic body (with or without dope).
The statement is an act of desperation to hold on to a lie. It has 0 chance of success.
Armstrong could have done something great for cycling and sports by confessing, by telling the truth, by giving up his own false victories to help clean up a sport.
Travis Tygart was right: Cycling needs a Truth and Reconciliation Process. Armstrong could have saved himself in the eyes of his children. It is now probably too late for his redemption in any form or style. This is enormously sad however we regard the person.
So the suggestion here is the lifetime ban is based on WADA code written in 2009 for offenses prior to 2009 or do they have evidence of the same offenses 2009-2011? The end is immensely unsatisfying either way.
Armstrong’s behavior is simply sad.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/08-22-12%20bock%20letter-final.pdf
It seems he will never give up trying to cheat.
It is my opinion (for whatever that is worth) that Lance is going to let others continue the work on his behalf. Based on what I have read the USADA is on far from solid legal ground and the UCI and USA Cycling will probably pursue this, and not just because Lance is likely egging them on. The USADA is acting like a bull in a china shop and is so clearly fixated on the Great White Whale and cycling that out of their own self interest and wanting control of their own sport I see UCI and USA Cycling aggressively contesting USADA’s actions.
I don’t think we are done with this…
It looks a bit like LA is leaving the door cracked a bit to some future action against USADA, perhaps contesting their right to strip hi of his titles. Indeed, it is not clear to me that they have the right to unilaterally alter the results of a race not conducted under their jurisdiction, both territorially and temporally. But then I am no expert. And it is still possible that UCI and/or ASO will act. Clearly, they have a good claim for jurisdiction.
How much this will effect Lance is a bit hard to tell. Plenty of people already believed he doped, that won’t change. Will people who either think he is innocent or undecided now change? This is harder to say. I kind of think short term, few will change but if and when more stuff comes out from the other cases still pending things may change.
As we said Lance could not win, too many evidences, too many witnesses to corroborate their testimonies and the evidences, too many lies of Lance that could have been exposed,… So better to quit than to face Truth.
That is probably the less damaging choice.
But we are unsatisfied because we want to see UCI corruption exposed too.
TDF is run under French Federation, so they (and UCI) are in charge of rules. ASO is just an organiser, normaly they have no power for such decisions.
More about journalisms by David Walsh :
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-walsh-on-armstrong-and-usadas-charges
A good demonstration of how omerta works.
And of course a lot of good points.
Larry,
Thanks. That’s it. Because USADA listed trafficking among the charges in the notification to Lance, I would think that’s where the grounds for a lifetime ban come from. Unless they want to count each individual action as a separate offense.
LuckyLab,
That’s about right. The punishment looks to be based on the 2009 update to the WADA code. If Armstrong had stayed retired, he might have been able to argue that the update didn’t apply, since he didn’t race under those rules. But part of USADA’s case stems from his return to racing, so that brings Armstrong under the 2009 version of the WADA code. Now, whether they can really apply that to prior offenses is a potential point of contention, but since Armstrong is walking away from the fight, that question won’t get answered at this time.
LauraLyn,
No matter how you slice it, and no matter what one’s opinion is of Lance Armstrong, this is a sad ending to his career, to be sure.
pommi,
At some point some (perhaps all) of the evidence will come out. I just saw an article that quoted Tygart as saying that it will come out “at the right time”, whenever that is. And there’s always the possibility that Bruyneel and the other team official will select public arbitration hearings, which would allow an airing of the evidence. But that assumes those two continue with arbitration. I’m inclined to think Bruyneel will, at the very least to contest whether USADA has the right to prosecute him. An argument could be made that the prosecution should rightly be done in either the UK, where he currently resides, or in Belgium, which is his home country. That, of course, wouldn’t get him off the hook, but it would answer the question of who has the authority to try unlicensed foreign nationals.
The turf wars continue:
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20120824/DA0RNAA80.html
And one man’s opinion:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120824/lance-armstrong-drops-doping-fight/?hpt=hp_c1
LA may do exactly as promised today and ignore the issue?
The only real power USADA has over him is to prevent him from competition held under the WADA umbrella.
On the other hand, LA’s side may be waiting for “official” notification of sanctions (likely complicated by jurisdiction disputes) (and not those announced via the media w/o official citation) in a bid to establish damages, and then move forward from there.
Either scenario, or some variation, would not shock me.
I’m unconvinced that the fat lady has begun to sing her song. LOL.
Edit:
and for the “problem solved” crowd, consider this short list of new unofficial TdF winners:
Jan (x3), Mr. Tranquilo, Beloki, Zulle, Kloden 😉
Good to see Basso get in there.
A proud day for cycling indeed.
What a crock of shit. All of it. USADA, WADA, the UCI. All just PATHETIC. But oh boy, now that the biggest American sporting HERO is being stripped of his TDF titles, pro cycling will be SQUEAKY CLEAN & we can all sing kumbaya & live happily freakin after.
Meanwhile, in the PRESENT, there is as previous Tour de France stripped-winner riding the Vuelta right now after serving a 6 MONTH suspension for an ACTUAL FAILED DOPE TEST. But now that Lance will be stripped, I’m SURE doping will never happen again in THIS sport…. And changing sports, we have a poor country the size & population of Delaware that has SOMEhow become the world’s Track SPRINT power during the last decade & does the world media investigate HOW this is possible? Hell, no, it glorifies the biggest ego since Ali & laughs & claps while he repeatedly proclaims himself a “legend”. Pathetic.
But all is not despair in Susie Land today! Au contraire! I read just this morning that sometime in the next 3 years, I will FINALLY get my freakin money back from Piece of Shit Landis! Justice may not exist in pro-cycling, but apparently it DOES live in a San Diego federal court!
susie b
I’ll have to figure out how to officially decline Floyd paying me back. Maybe that will help you get your money back sooner?
Susie b,
So you were victim of Landis, and finally you will get your money because Landis has been caught cheating by WADA.
Victims deserve the Truth.
That is the same for Armstrong’s case, we need the Truth and victims reparations. Don’t blame USADA when UCI could have stop it in 1999 by refusing corruption. The first accountables are the facilitators of Lance’s doping. People of cycling world are speaking : that should have been stopped with the fake TUE.
Gee. Go to sleep for, say, 8 hours, and the landscape shifts.
Bonnie Ford has, per usual, written the must-read analysis of the Armstrong situation: http://es.pn/T4eOra. Not that I agree with all of it, but damn! Ford can write.
Last night all we had was the Armstrong statement, the one we all understood as Armstrong giving up the fight. But as LauraLyn noted, we now have a second statement from Armstrong’s lawyers, Timothy Herman and Robert Luskin. As Ford notes, the Herman/Luskin statement “differs rather substantially” from the statement released last night by Armstrong. But as the Armstrong statement was a press release and the Herman/Luskin statement was addressed to USADA, we should probably regard the Herman/Luskin statement as Armstrong’s “official” position.
But at this moment, I confess that I’m not clear on what Armstrong’s “official” position might be. The Herman/Luskin letter states that the UCI asserted “jurisdiction and authority” in the Armstrong case, and gave its “mandate” that no one associated with UCI or USAC should participate in the USADA arbitration. The Herman/Luskin letter also states that USAC “confirmed” this position. For these reasons, according to the letter, Armstrong “cannot proceed into the arbitration.” The letter proposes that either (a) USADA submit its evidence against Armstrong to UCI for an independent review and
decision, or (b) go the CAS to resolve the “jurisdictional dispute” between USADA and UCI. If USADA were to select option (a), then the letter states (promises?) that Armstrong will abide by the UCI decision. Finally, the letter threatens legal action against USADA should it claim “without jurisdiction to sanction Mr. Armstrong” or “falsely characterize Mr. Armstrong’s reasons for not requesting an arbitration as anything other than a recognition of UCI jurisdiction and authority”.
Does this sound like Armstrong has “folded”?
There’s much remaining for us to discuss, including (1) the positions being asserted today by WADA, USADA, IOC, UCI and ASO, and (2) if Armstrong has indeed agreed to follow UCI in this matter, would Armstrong abide by a UCI decision to resolve this matter in a USADA arbitration.
Susie b, while you are contemplating the state of Susie Land, you might consider the coincidence of how the announcement of the Landis settlement happened to follow right after the Armstrong decision not to arbitrate. Could it be that the feds and USADA delayed the Landis announcement, so that Landis might testify against Armstrong BEFORE he was indicted for criminal fraud? Y’know, because a guy facing 20 years in prison for lying might not make the most effective witness? How do you feel about your government’s willingness to delay your getting repaid in an effort to prop up Landis’ credibility on the witness stand?
And while we’re on the subject … what do you think of the “punishment” that Landis is receiving? As part of the government’s message that no professional athlete can get away with doping, the government is also sending a stern message to people like Landis: if we catch you engaging in criminal fraud, then eventually you’ll have to repay some of the money. That should put the fear of God into potential criminals! Sure, potential criminal: go ahead and rob the local jewelry store! But if we catch you, you might eventually have to return half of what you stole.
Larry,
Just a point of chronology. Bonnie Ford’s story about Landis’ case actually came out about 2 or 3 hours ahead of Lance’s announcement. It appears that the story was updated after Lance’s story came out. The timing of the Landis announcement may still have been coordinated, but the Landis news actually hit the wires first, only to be overshadowed by Lance a bit later on. (Sort of like Floyd’s career, overshadowed by Lance.)
Rant: so I’m a lousy conspiracy theorist.
Let’s review where we stand at the moment in the Armstrong case.
Armstrong says he will fight no more forever. Armstrong’s lawyers say that it’s up to UCI to decide this case, or else everyone should go to CAS to see who has the power to decide this case, and in the meantime USADA faces possible liability if it tries to impose sanctions or proclaim Armstrong’s guilt based on his decision not to arbitrate. The gap between Armstrong’s statement and that of his lawyers has not yet been explained.
USADA has done exactly what Armstrong’s lawyers warned USADA not to do.
UCI says that under WADA Code Article 8.3, USADA must issue a “reasoned decision” in the Armstrong case to UCI, Armstrong and WADA. UCI says it will not comment on the Armstrong case until it receives that decision. USADA says that the UCI is required to “recognize our decision and impose it”, without indicating whether USADA intends to issue the “reasoned decision” that UCI says is required.
ASO says it will wait to see what happens. The IOC says it has to consider decisions made by USADA and UCI before looking at what to do with Armstrong’s bronze medal from the 2000 Olympic Games.
WADA President John Fahey says that Armstrong’s decision not to arbitrate was an admission that the charges against him “had substance”. Funny, but I remember that WADA reacted negatively to Landis’ decision to go to arbitration. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
For those who care: the 2009 WADA Code, Article 8.3, says that when an accused athlete passes on taking a doping case to arbitration, the anti-doping organization with results management responsibility must submit a reasoned decision to the athlete, the relevant international federation (in this case, UCI), the IOC and WADA explaining the action taken. By requesting this decision, UCI appears to be stating that USADA is the organization with results management responsibility in this case. This would appear to undercut the claim made by Armstrong’s lawyers that UCI has jurisdiction and authority in this case, or that UCI can use the USADA decision as a basis to conduct its own independent review and decision.
However, the UCI DOES appear to have the power to appeal USADA’s decision to the CAS. This is provided in WADA Code Section 13.2.3, which gives the right of appeal to the accused athlete, the relevant international federation, the IOC and WADA. It is possible that Armstrong waived his right to appeal when he waived his right to arbitrate, though perhaps Armstrong could appeal the extent of the sanctions imposed by USADA. It’s obvious that WADA has no interest in appealing USADA’s decision, and I doubt that the IOC would mount an appeal.
So … it looks like the next move in this saga belongs to USADA. If they issue a decision implicating Armstrong and making no accusations against UCI, my guess is that UCI will accept the decision and that Armstrong will become a non-person in cycling’s record books. But if the USADA decision accuses UCI of corruption, covering up test results and otherwise facilitating the anti-doping violations alleged by USADA, my guess is that UCI will appeal to CAS. I’m sure that Tygart understands his options. Will he take the easy route, or the “nuclear” option?
Larry, you paint a picture for what will amount to a royal pissing contest between the alphabet organizations. Tygart has already stated that he has no trust of the UCI in this matter and essentially implicated them, so why would Tygart back down? I think Tygart will continue with the nuclear/scorched-earth policy. He believes he has nothing to lose, and he just may be right….
I wonder what Sam Sparks thinks when he reads the headlines about all this. I’d pay a dollar to know that.
USADA has no choice, to strip all Lance titles, corruption is needed. If UCI stay quiet with USADA decision, that could done less harm for involved people. If they fight in front of CAS, that would be worse.
So I do believe that Tygart has a good position.
Larry,
That does sound like the makings of what BuzzyB called “a royal pissing contest.” I’ll certainly be curious to see if the nuclear option gets played. The potential fallout from that could be huge.
Over the course of the day, I’ve read a number of reports that state USADA has stripped Armstrong of his results from ’98 forward, including the loss of 7 TdF wins and issued a lifetime ban. CNN Headline News and my local news channel have parroted the same line.
Trouble is, regardless of Travis Tygarts assertions (sort of reminds me of Alexander Haig when Regan was shot), the reports are factually wrong.
While it may come to pass in the not too distant future, it’s not USADA’s call under WADA Code as has been noted here previously by another poster.
I’m going to grab a bucket of popcorn and a soft drink (maybe a beer? It’s soft, right?) while I watch this disagreeable conglomeration of idiots make further fools of themselves.
Maybe the fat asses at the IoC or WADA can reign Tygart in?
It will be interesting to see how they deal with UCI, which for all its conflict of interest, startling ineptitude, and likely corruption, is the organization that gets to make the call based upon a reasoned report from USADA.
LOL
Jeff,
You are partially right, reports should said that Lance will be stripped of his titles after UCI has agreed USADA decision.
WADA and IOC will support USADA according what we know, we are speaking of doping, drug trafficking and corruption case here, not a simple doping test.
If UCI doesn’t agree, they have to go to CAS.
There is a very slimm chance that they would do it, because the UCI corruption part will be aired, dismissing the value of their position. It’s unlikely that CAS will rule in favor of UCI.
Don’t forget that for a such case, UCI decision will be taken by UCI comettee, not by McQuaid. No national federation could afford to be out of IOC, their biggest fear.
Will USADA send UCI what purports to be a “reasoned decision”? If they don’t UCI could simply fail to act. This would not be an unreasonable approach for UCI, based on the idea that they (UCI) are the ones with the power to vacate results but they need the proper paperwork to do so.
Another possibility is that USADA sends UCI something, but UCI says it is deficient, and kicks it back, so to speak. Or USADA sends UCI something, and UCI decides that, having made USADA jump though the proper hoops, they will accept the report and strip LA of his results.
I think a lot here depends on what USADA’s goals are here, beyond Armstrong. Are they using his case to stake out a claim to be able to act unilaterally to DQ athletes, or are they simply trying to ake sure he goes down?
And there still is the question of whether or not the other finishers get bumped up or do we leave the other places as is, with no “winner” for 1999 through 2005. By the way Jean, I was not trying to suggest that OP should have his 2006 win taken away. That is a done deal. But I was questioning whether that was an appropriate thing to do.
Some further thoughts: I think all that USADA needs to do is send something to UCI stating that LA declined arbitration and they reached a decision by default, entirely proper under the circumstances. And then it will be entirely proper for UCI to strip LA of his titles. If UCI fails to act, USADA has other options, including appealing to CAS.
Big Mig speaks:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8302179/former-champion-miguel-indurain-says-lance-armstrong-keep-tour-de-france-titles-now
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Livestrong is doing fine:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8301006/lance-armstrong-foundation-sees-78k-donations-25-times-greater-normal-day
William,
USADA have usually send similar papers for lot of doping cases to many federations and such kind of cases. They know what they have to do.
Indurain, is probably the first EPO TDF winner, why would he said something else? That is called omerta.
An interview of Travis Tygart:
http://www.msg.com/videos/the-dan-patrick-show-travis-tygart-824.html
Since Lance Armstrong has come under attack here because his charitable endeavors are seen by some as somehow not legitimate …
There are two big reputable charity rating sites in the U.S.: Charity Navigator and Charity Watch. Charity Navigator gives Livestrong a 4 star rating, its highest rating, with a score of 63 out of a possible 70. Charity Watch has been critical of Livestrong in the past, but they currently rank Livestrong as a “top-rated charity” with a grade of A-. Only 13 cancer charities are listed by Charity Watch as “top rated” – such reputable charities as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure do not receive this top rating.
Livestrong’s administrative expenses are about 6% of total expenses, and it spends more than 80% of what it raises for program activities – these are both good numbers. Could these numbers be better? Of course! There are charities out there that devote more than 90% of what they raise to program activities, and where the charity’s CEO makes half of what Douglas Ulman makes at Livestrong (for example, see Oregon Food Bank). And there are charities that do worse: the well-known hunger-fighting charity Heifer Project International devotes 73% of its money to program expenses, and spends 20% on fundraising. Heifer is a sound and reputable charity. The largest cancer charity, the American Cancer Society, gives only 60% of the contributions it receives to program services, and receives only two stars from Charity Navigator (its CEO is paid over $2 million a year in salary, about 6 times what Douglas Ulman is paid).
Livestrong compares number-wise to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Both have a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator. Komen’s administrative expenses are a bit higher than Livestrong’s, but it spends less on fundraising and consequently devotes a couple of percentage points more to program expenses. Komen’s CEO makes more money than Livestrong’s.
We’ve had this discussion here before. To be certain, there are ways to judge charities other than the ones used by the two rating services. These service place great reliance on the percentage of contributions that go to “program activities”, but certain charities lend themselves better to this measurement than do others, and the definition of what constitutes “program activities” is a bit fuzzy. I’m not going to argue with anyone who criticizes Livestrong, or would prefer to give money elsewhere. But it’s simply wrong to argue that Livestrong is not a legitimate charity, serving an important purpose. The experts say otherwise.
THANK YOU LARRY, you are AWESOME!
I’ve been fundraising for LS for 4 years now (I’m part of Team Fatty, and we’ve raised right around a Million $ in those 4 years, probably more).
I hear some negative stuff on LS every now and then (primarily that they haven’t given money to research in years, to which I will yet again patiently explain why this is so and what they DO provide) but overall everybody I work with (my primary fundraising site) is quite receptive.
And as always, I also say if you aren’t comfortable with where the money goes, then please feel free to find a charity you will support. Just do SOMETHING to help make a difference in whatever arena you choose. (btw, I’m not comfortable ASKING people for $, so I’ve found something I can do: I sell muffins, bagels w/cream cheese, fresh fruit and Yoplait low fat yogurt 5 days a week at 2 of our buildings…meaning that I get to work 45 minutes early EVERY DAY for the last 4 years to do my fundraising on my own time, netting a profit of somewhere around $100 a month to LS).
Whether Lance did or didn’t do what he is accused of (well, now I guess I have to say ‘convicted of’, even though I have yet to see the ACTUAL EVIDENCE and will be withholding my judgement until that time), I can easily separate the man and the organization. Lance didn’t even come to Davis this year back in late June, I guess he (they) were already working on the separation thing. I can’t help but wonder how LIVESTRONG Austin will go this October, but I can’t afford to be there or I surely would.
Anyhoo, none of this brew-ha-ha has ANY bearing on why I fund-raise for LS, and I don’t see that changing no matter how this all comes out when the dust finally settles.
Oh, and William, thanks for that link to how people are reacting to LIVESTRONG and their fundraising…makes me want to work even harder (I can’t afford to donate very much of my own $, but I can give my time).
Your welcome, Matt. And here’s a link about what our favorite guy is up to these days:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8302307/needs-cry-me
I am assuming this was some sort of unsanctioned race. Now, was that teenager doping to be able to beat a convicted doper?:-)
A dramatic statement of Emma O’Reilly :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers
Oh oh. SMTML is not going to like this … Landis may not have to repay his FFF contributors after all.
Landis’ “admitted defrauding 1,765 donors out of $478,354” but his agreement to repay these donors is capped based on his income. Landis’ “agreement with prosecutors caps restitution at 50 percent of Landis’ annual income, if he makes at least $200,000. Payments would be limited to 5 percent of his annual income if he makes less than $50,000.” http://bit.ly/RPtM9f
So … if Landis makes $50,000 a year over the next three years, he can avoid prosecution if he repays $7,500 (less than 2%) of the roughly $500,000 he admits to having procured by fraud. That’s some deal! For Landis to be required to repay the entire amount, he’d have to earn about $320,000 a year over the next three years.
To which I say in response: wow! This is not only a great deal for Landis, it is a highly unusual deal. This is restitution in the most token sense imaginable. A typical FFF donor might be able to receive a penny or two back on the dollar that he or she donated to Landis. In such a case, it’s hardly worth the effort to seek repayment — the average donor of $25-$50 would be lucky to recoup the postage on the letter sent asking for repayment.
This deal is SO unusual, SO favorable to Landis, that it’s hard to imagine that the deal was not part of some larger agreement with the government providing for Landis’ testimony against Armstrong. And this raises a host of other questions, such as: if USADA REALLY had a host of Armstrong’s ex-teammates ready to testify against Armstrong, guys who (unlike Landis and Hamilton) have not previously committed perjury in prior USADA arbitrations … why did the feds bargain so hard to secure the testimony of a guy like Landis whose credibility is limited not only by his prior perjury but also by his confession to felony wire fraud?
Sadly, we will not find any journalist willing to ask these sorts of questions. We are stuck in a paradigm of villains and victims. If Armstrong is the villain, then anyone who sticks up for him in any way (for example, questioning USADA’s authority to bring this case) is also a villain, and folks like Landis must be the victims.
We need some perspective here. The U.S. government examined all of the evidence against Armstrong and decided not to prosecute. No matter what nasty words are used by Travis Tygart in his accusations against Armstrong (conspiracy, trafficking, etc.), the truth is that Armstrong is accused by USADA of private offenses against “clean sport”. In contrast, Landis has confessed to violating federal criminal law, a felony offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison. It is a crazy thing for the government to essentially forgive a felony offense in exchange for testimony to decide who really won a bunch of French cycling races.
Jean C: if the word of Emma O’Reilly was so valuable, why didn’t the “French drug squad” move to sanction Armstrong when “LA Confidentiel” was first published six years ago (or when Walsh first began publishing his accusations against Armstrong at least 8 years ago)? For that matter, why didn’t WADA or the French anti-doping agency move against Armstrong 8 years ago, or 6 years ago, or 6 weeks ago? Why did USADA wait as long as it did? Does the corruption you speak of extend past UCI and encompass the rest of the ADAs?
But, hey! Now that the ADAs finally have Lance Armstrong exactly where they want him, we can turn the page and move forward into a future of clean cycling.
“French attorney Thibault de Montbrial, who defended the paper in a suit filed by Armstrong against LA Confidential authors David Walsh and Pierre Ballester … believes riders are still showing suspicious signs.
” ‘Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the [2012 TdF] climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s.’ ” http://bit.ly/PFft4f
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose … right, Jean C?
Larry,
Easy, because Sarkozy was Ministre de l’Interieur ( in charge of Police) before being President.
In 2005, it seems to have stopped a raid of french police on US POSTAL team while they were following blood bags transportation.
For Landis, better to let him out of US prison, that means less waste of tax money, and a possibility for him to pay his victims. People who has paid the big part have been mentionned as being big friends of Lance.
What happens to the 1999-2005 Tour de France final standings, if Armstrong is struck from the race?
If it’s just Armstrong that’s eliminated from these 7 podiums, then the winners of these seven races are Alex Zulle, Jan Ullrich, Ullrich again, Joseba Belocki, Ullrich again, Andreas Kloden and Ivan Basso. Ullrich thus becomes a 4-time TdF champion, notwithstanding his involvement in Operacion Puerto and his disqualification from the 2005 Tour for doping. Alex Zulle was on the infamous 1998 Festina team, and he’s admitted that he used EPO as a rider. Kloden was accused of blood doping in the 2006 Tour by an independent German investigation, and he rode for a Telekom/T-Mobile team accused by German authorities of engaging in systematic blood doping from 1995 to 2006. Basso was banned from the 2006 Tour for his involvement in Operacion Puerto, and later received a two-year doping ban. Possibly the cleanest second-place finisher from 1999-2005 was Belocki, who was implicated in Operacion Puerto but reportedly cleared by a Spanish court.
If one want to clear the record-books of suspected dopers, it doesn’t make sense to elevate the Jan Ullrichs of the world to the status of repeat champions. But how far need one go to find a “clean” Tour winner? Let’s use the 2004 Tour as an example. If we scratch Armstrong, the winner is Kloden. Scratch Kloden also, and the winner is Basso. Scratch Basso also, and the winner is Ullrich. Scratch Ullrich also, and the winner is Jose Azevedo, Armstrong’s teammate on U.S. Postal. Scratch Azevedo also, and the winner is Francisco Mancebo, also linked to Operacion Puerto and banned from the 2006 Tour. Scratch Mancebo, and the winner is 7th place finisher Georg Totschnig, who was charged by Austrian authorities of lying under oath about his use of doping products, though I think that charge has been withdrawn. Totschnig may be the best “clean” candidate for the 2004 Maillot Jaune, though some might argue for 8th place finisher Carlos Sastre.
In case you think I’ve chosen a crazy example, consider the order of finish in 2005: Armstrong, Basso, Mancebo, Alexandre Vinokourov (banned for doping in 2007), Levi Leipheimer (under suspicion for his association with Armstrong and possibly one of the witnesses that cut a deal with USADA for “lenient treatment” in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong), Michael Rasmussen (removed from the 2007 Tour owing to doping concerns and banned for doping in 2008) and Cadel Evans. (Actually, Jan Ullrich finished third in 2005, but he’s ALREADY been disqualified from that race.) To those that favor disqualifying Armstrong: who do you think is the “winner” of this race?
Jean C, are you saying that Sarkozy joined in the world-wide conspiracy (so far including UCI, USOC, WADA and AFLD, plus USADA until recently) to protect Lance Armstrong? This conspiracy is getting awfully large! But how would Sarkozy’s block of a French police raid have prevented any authority (U.S., French or International) from proceeding against Armstrong based on the testimony of Emma O’Reilly and the other sources cited by David Walsh?
As for Landis, if all a thief has to worry about is getting caught and having to pay back what he stole, what’s the deterrent not to steal? In the worst case, the thief is no worse off than he was before his theft! Of course in the Landis case, where the thief is required to pay back pennies on the dollar, the “worst case” is that the thief retains most of what he stole. As for saving taxpayer money … given the small fortune the government has already spent pursuing Armstrong (and Barry Bonds, and Roger Clemens), the government is not going to recoup what it’s spent unless it ignores a large number of criminal felonies.
Larry,
Podiums are not the first concerns, by removing Armstrong, a clear message is sent to people: “if you dope, you are not too big to not fall”.
Sorry to say that but Armstrong was the worst winner of all those TDF. How could we let a guy who has threatened so many people : Mrs Andreu and O’Reilly, Bassons, Simeoni,…, who defamed Lemond,.. and who not only doped but was part of corruption of sport (UCI and USAC)?
PED trafficking is growing fast, federal investigation is not a waste of tax payer money, that is a neccessity for health and tostop mafia that are making a lot of money with it.
Landis’ punishment can only be a deterrent for people who want to set a similar fund… how many of them? 10 ?
Sarkozy is known for years to admire Armstrong. For Lance’s comeback, he said that he was a great champion but no words about the famous “Lies of Armstrong”. Bordry when he left AFLD has said something that means he was forced to retire and pointing to Armstrong.
And today, we have learnt that a raid was stopped, and Police was unsatisfed. Who ordered to stop?
Procuror? Why would he do that after having given his agreement.
So that can be only at the top of government: President (Chirac), First Minister (de Villepin), and Ministre of Interior.
I would be higly surprise by the first 2… and coherent with Sarkozy “removing” Bordry and supporting Lance’s comeback.
Very sad days to see so much corruption.
Jean C –
I enjoy having the opportunity to discuss these matters with you. My best friends are the ones who disagree with me.
Podiums are not the first concern? Really? What else is directly at stake here? Armstrong’s lifetime ban from cycling doesn’t mean anything – the guy is 40 years old and has retired twice already. I doubt that USADA’s crusade against Armstrong has changed anyone’s opinion of him. His sponsors have reiterated their commitment to him, and his charity continues as strong as ever. The man is the richest cyclist who ever lived – he dates rock stars and Hollywood actresses. If that’s what comes from doping, I’d think that people would be lining up to take EPO and blood transfusions.
Once Armstrong is stripped of his TdF championships, then by definition he’ll no longer be “the worst winner of all those TDF”. Someone else will – at the moment, the contest appears to be between five time winner Miguel Indurain (who you state was using EPO) and soon-to-be-four-time-winner Jan Ullrich (convicted doper). It’s not a “clear message” if you replace Armstrong on the podium top with guys who failed doping tests, confessed to having doped, and participated on teams we know had systematic doping programs.
You may think that Armstrong was the worst doper of all time. But it’s going to look strange if in the name of anti-doping you give Jan Ullrich all those yellow jerseys.
As for the conspiracy you allege at the highest levels of the French government … it seems unlikely to me, but you know your country much better than I do.
This is why I am inclined to vacate the wins, and leave the other places untouched, so that for 1999-2005, there is no winner. This is what the NCAA did in the Penn State case, as well as for Florida State in 2010. Those two schools and the coaches involved give up the wins, but their opponents do not get to claim these as wins.
After 7+ years, who really cares if there was a winner?
WS, I agree, but that’s not what ASO did in 2006, or 2010.
As mind-blowing as I find it to make Jan Ullrich a 4-time TdF winner, it’s just as mind blowing to say that no one won a TdF between Marco Pantani (Marco Pantani!) in 1998 and Floyd Landis … er, I mean Oscar Pereiro in 2006. Pantani, who was known to race with a hematocrit value higher than 57%. And if Floyd Landis is now a trusted paragon of truth, then Oscar Pereiro doped too.
How can we say that no one won the Tour from 1999-2005, but that some one won the Tour in 2006? Or in 1998 (if we disqualify Pantani, then Jan Ullrich wins, and Ullrich might end up with a record-tying five wins). Do we let Ullrich keep the one maillot jaune he won on the road in 1997 (if not … confessed doper Richard Virenque came in second in 1997, and Pantani finished third)? How about confessed doper and 1996 TdF winner Bjarne Riis (in 1996 Ullrich finished second — if we play our cards right, Ullrich could end up winning six Tours!). Why does Armstrong get scratched from the record books, when convicted doper Alberto Contador gets to hold onto his 2007 and 2009 TdF titles?
If we’re going to be consistent, and avoid hypocrisy … and if we go along with Jean C’s belief that Miguel Indurain used EPO throughout his career … then Carlos Sastre’s 2008 maillot jaune might be the only winner of the Tour de France FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS, between Lemond’s win in 1990 and Cadel Evans’ win in 2011.
All I can say is that IF Lance really was doping his ENTIRE career, and passed over 500 tests, well…fool me once shame on you, fool me over 500 times shame on ME? Yep…I’d say that IF Lance was indeed doing what they say then the entire anti-doping system is about the most laughable waste of money that I can think of (other than most of the US Government I mean). Sheesh…I think if I was part of WADA I’d be rather embarrassed here that anybody could pass all my tests but MUCH later finally end up getting nailed on heresay…
But maybe I’ll just be kind and say they (the entire anti-doping establishment) have room for improvement. Lots and lots of room. For if the system truly works THAT well, then surely the peleton is shivering in their boots and scared straight. Yep. They all must be terrified. I’m sure there will be no dopers left in cycling after this.
Yeah, and why end things in the 99s? Take away Anquetil’s 5 wins, as he virtually confessed to doping. Probably if we dig deep enough, we can find that a good number of tainted cyclists stood on the podium over the years, depending perhaps on what evidence we are willing to accept.
More recently, there’s also the probability that second place and lower riders were subject to less scrutiny than the winner at the time. It is entirely possible that top ten riders could acheive such a placing without either a stage win or yellow jersey to trigger a test.
It might be a bit difficult to imagine 7 TdFs without a declared winner, but then it is also hard to take in the possible scenarios you describe.
WS, Anquetil was an old-school doper. He took stuff like amphetamines and morphine — you know, stuff that could absolutely kill you. That kind of doping doesn’t count — it’s like baseball players who took greenies back in the day. [sarcasm alert]
The French have themselves a mess here, and I think they realize it. If they do what Travis Tygart wants, then Jan Ullrich becomes a 4-time Tour de France champion, and I just can’t see how they’re going to explain that. If they declare those 7 TdFs as winner-less races, it’s going to look strange having the likes of Riis and Pantani continue to be shown as champions. If they start striking names from the various podiums in addition to Armstrong’s, it’s going to be hard to figure out where to stop. Any compromise (for example, DQing Armstrong from the one or two TdFs within WADA’s 8-year statute of limitations) is going to look expedient and artificial.
The only sensible action open to ASO is to say that they recognize USADA’s decision, and that we’re all free to come to whatever conclusions we like regarding the true TdF winners from 1999 – 2005 (or if you like, from 1996-2010, or any other date range you like), but they’re not going to change the results of races conducted so long ago. They can say that we have lived through an era when the ability to conduct a true contest of cycling skill was compromised by PEDs, and that it’s not possible now to right this wrong by taking a pen knife to the record books.
A lot of points have been made.
But first, by reading some forums, I have seen a lot of pain from Lance’s fans. Some have accepted the decisions and are convicted that he doped and the biggest part are in denial, and will suffer for the next weeks and months. I hope that Lance will confess soon, so that people don’t have to suffer anymore with the flow of bad news that is coming.
Matt, Lance has probably never passed 500 tests, probably less than 250 according the following graphic : http://dimspace.co.uk/lancetesthistory.png . It has been drawn according rules, WADA datas, … Samples of races like Tour of California have been not tested. Nonetheless, yes testing is not enough effective, but that is the same for speed limit testing, we, drivers, manage to escape them. Until 2001, there was no EPO test, and HGH is just recently detectable during a limited period,…
And there is a lot of tricks to beat doping test : micro-dosing, masking agent or “take a shower” to dilute blood !
Despite of that Lance failed some tests, positive tests that have been discarded by corruption:
– 3 times for testosterone,
– 1 corticosteroid at 1999 TDF
– 1 EPO for 2001 Tour de Suisse according Landis and USADA
– 6+2 EPO by a retrotesting on 1999 TTDF samples
Maybe more !
Retrotesting is a powerfull, if used, rules allow it. Unfortunatelly UCI is reluctant to use it. For exemple, 2008 GIRO had a lot of riders on EPO CERA, that was undectable at that time. But in 2009, there were a test, McQuaid refused to retest those GIRO samples.
Ranking of TDF doesn’t matter, for me. Riis has not been striped because of statute of limitation. So there is what we want and there is what can be done.
There is no reason to keep any convicted athlete. But what to do for alleged doped athletes? If we can strip them now, why have we not be able to do so earlier?
The worst solution would be to keep Armstrong because he is not only a doper, he is a corrupter too. Other riders just cheated by doping. Corruption is a more serious offence.
To keep Lance on top of the ranking while he is seen as futur member of “Hall of Shame”, that would not give any credibility to cycling.
The best solution is probably to have no palmares, no ranking for those years. Or to have Bassons as symbolic winner !
From http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1
Not a bad guy Travis Tygart.
Well, Armstrong has been convicted. Riis confessed, but the statute of limitations applies here, unless someone wants to make a case for exception, a la Armstrong. To the best of my knowledge, while Pantini is strongly suspected of doping, no formal action was ever taken against him, and again, the SOL applies there.
So, if we are going to start “cleaning” up the results, do we DQ riders who are strongly suspected of doping, but never were subject to any official action with the chance to defend themselves? If we are going to move up the lower placed riders, that seems only fair to me. But as you say, some people will find it unpalatable to have people like Ulrich elevated to the status of a multiple winner.
I still think the best way is to DQ Armstrong and leave the rest alone. Break out the ol’ asterisk and put in a footnote to the effect that Armstrong was the winner on the road, but subsequently DQed for doping.
But all this is a matter of opinion and there is really no right or wrong answer.
1/ During the weekend NFL football games, more than one bright yellow wrist bands could be seen on the field. I didn’t keep count. Livestrong is keeping its branding in the viewer’s eye.
2/ When does USADA bring charges against Lemond? wink wink nudge nudge…
3/ I think William is right. USADA just sends UCI a one-page letter stating Armstrong accepted sanctions, case closed.
4/ For anyone to get Armstrong to return any race winnings or sponsor money, they are going to likely need to file suit in Federal court. I think Armstrong can be very comfortable in defending himself if those types of claims are made. Hopefully, Armstrong has done better than Curt Shilling and hasn’t bet the farm. Let’s hope he set up a nice, well-insulated trust to take care of his children.
I’d like to see UCI tell USADA to go “F” themselves, but if not that then it would seem reasonable to respect the statute of limitations and just vacate Lance’s 2004 and 2005 wins. Then ASO wouldn’t have 7 consecutive years of non-races (just 3), and Lance would no longer be the most dominant TdF rider ever, but just another 5 time winner who probably doped. Everybody gets something that they want, but nobody gets everything. I know – not a chance that all parties would agree to a compromise like this.
Duh! I didn’t read Jean C’s latest post until after I made mine. Tygart and I had the same idea. I think I’m going to be sick!
When all else fails, turn to the rules. WADA’s rule covering disqualifications is 10.1: “An anti-doping rule violation occurring during or in connection with an Event may, upon the decision of the ruling body of the Event, lead to Disqualification of all of the Athlete’s individual results obtained in that Event.” (WADA Code 10.8 adds that an athlete can be disqualified during any period of Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility, but this does not apply to Armstrong’s TdF victories.)
Let’s assume that UCI, WADA, ASO and everyone else involved assumes the truth of every allegation made by Travis Tygart in his charging letter against Armstrong. The letter names only one Event where Armstrong is alleged to have doped: the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The letter states that USADA would seek a lifetime ban for Armstrong, and it certainly left open the possibility for other sanctions, but it never specifically mentioned disqualifying any of Armstrong’s race results.
On this point, I think Tygart is the victim of his own strategy to keep the charging letter as vague as possible.
Jean C –
Speaking for Lance fans … obviously there’s been a lot of negative stuff written about Armstrong. As we’ve seen when we’ve looked for a “clean” cyclist to replace Armstrong on all those TdF podiums, it’s obvious that cycling was a dirty sport during the era when Armstrong rode. It’s possible that cycling remains a dirty sport even today. There’s only one way to look at the population of cyclists over the last 10 years: there are the proven dopers and the suspected dopers. These are the only categories that make sense, given the amount of doping and the fact that there’s no way for a rider to prove that he was/is riding clean. We might cut some slack for riders on “clean” teams like Garmin-Sharp, but I’m sure that many (or most) riders can point to individual circumstances that can make them appear to be cleaner than most. So, we have two categories. Only two.
When I look at Armstrong individually, it’s true that he dominated the sport during an era when most of his competitors received a boost from PEDs. He’s been extensively tested and extensively investigated, and while I’ve seen no compelling evidence that he ever failed a doping test, the investigations have raised troubling evidence. The willingness of Armstrong’s teammates to testify against him is particularly troubling.
So, I ask myself four questions. The first three are easy. (1) Would I be surprised if Armstrong were to admit that all the accusations against him are true? Well … I might be surprised that Armstrong (who strikes me as a stubborn and determined person) might ever change his story on any subject! But no … I would not be surprised to learn beyond any doubt that Armstrong doped his way to all those championships. But in similar fashion, I would not be surprised to learn that any cyclist, past or present, was a doper. That’s what makes question (1) so easy to answer.
Here’s the second easy question: (2) let’s say that it was somehow possible to prove that a given cyclist never doped. It isn’t possible to do this, of course, but let’s pretend. Let’s say that we could rely on some combination of a dying confession, a truth serum, a lie detector test and the presence of 100 psychics to actually determine if a cyclist was telling the truth, and we did all that to Armstrong, and it turned out to be the case that Armstrong never doped. Would I be surprised to learn conclusively that Armstrong rode clean throughout his career? The answer to this question should be “no”, just like the answer to question (1) was “no”. If I knew that Armstrong never doped, then with 20-20 hindsight I could see why this had to be so. Armstrong was (and is) in danger of having his cancer return – it wouldn’t be worth his life to take drugs and risk recurrence. Plus, if Armstrong doped, others would know about it – as the richest and most famous cyclist in history, Armstrong could not take the risk that others might use that knowledge against him. BUT … truth is, even though I know that I should not be surprised by anything having to do with cycling and doping … whatever my mind might say on this subject … yeah, in my heart I’d be at least a little surprised to learn that Armstrong raced clean.
Last easy question: (3) does Armstrong’s refusal to proceed to arbitration prove that he’s guilty of doping? No. Of course not. Armstrong could not have possibly won in arbitration, even if he was innocent of the charges against him. As proof: try to imagine what would be left of USADA, WADA, Tygart’s career, international cycling, etc., if Armstrong was somehow victorious in arbitration. An Armstrong victory was something that the ADA system could not have allowed to happen.
Now we get to the tough question. (4) Given the evidence against Armstrong, should I move him from the category of suspected doper to that of proven doper? The temptation to make this move is very strong. In the court of public opinion, Armstrong has been found guilty as charged. But I’ve seen too often what happens to cases judged first by public opinion, and then later in a true court process where the prosecution must make its case under the rules of evidence, and where the accused has the right to confront his accusers. We’ve seen this happen in the Duke Lacrosse case, and the perjury trial against Roger Clemens: when the playing field is leveled by due process, the judgment reached by public opinion can crumble into dust.
So my friend, I say this as a Lance fan. Armstrong probably doped – I’d say that this probability is about as high, maybe slightly higher, than the doping probability I’d assign to any other rider of Armstrong’s generation. A year ago, I might have argued that while we might draw conclusions about cyclists as a group, as individuals all of these probable dopers deserve a presumption of innocence. I should still make this same argument today, but somehow I’m no longer in the mood to do so. Cynicism has taken its toll. The Landis case took its toll – I defended his right to be presumed innocent, and look where it got me.
However, if you ask me if Armstrong is a PROVEN doper … I look at my answers to questions (1) – (4) above, and I say no.
Larry@IIATMS said, “However, if you ask me if Armstrong is a PROVEN doper … I look at my answers to questions (1) – (4) above, and I say no.” I tend to agree. There will always be those who are absolutely convinced he did and those who are absolutely convinced he didn’t (and both were probably in those positions prior to this anyway). Now there are those who were waiting for a “verdict” and think he probably doped and is running, probably didn’t and got railroaded, or think his work in LIVESTRONG counterbalances whatever he did. There are also a pretty sizable number of people who just don’t care. The issue for the foundation will be with connecting what the foundation does and is doing for people who are facing cancer. My family has used the resources of LIVESTRONG to connect to doctors, mental health professionals, record-keeping, and financial assistance. The foundation is great regardless of Lance.
As I have said in other venues, Lance is not a guy who strikes me as someone I would like to have a beer with. He’s not a hero and probably not the kind of nefarious soul as has been portrayed in the comments here. Seriously, I can’t fathom the idea Lance possibly had the kind of power suggested here to weave such an incredible web of deception. (And if solid evidence of drug trafficking was present in the federal investigation, I’d like to live under the delusion that he would be charged with the multitude of felonies that would entail.) I am oft reminded that we are never as bad as our worst day and never as good as our best.
I will credit Lance for starting the foundation that has helped my family and friends, motivating me to ride my bike, and providing a means to connect to all the unbelievably awesome people who are a part of the foundation (especially Team Fatty – hi, Pat Schleck, erm, MattC). I’ll be staying with the foundation, regardless.
Well, I was sure surprised when Floyd fessed up, in part because I figured that someone who faught as long and hard as he did would then confess. Similarly, it would surprise me if Armstrong gives it up anytime soon. But then, who knows? It kind of surprised me that he gave up now.
Larry,
I am lucky, since a long time I had not doubt about Lance’s doping, especially when I had learnt he was on top of the roof with his hematocrit at the end of TDF. So my only question could have been “Is he from another planet? Maybe a Rosswell baby or somethonk like that”.
Now, that is the end. Within a few days, UCI is going to apply the USADA recommendation about sanction. Then that would be time for Bruyneel & co to prepare their hearing. Will it be public? If it’s still possible they could stop the process to accept charges like Lance.
Here’s a nifty article from the LA Times about this entire affair:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120825,0,2080853.column
Matt,
Funny you should mention that article. I’ve been working on a post that included that very link for the last couple of days.